Content uploaded by Inga Margrete Ydersbond
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Inga Margrete Ydersbond on Jan 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nordic Prostitution Policy Reform
Project
The “pro miscuous” an d the “shy”: D enmark and Nor w ay –
A h istoric c ompar ative analy sis of pornograp hy leg islat ion
Inga Margrete Ydersbond
The NPPR Working Paper Series: The Politics of Commercial Sex
2012:01 March 2012
NPPR Project
http://nppr.se
Division of History & Politics
University of Stirling
Stirling FK9 4LA UK
ISSN pending
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View,
California, 94041, USA.
1
!
The “promiscuous” and the “shy”: Denmark and Norway - A historic comparative
analysis of pornography legislation
Inga Margrete Ydersbond
University of Oslo, Norway
inga_yder@yahoo.no
ABSTRACT
This paper seeks to explain why the two neighbouring Nordic countries Norway and
Denmark, despite many political and cultural similarities, have had very different legal
frameworks regulating pornography. Denmark was the first country in the world legalizing
both literary (1967) and pictorial pornography (1969). Norway, on the other hand, to this date
has had one of Europe’s strictest regulations, and legalized “hardcore” pornography as late as
in 2006. Through combining the method of “most similar designs” with process tracing, this
paper makes a historical comparative analysis of the political development leading to the
different legislative outcomes. The paper argues that there are several reasons why the
countries’ legislations represent opposite ends of the spectre in Europe. First, Christian
conservative values have been much more widespread in Norway than in Denmark, as seen by
an influential Christian Conservative party and massive popular resistance against
liberalization in the four decades after World War 2. Second, Feminist groups in particular,
but also Christian organizations and others mobilized massively against legalization in the
1970s and 1980s, contributing to keeping up strict regulations. Third, early legalization was to
a much larger extent in Denmark than in Norway supported by the rulings of the court system.
Fourth, prominent Danish intellectuals also contributed to a more liberal attitude in the public
opinion, while liberal intellectuals in Norway met harsh resistance from other intellectuals and
the public in general. The legalization in Norway came only after society, much as a result of
influence from abroad, as a whole gradually had changed its attitude towards pornography.
2
!
INTRODUCTION
Norway and Denmark are very similar countries culturally, politically and religiously. They
were under the same crown for about 400 years, until 1814, and maintained strong contact
also after 1814. Despite all similarities, the legislation on pornography has represented two
extremes in a European context. Denmark legalized written pornography in 1967 and
pornographic depictions in 1969 as the first country in the world. In Norway, on the other
hand, few topics than pornography have stayed more constantly in parliamentary focus and
been more politicised the last five decades. Although pornography was legalized in 2006,
Norway seemingly still has one of the strictest regulations in Europe (Kutchinsky 1992a, State
Film Authority 2000, Rolness 2003, Hansen 2005). The field of pornography regulation can,
in general, be studied within many academic fields, including sociology, psychology,
criminology, media studies and legal studies. In Norway, however, the legal and political
processes have hardly been studied comprehensively by any of these disciplines. In addition,
to my knowledge no research has surveyed this kind of legal and political comparison from a
political science perspective. Therefore, the main question addressed in this paper is:
Which factors can explain the fairly large differences between Denmark and Norway
regarding legislation of pornography, both in the content and in the timing of
liberalization?
First, pornography will be defined. Second, the method in this study will be introduced and
discussed. Third, the legal and political developments in Denmark and Norway are presented.
Last, the paper analyses and discusses possible explanatory variables.
3
!
Definitions
Pornography may be defined as ”Representation of sexual behavior in books, pictures, statues,
motion pictures, and other media that is intended to cause sexual excitement” (Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2010). While this may be a good working definition, in its strictest interpretation it
would classify thousands of romantic novels, short stories, art and not the least normal media
productions as pornography. Some degree of sexual excitement may be said to be an intended
side effect among the users of all types of art productions. However, media productions with
erotic content are seldom regarded as pornography, and such written material is usually
classified as erotica. In Norway, “hardcore” porn as a legal term is used about explicit
descriptions or depictions showing genitals involved in sexual activity. In practice, this
expression mostly has referred to pictures showing penetration by males. “Softcore” is used as
a term for all other forms of pornography that are regarded as “normal” and harmless, such as
depictions of naked people. While there is usually little disagreement on the classification of
hardcore pornography, it is in practice impossible to draw a clear distinction between erotica
and softcore pornography (Rolness 2003:13). The word, which stems from Greek porne and
graphos, can be translated as “writing about (describing) prostitutes” (Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2010).
