While scanning the opinion section of The Breeze’s April 3 issue, I stopped at the Letters to the Editor. Usually, this section contains a profound statement expressed by a member of the student body or community that is well thought out, eloquent and meaningful. The letter I read, however, was none of these. As a fervent believer in free speech, I find it perfectly acceptable that the Pope’s finances be made light of in the public domain.
The Breeze is a student-run newspaper that represents the student body and community. A large number of non-Catholics attend JMU and constitute a majority of the student body. Why would The Ever Social Darwin make special exceptions for any faith? Why should Baptists, Presbyterians or Mennonites be treated any differently than Catholics?
There are no sacrosanct subjects when it comes to humor and satire, especially with religion and politics. If you personally don’t find the comic funny, so be it. However, when you decide that lack of humor equates to “blatant disrespect” and call for “gibes” at your faith to cease, you have crossed the line into censorship. The Ever Social Darwin has a right and a duty to the people of JMU to poke fun at any and all institutions, figures and ideas that merit it. The Catholic Church is no exception.
Brad Crouch
freshman, finance major
I would like to say I have never seen such a poorly researched, biased article on the topic of pornography, particularly out of college campuses, but it is unfortunate that this has become the norm. Ashley Hopkins’s article is fraught with factual errors and unsupported suggestion.
Media deregulation and corporate ownership of pornography
One has nothing to do with the other. Corporate ownership (by which, I assume Hopkins means ownership of porn production companies by entities that are publicly traded) is governed by an entirely different set of regulations. Also, while media may be experiencing deregulation, porn is not. In fact, porn is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, as even the slightest research into Reg. 2257 would indicate.
Media conglomerates leading to more sexual content
This has nothing to do with porn. Nothing at all. No porn company is large enough to reach the Fortune 1000 (even if those that are “large” by porn standards were publicly traded). In fact, it is unlikely that even the large private porn companies (PMGI, Ninn Works, Adam & Eve) would be able to reach major stock exchanges. If they were public, they would fall under the SEC’s “small company” level of $750 million market cap. Any talk of major media conglomerates is by definition NOT a discussion about porn.
The concept of “sisterhood”
Check out the likes of Tristan Taormino, Dacia Ray, Candida Royalle, Joanna Angel and others. Talk to people who are familiar with the rise of “grrl” porn.
“The corporations profiting from pornography are profiting way more than I thought”
A little bit of proof would be nice. I am working on a doctorate of business administration; my dissertation is on the evolution of the porn market. I also have a finance column in AVN Online. I study the business of porn. By every measure I have seen, profitability is under attack. Further, it would be nice to see this high profitability (never defined) compared to something — perhaps mainstream media profits. As a business, porn is in trouble. Video revenue for the industry is down for the second year in a row. Last year (anecdotally) it was down 30 percent. The year before that was 15 percent (per Adult Video News). The statistics are not difficult to find.
This article is one-sided and inaccurate. I suspect this was due in part to the material presented, but if your goal is to offer unbiased coverage, you should do more than parrot what was spoken by some presenter. This is a controversial topic, and the appropriate judgment was not used.
Tom Johansmeyer
New York City, New York
contributor to the AVN Media Network
