BERLIN — Progressive German publication Taz published an opinion piece last week suggesting that state public media fund “educational” porn as part of their mandate to “protect children,” rather than attempt to censor the commercial variety.
The article argues that “so far, an inefficient fight against free porn platforms is being waged.”
“There is no need for bans, just good alternatives,” Taz’s Arabella Wintermayr noted.
The "bans" the article refers to are efforts related an ongoing censorship campaign being waged by obscure local politician Tobias Schmid, director of the State Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia, and Germany’s self-appointed one-man War on Porn. Schmid has been fighting in the courts to push for “age verification compliance.”
Last month Schmid bragged about an AI tool called KIVI, which automatically scans all online content to determine which images are not compliant with the AV law.
He explained that he coined the name KIVI after “KI” — the German initials for AI — and “VI” from the Latin word “vigilare,” meaning “to survey.”
While some might view such surveillance as an authoritarian fantasy, Schmid called it a "fantastic combination,” German tech news site NetzPolitik.org reported.
Schmid was also the architect of the judicial “network block” against xHamster, one of the country’s most popular tube sites.
The Case for Government-Funded Porn
Taz quoted pornographer and activist Paulita Pappel, who leads the European chapter of the Free Speech Coalition, and who criticized Schmid’s approach.
“They try de facto to silence the discourse about pornography in public and hide behind the protection of minors,” Pappel told Taz. “The idea that these network blocks would make sense is completely absurd. A 12-year-old can bypass them in no time with a VPN.”
The magazine also noted that Pappel’s Lustery studio recently released a scene in partnership with mainstream public broadcasting talk show “ZDF Magazin Royale,” which the company promoted as “the first-ever government-funded porn film.”
According to Lustery, the talk show's producers reached out to them to “produce an ethical porn film as an alternative to the many tube sites.”
“Since the show is part of a public service broadcaster,” a Lustery rep explained, “they were able to use German TV tax [monies] paid by private individuals, companies and institutions in Germany” to produce the almost 30-minute scene titled “FFMM straight/queer doggy BJ ORAL orgasm squirting ROYALE (gebührenfinanziert).”
“Many people are loudly supporting it because they feel like the tax — annually, €220.32 — that everyone needs to pay is finally being used for something important and useful,” the rep noted. “Others are outraged because they either don't understand why they'd need to pay for porn or they demonize porn and don't want their money being used for such things.”
“But the fact is every German paid for it, no matter their attitude towards the genre,” the rep added.
A Proposal With Intriguing Potential
Taz concluded that this approach “would have potential."
"In addition to normalizing feminist perspectives on sexuality and competing with the market power of free platforms," they wrote, "the relationship to pornography would also change if it suddenly no longer took place on questionable websites but in the mainstream."
“Consuming pornography would no longer be associated with something dirty,” Pappel theorized. “As a result, people would be freer from feelings of guilt, and communication about sexuality might be more open. Which may even prevent aggression.”
“There is a public broadcasting mandate to provide a basic supply of information, education, entertainment and advice,” added a legal expert consulted by Taz. “It should expressly reflect diversity that cannot be represented in the mainstream of the private sector.”
The educational mandate, the expert continued, “could be fulfilled, for example, by the films shown illustrating how consensus, communication and genuine desire work. This would set an appropriate framework that implements this basic service.”
Taz concluded by questioning the censorship-first approach, and suggested that the state media authorities should welcome “the approach of [public media] competing with the big free porn platforms ... if they are actually concerned with the protection of minors. After all, [public media networks] are already taking age control very seriously.”