The Shrinking Public Square
If you want to get a good idea of what we're on about with the title of this website and why the concept of "the public square" is so important to us, go on over to Audacia Ray's site, Waking Vixen. You should be doing that anyway, but if you haven't been checking her out recently, she's had some experiences lately that illustrate neatly the realities and risks of talking publicly about sex.
The irony is that such policies don't hinder the people who make the majority of the stuff that really pisses off the anti-porn crowd. Do you really think that Vivid's income is hindered one bit by not being able to use a Google account? Does Larry Flynt lose sleep over the fact over Apple's policies about listing adult podcasts? Not one bit. Their size and financial resources allow them to either take a small detour to distribute their goods and collect payments through other means, or just roll right over them like a big rig facing down a turtle standing in the middle of the highway. The people they inconvenience are those for whom sexual expression is personal and artistic, who are trying to create things that reflect their own lives and desires, not a corporate product.
In short, these policies preserve the status quo. They guarantee that sexuality continues to be represented within smotheringly narrow limits dominated by bleach jobs, silicone tits, and cum shots performed by actors who are seen as old news when they hit 25, and the availability of genuinely imaginative works like Love Machine and Live Girl Review shrinks that much more. For years, we've heard about the near-mystical virtues of a "free market," and we keep on finding out that it's not that free; the Internet was sold to us as an "information superhighway," only to discover how easily toll booths and road blocks can be built, rendering it as mobile as the 405 near West Hollywood on a Friday afternoon. The smaller our public space becomes, the more restricted the channels for distribution come, the more we're reduced to passive listeners with no voice of our own.
- First of all, Dacia tried last month to open an account at Citibank for her business, Waking Vixen Productions. After filling out the preliminary paperwork, she received a voicemail delicately informing her that her line of business made them unable to take her account.
- Then, early this month, she got a similar notice from iTunes, notifying her that her podcast, Live Girl Review, could no longer be included in their directory. ITunes was less direct than Citibank, saying only that podcasts could be excluded "for a variety of reasons." On checking out their podcast spec sheet, she found "strong prevalence of sexual content" included among the possible reasons that Apple can kick you to the curb.
- And just last week, Google yanked her Google Checkout account, barely twenty-four hours after she'd put her new short film The Love Machine up for sale. According to the e-mail Google sent Dacia, "the products or services [she's] selling on [her] website are considered ‘Restricted’ per our policy- Adult goods and services."
The irony is that such policies don't hinder the people who make the majority of the stuff that really pisses off the anti-porn crowd. Do you really think that Vivid's income is hindered one bit by not being able to use a Google account? Does Larry Flynt lose sleep over the fact over Apple's policies about listing adult podcasts? Not one bit. Their size and financial resources allow them to either take a small detour to distribute their goods and collect payments through other means, or just roll right over them like a big rig facing down a turtle standing in the middle of the highway. The people they inconvenience are those for whom sexual expression is personal and artistic, who are trying to create things that reflect their own lives and desires, not a corporate product.
In short, these policies preserve the status quo. They guarantee that sexuality continues to be represented within smotheringly narrow limits dominated by bleach jobs, silicone tits, and cum shots performed by actors who are seen as old news when they hit 25, and the availability of genuinely imaginative works like Love Machine and Live Girl Review shrinks that much more. For years, we've heard about the near-mystical virtues of a "free market," and we keep on finding out that it's not that free; the Internet was sold to us as an "information superhighway," only to discover how easily toll booths and road blocks can be built, rendering it as mobile as the 405 near West Hollywood on a Friday afternoon. The smaller our public space becomes, the more restricted the channels for distribution come, the more we're reduced to passive listeners with no voice of our own.
I wish I could say something
I wish I could say something more helpful or enlightening, but honestly, this has been the case for years. I've battled with banks & PayPal, eBay & other sites about non-fiction books which a person/kid could buy at B&N, publications which won't sell ad space for vibes even though they heavily promoted Sex In The City (including rabbit vibe episode) or have sex columns ~ even free speech issues. Apparently free speech and "let the market speak" doesn't exist for issues of human sexuality.
I'm supportive of the fabulous Audacia Ray ~ of course I am. But this is one battle I've long been fighting & sadly, I no longer am shocked to hear these things. Saddened, yes; but not surprised.
Privatizing of public discourse
This is so important. One of the things that the public square is supposed to provide is a place for exchange of ideas. The problem with the Internet is that it has no true public space. The only way to gain access is through corporations which have policies that effectively limit that exchange of ideas by shutting out the diverse range of independent voices and allowing only the large monoliths to get their message out.
Anti-pornography activists who object to porn that seems to present a uniformly degrading portrayal of sexually active women ought to be celebrating when somebody like Gracie or Audacia gets her work out there. Since that is obviously not the reaction then the objection must be to something else. I'm guessing the objection is actually to portrayals of any sex that goes beyond the soft-focus romantic image of acceptable mainstream sex. And if corporate policies cater to those biases then the number of spaces where we can truly talk openly about all kinds of sex gets smaller and smaller. This presents a danger not only to producers of erotic material but also to sex educators, LGBT rights advocates and anyone else who finds it necessary to talk openly about sex. It's another good reason that all of us in the business of taking sex seriously need to support one another. We need to be working together to change overly restrictive corporate policies so that they allow at least as much freedom of speech as the law does. The Internet is quickly becoming the place for public discourse. If we fail to protect it as a place for free speech then we risk more than our sexual freedom!
By the way, Chris refers to the examination we made of TOS and AUP documents when setting up this site. You can see my post on that process here.
Thank you
You're welcome, and thank you Harper Jean
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I was totally unaware of
I was totally unaware of these types of issues until I set up the Paypal account for the NYC Sex Bloggers Calendar recently. Within a few days of doing that I received a phone call from Paypal questioning what exactly it was we were selling all because of the word "Sex" that was both in the title and our email address.
I then found myself defending what was in our calendar to Paypal thinking how our poses would be less revealing than the annual Sports Illustrated calendar has. All of this only because I had put the word sex in there. To me that seems a little over the top when just using that word triggers that type of reaction from Paypal.
Post new comment