METHOD AND DATA
The method employed in this study will be comparative-historical case study combined with
process tracing. The historic comparative method is characterized by employing most similar
cases spatially, and where the “temporal aspects include the causal factor(s) of special
interest” (Gerring 2007:212). The idea behind the methodology is similar to that of
experimental logic. The goal is to compare cases with the same values at most independent
variables except for ideally only one variable which have different outcomes on the dependent
4
!
variable. Through elimination of all similar variables, the one or few variables that are
different will explain the variation on the dependent variable. The origin of most similar
systems design stems from “the method of difference”, which was first formulated by John
Stuart Mill in his book A System of Logic from 1843 (George and Bennett 2005:153, 156,
Gerring 2007:131, 215). Here, the main focus will be on the decades after World War 2,
because in this period, Denmark and Norway changed their legal frameworks regulating
pornography from prohibition to legalization.
There are several advantages as well as disadvantages with the comparative method
employed on such cases (Lijphart 1971, Frendreis 1983). The typical advantages with case
studies will also be an asset in this study. These for example include researching a
phenomenon in depth through collecting “thick data”. Another advantage is achieving a high
degree of measurement reliability and internal validity regarding causal mechanisms by using
methods such as process tracing. The large number of variables characteristic for small n-
studies might, however, causes problems with multi-causality (equifinality) and possibly
collinearity. Many determinants, as well as interplays between them, may lead to the same
outcomes on the dependent variable (Lijphart 1971:691, George and Bennett 2005). Here, this
challenge for example appears when features such as Christian conservatism, anti-
pornography feminism, as well as political strategies to gain voter approval all can be claimed
to explain the difference in the legal framework between Norway and Denmark. Which of
these factors is then the most important in each stage of the legal development, and do they
affect each other? If so, how has this happened?
To reduce the problems of many variables, Lijphart (1971:690) advises to focus on
key variables. In this study, this is attempted through focusing on the main explanatory
variables in the discussion. George and Bennett (2005:156, 206-215) emphasize that most
similar designs alone rarely are sufficient to establish causal explanations if they are not
5
!
combined with process tracing. By process tracing, the researcher can test theories in cases
characterised by multiple interactions between the independent variables. This technique
makes it, in principle, possible to identify the causal chains and the causal mechanisms
between the independent explanatory variables and the outcome on the dependent variables.
Therefore, it can compensate for the limitations in controlled comparison. Here, process
tracing is performed by studying historical and analytical documents from and about the
different debates accompanying the introduction of new laws, as well as analyses of the
societal contexts around the development of the legal framework. The legal development and
parliamentary debates on pornography legislation are closely connected to actions by agents
in civil society, such as publishers and non-governmental organizations. Therefore, these
agents and their activities are included in the analysis.
Limitations with a small-n study such as this can be small potential for generalization,
and thus low external validity (Gerring 2007:38, 43, 49). As this is a controversial field,
where conflict lines and the activist groups involved also occur in other countries, the
observations and conclusions can at least be used for generating hypotheses for research on
the legal development in other Western states. Case studies require a large amount of
information regarding the cases and their context in order to analyse causal mechanisms
properly (George and Bennett 2005). Here, process tracing and causal analysis require,
ideally, profound knowledge about the political and social context around the political
processes and debates leading to implementation of new legislation in Norway and Denmark.
The attainment of such knowledge is approximated through document analysis of different
historic texts. These include accounts from the people who participated in the political
debates, reading related newspaper articles, going through legal documents, as well as review
of the research on the topic. Still, there remains a danger of omitted variable bias; that some
explanatory factor is overlooked in the analysis, and the debates may also be misinterpreted.
6
!
In particular, when there is a large element of “symbol politics” in the public discourse, it may
not fully reflect the underlying political and institutional processes. Such problems do not
invalidate process tracing, but rather demonstrate the need for doing it in a very thorough
manner.
