Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy

Content summary

Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy provides the reader with a history of censorship of artworks. The book argues that artists have been scapegoated by those advocating censorship, as a method of diverting debate away from the suppression of human rights. The author asserts that censorship of works deemed obscene has been used as a tactic throughout history to suppress women's rights. Heins describes for the reader the history of the 1873 Comstock laws. It's stated that,"such laws were put forth by United States Postal Inspection Service inspector Anthony Comstock, and after he helped influence passage of the legislation, they enabled the government to criminalize sending perceived immoral writings through the mail".

The book discusses the history of the division of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) that assigns movie ratings, the Classification and Rating Administration. Heins quotes New York Supreme Court Judge Charles Ramos, who observed that film directors have since learned to style their movies in such a way as to receive certain ratings from the MPAA. The book focuses on the negative and political impacts of censorship. Censorship can be confusing, and many seem to not know what it is, or why it is used. Censorship is defined as "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." (English Oxford Living Dictionaries). Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever one or more people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others." (ACLU) This article points to the importance of the First Amendment rights when, particular with regards to government involvement. "Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional." (ACLU) Censorship has, to many people, gotten out of hand, and takes away from our First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. "The question, therefore, is not whether we ought to have constraints on speech but what kinds of constraints?" (Huffpost). An argument of constraints is just an argument in itself. Peoples' views on constraints can vary from personal opinions, to personal exposures and experiences. The book focuses on fear being the tool for censorship. The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. "Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm" (ACLU).

Heins recounts how the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) advocated for its associated organizations to add Parental Advisory warnings on labels of music albums as a way to advise parents about possible offensive content. She describes how the Parents Music Resource Center, co-founded by Tipper Gore, and hearings held by the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, which included Senator Al Gore, led to attempts at censorship by lawmakers in eight individual states. Heins suggests that this subsequently led to the industry's self-regulation, which the author sees as self-censorship, and blacklisting of certain albums by music stores.

Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy provides the reader with what the author (and many others) consider case studies of censorship in the U.S., including a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States against naked erotic dancing, laws against pornography in the 1980s supported by proponents Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, and attempts by the Meese Commission to discourage proprietors from selling Penthouse and Playboy magazines.

Formally known as the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, it was colloquially called the Meese Report, because the people on the Commission were selected by then-Attorney General of the United States Edwin Meese. Released in 1986, the Meese Report demanded U.S. citizens protest pornography because of its asserted harmful impact to women and children. It is documented "The book criticizes controversy generated by politicians against the National Endowment for the Arts, over the organization's support of photography by Robert Mapplethorpe and the work, "Piss Christ", by Andres Serrano.

Heins argues that even if the perceived negative impacts of pornography, hip hop music, and violent films were factually accurate (and she asserts they are not), the ends would not justify the means of degrading the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. She emphasizes that education should be used to help guard against potentially dangerous notions, instead of censorship and suppression of dissent. The author concludes, "A free society is based on the principle that [individuals have] a right to decide on what art or entertainment (they want) to receive – or create."

Reception

Women's Review of Books commented, "Heins writes with intelligence, clarity, humor and refusal of cant. She is especially skilled at explaining legal concepts, reminding us of the elegance of a good legal argument." The review found that by focusing on lawsuits and court battles, the book was lacking in individual stories and people central to the censorship fights. The News & Observer wrote, "The book is as much a call to action as it is a catalog of repression." In its review of the book, the San Francisco Chronicle emphasized that readers should pay attention to the author's warnings about the dangers of censorship.

The Gazette observed, "Throughout the book, whether discussing attempts to censor rap music or pornography, Heins attempts to communicate the radical differences between the limits of American law and America's seemingly endless social problems. She concludes that they do not and cannot mix. The best defense, it would seem, to any form of speech that offends, is a good offense: more speech, not restrictive and oppressive laws and pressures." American Book Review was critical, writing: "Overall, Heins's guide to the censorship wars is biased and woefully superficial ... I do not find her arguments for free-speech absolutism either logically or legally compelling." The review concluded, "There may be good reasons for tolerating the public display of gross and disgusting art, but the First Amendment itself does not provide one."