Commentary: Utah Porn Filter Measure Misguided, Unlikely to Stand

SAN FRANCISCO—The Utah legislature last week passed HB72, which requires manufacturers to add porn filters to all cellphones and tablets sold to Utah customers. HB72 co-sponsors Rep. Susan Pulsipher and R-South Jordan claim the bill—only introduced in late December—is a new tool to help parents keep minors safe from “damaging” and “harmful” early exposure to adult content.  No one wants to see young teens exposed to pornography before they’re ready. But the data doesn’t support the idea that this problem is prevalent or pernicious enough to warrant broad restrictions on free speech.  Dr. Jacob Gibson and Chris McKenna recently gave public comments in favor of the bill. Gibson, a South Jordan family therapist, said he regularly sees patients and their families who are dealing with the consequences of too-early exposure to explicit adult material. “Because (children) are not developmentally ready to handle that type of material, it leads to the problems of depression, anxiety and all the problems that go with that including and up to its most extreme form, suicide ideation and attempts,” Gibson said. But is that true? The research on the influence of porn on kids is less robust than the research on adults and porn for obvious ethical reasons.  The studies that can be found show accidental child exposure to pornography to be wildly overstated. The average kid in America sees internet porn for the first time when they’re around 13 years old, after they sought it out intentionally. It shouldn’t be surprising that kids would seek out porn around the time they’re entering puberty, just a few years before their first sexual experience, which is around 15 years old on average.  So then does looking at porn cause kids to suffer from depression, anxiety or suicide attempts? There’s no evidence to support that conclusion. In fact, the research is mixed on whether porn influences young people’s attitudes or behavior at all. Some studies show a clear and consistent link between exposure to pornography and sexually aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Others show null or inconclusive findings.  One problem with researching porn’s impact on children is that correlation does not equate to causation. Kids who are sexually aggressive, delinquent, sensation seeking, risk tolerant, depressed or who are victims of sexual assault are more likely than average to seek out and consume large quantities of porn.  There’s a lot more research on porn’s impact on adults. It shows that while there is a small minority of people who are negatively impacted by pornography—as well as violent movies and video games—these people nearly exclusively have severe pre-existing trauma and personality disorders.  But for the vast majority of users, pornography has absolutely zero measurable negative impact on their lives.  Most evidence for so-called “porn addiction” comes from therapists who are on average uncomfortable talking about pornography and have a hard time seeing anything positive about looking at porn. This is especially true of particularly religious counselors. Porn addiction is virtually non-existant in people who aren’t already morally opposed to pornography.  Nearly every harm researchers have associated with overuse of porn, including anxiety, shame and guilt, can be directly tied to shame and stigma around pornography use, and not the pornography itself. For example, there’s absolutely no evidence that porn replaces sex for most users. In fact, studies show watching porn is actually associated with greater arousal for and sexual interest in a partner. What creates problems in relationships isn’t porn. Problems arise when people shame and stigmatize their partners’ porn use. “There really isn’t the science to demonstrate that porn is in and of itself harmful and addictive,” said Ian Kerner, a licensed psychotherapist and sex counselor. “That has not been, in my estimation, scientifically or clinically proven.” And the research available on kids indicates similar results. A small minority of already troubled children will develop problematic relationships with porn. But no measurable negative effects have been observed on the vast majority of kids exposed to pornography.  Regardless of the evidence, courts are likely to strike down HB72 should Utah Gov. Spencer Cox sign it into law.  First Amendment attorney Larry Walters says bills like HB72 are political grandstanding meant to pander to voters who are concerned about access to adult materials.  “The anti-porn lobby has been pushing these adult content filtering bills for years, and has finally pushed one through,” Walters said. “If signed into law, the bill would certainly be challenged on First Amendment grounds. Congress tried for years to impose some form of age verification or mandatory filtering legislation, but the laws that were passed were struck down on First Amendment grounds. The states also tried to pass state-level age verification laws after Congress failed. Those were all struck down as a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment. Only Congress can legislate in the area of internet regulation.  "Unfortunately, these ill-fated bills are being circulated to legislatures throughout the country," Walters added. "Lawmakers may simply conclude that it is easier to let the courts strike down the laws than to do their jobs by honoring constitutional constraints.”  The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah concurs, noting on Twitter that "The U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld this level of government regulation in this arena," along with hashtags including "#overreach" and "#nannystate."  The ACLU of Utah joins public policy advocacy group NetChoice in opposing the bill. “The constitutional problems with this bill are numerous,” VP and General Counsel Carl Szabo said in testimony before lawmakers. “Ashcroft v. ACLU says that this bill is unconstitutional. It’s like saying a car manufacturer could be held liable if someone drives the car to the store to buy pornography.”  Silicon Slopes Commons said the bill would cause unintended consequences for manufacturers, retailers and carriers. “Many of those companies already provide content filters, monitoring and management programs for parents to use at their discretion,” the group wrote in an emailed statement. “Content filtering is a specialty of hundreds of third-party products as well. As written, the current bill sets a standard that would hamper, restrict and further make Utah companies liable for actions that are potentially out of their control.” It would be tough for law enforcement to decide who in the consumer electronics supply chain to hold liable for putting in and activating the filters, according to Utah’s Business and Labor Interim Committee.  If the goal is for kids to grow up to have healthy sex lives, comprehensive, medically accurate sex education is the research-supported solution. Not only are there hundreds of studies showing that kids who receive sex education don’t have earlier or more sex, but plenty more show it effectively reduces the risk of adolescent pregnancy, HIV and other STIs and sexual assault.  Yet only 30 states require any sex education at all. Of those states, just 17 require medically accurate instruction. And just nine states require sex education to address consent.  Schools in 35 states are required to “stress abstinence” in sex education. In 2014, 76 percent of U.S. high schools taught that abstinence is the most effective method for preventing pregnancy, HIV and other STIs. This is despite the fact that study after study shows abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work. It doesn’t reduce teen pregnancy, delay sex, or lower rates of STIs. Rather, abstinence-only sex education is linked with earlier and riskier sex.  It’s no surprise then that between 2011-2013, only 55 percent of boys and 60 percent of girls between 15 and 19 years old received any instruction about birth control. And six states have “no promo homo” laws which require teachers to portray LGBTQ people in a negative light or prohibit teachers from mentioning them.  The evidence shows that the problem is less that kids are seeing porn too early and more that porn serves as many American kids’ only sex education.  Photo By Henry Wang / Wikimedia Commons