DENMARK – “A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT”
A general prohibition against so called “indecent publications” in all forms was proclaimed in
1743. Censorship in general ended with the change of political regime in 1848, when the
king's “enevelde” was abolished. However, after a public debate, the Publishing law (1851)
was formulated so that those who published obscene writings and similar material could be
punished (Hertoft 2008:145, 146). In 1933, the penal code of 1930 entered into force with a
considerably expanded paragraph about pornography. Public speeches, exhibitions and
displays of obscene content were prohibited and to be punished by law (Hertoft 2008:146,
citing Kutchinsky 1992). However, in what may be seen as an implicit legal distinction
between “hard” pornography and “soft” erotica, “nude-magazines” featuring naked people in
“natural” positions were legal (Thing 1999). In the 1950s, pornographic/erotic books were
published more and more frequently, testing and pushing the limits of legislation. This did
however not pass without controversy. Publishers of several such books were sued in court,
and the police frequently confiscated the literature. Gradually, during the 1960s, the Danish
courts freed more explicit literature from charge (Thing 1999, Hertoft 2008).
The most famous of these cases is the “Fanny Hill”-case, where the publisher of John
Cleland's erotic/pornographic classic from 1749 won the case by a narrow margin in the
Danish Supreme Court. The Chief prosecutor of state decided to charge the publishers of
“Fanny Hill. Memories of a woman of pleasure (1749)” in 1963, which previously had been
published in several other western countries (Hertoft 2008:103, 105). This came as a large
7
!
surprise to the publishers, Thaning & Appel, because several books of erotic/pornographic
nature, such as Kama Sutra, the latest years had been published without legal interference.
The publishers was freed of charges in courts at all levels, but won by very narrow margins
(Hertoft 2008:114, 115, 121). Kutchinsky (1999:82) notes that hardly any books were liable
to prosecution after the Fanny Hill case. After this, many publishers competed in finding titles
in order to exploit the new legal liberalism and curiosity about erotic books (Kutchinsky
1999:85).
Straffelovrådet was established by the Danish ministry of justice in 1960 to consider a
row of juridical questions as well as contribute in international cooperation (Hertoft
2008:108). In 1964, the Ministry of Justice recommended a review of the scientific evidence
connected to harmful effects of pornography. Shortly after the Fanny-Hill case, Else Merete
Ross from Det Radikale Venstre (the Social Liberal Party) asked the social democratic
minister of Justice whether it was time for invalidation of § 234 in the Criminal Code in a
questioning in the Parliament. She argued that it should not be the state’s role to enforce the
moral of some groups to the cost of other groups, and that grownups should be allowed to
take interest in whatever they wanted as long as it did not hurt others (Thing 1999:138). Thing
(1999:139, 140) points out that this perspective was cultural relativistic, and that this trend
was much more marked in Denmark than in many other countries.
The review from Straffelovrådet was inconclusive, because solid scientific evidence
did not exist on pornography’s effect on society, groups or single persons (Thing 1999:140).
Later, the council expressed concerns that the present pornography legislation gave the police
and prosecuting authority an immense amount of work. Thus, it could be questioned if this
law enforcement was at large gainful for society. In addition, it reminded that already books
with so explicit and detailed descriptions of sexual life were published that considerable
liberalisation in reality already had taken place. Therefore, Straffelovrådet concluded that the
8
!
authorities could either keep the old rule, or end the prohibition on written pornography
completely (Hertoft 2008:109). In addition, private citizens mobilized for a more liberal legal
framework. They stressed that the present legislation was unfair because the people who knew
foreign languages and who “had the money”, had access to pornography, but not the
“common man” (Kutchinsky 1999:65, 66).
In the 1960s, consumption of pornography rose sharply in Denmark. Some periodicals
showed increasingly provoking photos, in part to test and push the limits of legality. Often the
court rulings led to freeing of charges, which made it hard for the police to judge whether or
not published material was legal (Hertoft 2008:122). From the successful release of the first
petting magazine in 1965, picture pornography was soon to be seen everywhere, according to
Kutchinsky (1999:86). In January 1967, the police conducted its last large action against
pornography, and confiscated magazines at the worth of 10 million Danish kroner. According
to Thing (1999:142), the real motivation for this activity was the involved police department’s
fear of being closed down upon legalization. The main effect was that the porn producers
went underground. This development gave rise to new markets for pictures of pornography of
all kinds that were called “hardcore porn”. The editors of the hardcore picture magazine called
Politisk Revy (Political Cabaret) were convicted in the county and regional court in 1967 and
in the Danish Supreme Court in 1968.
Literary pornography was legalized through law change in Denmark in June 1967 with
159 against 13 votes (Thing 1999:140). Two years later, in 1969, all pornographic material
was legalized with 125 votes for, 25 against and 4 abstentions (Thing 1999:147). One
important reasoning behind the law changes was that permitting pornography would decrease
interest, because it would not be as exciting and attractive any longer (Hertoft 2008). The
legalization of all pornographic material in 1969 was based on the observation that legalizing
pornographic books seemed to have the desired effect of reduced demand following
9
!
liberalization in 1967. However, according to Hertoft (2008) and Kutchinsky (1999), the real
reason for the reduced demand was market saturation from the excess production of
pornographic material following the liberalization. The idea of complete legalization was
launched in a speech at the summer meeting for the Conservatives by the conservative
Minister of Justice, Knud Thestrup (Hertoft 2008:122, 123).
This contradicted Straffelovrådet, which did not want to lift the ban, and stated that
pictures had a stronger and more immediate effect on the viewer, and that legalization would
lead to an increase in production and distribution, an increase in violation of decency and
other people’s feelings. In addition, it stated that legalization probably would lead to increased
consumption of porn among children and youth (Hertoft 2008:124, 125). The Conservative
party traditionally supported civic values and deeds, but at the same time it was against public
censorship of literature for adults. Thestrup was originally sceptical towards liberalization of
pornographic literature. Still, he was the person who proposed the legalization based on the
experience of declining sales of pornographic literature (Hertoft 2008:122, Aarhus University
2009a).
The liberalization led to the development of a large pornography industry in Denmark
the following years. Denmark soon became known internationally for this, and it became an
additional attraction for tourists worldwide. Several strip clubs and escort services were
established in Danish cities, offering all inclusive “sex-packages” (Hertoft 2008). Tourists
coming to Denmark in this period could see pornographic pictures on virtually every corner.
Some have claimed that pornography became a major export industry, but according to
Hertoft (2008), pornography contributed to 2-3 percent of the Danish export at its peak.
Kutchinsky (1999:90) estimate that in 1969, the total retail sales were between 50 and 70
million dollars. Furthermore, after a few years, the police and court intervened in strip clubs,
brothels and the like, which essentially led to eradication of the public branches of these parts
10
!
of the industry (Hertoft 2008). Politicians and scientists both in Denmark and internationally
were curious about the consequences of the legalization. Research conducted by the
psychologist and criminology professor Berl Kutchinsky indicated that the legalization of
pornography did not spark a rise in sexual abuse. Rather on the contrary: sexual abuse had
declined after the legalization (Kutchinsky 1991, Kutchinsky 1999, Thing 1999:147). This
pioneer research made him internationally renowned (Hertoft 2008). The results stood in
sharp contrast to many people’s notions of pornography as something detrimental and leading
to increased rates of sexual crime. However, Kutchinsky was also criticized for his scientific
methodology. His findings were claimed to be invalid, which he refuted strongly himself1
(Kutchinsky 1992b).
Thing (1999:148) notes that at the feminist movement Rødstrømpebevægelsen (The
red stocking movement), appeared at about the same time as pornography was legalized.
Similar to other feminist movements, it criticised pornography for being oppressive to
women, because it reduced them to sexual objects. Sadist porn was especially harmful,
according to these feminists, and showed “the truth” about men’s sexuality. The other marked
opposition against the legalization came from some Christian groups. In the beginning of the
1970’s, people inspired by the success of the Norwegian Christian Democratic Party, and
protesting against the legalization of pornography, the introduction of sex-education and the
right to abortion founded Kristeligt Folkeparti (the Christian Folk Party). Later this party
changed its name to Kristendemokratene (the Christian Democrats). The party got 4,0 percent
of the votes in the 1973 “earthquake” election, but competed with other protest movements.
After 1977 it played only a peripheral role (Kutchinsky 1999:75, Heidar and Bakke 2008:77,
Aarhus University 2009b).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 E.g. Steven Alan Childress (1992). “Pornography, “Serious Rape” and Statistics, a Reply to Dr. Kutchinsky”,
Law and Society Review, 26, pp. 456-456.!
11
!
After the 1970’s, the only important legal changes in Denmark have been the
introduction of a1980 ban and later amendments of the laws regarding child pornography.
December 2003, the European Council enacted Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA in
order to combat child pornography and harmonize the legislations in the member states
(European Council 2004, Kierkegaard 2008:45). These developments generally led to stricter
laws on child pornography, especially in Denmark. Today, the Danish police compiles a list
of sites offering child pornography and cooperate with the internet service providers which
block them (Kierkegaard 2011:582). On the other hand, “normal pornography” is still widely
available and easily accessible. In 1999, Kanal København (Channel Copenhagen) started
broadcasting freely available hardcore pornography to the public at night (Kanal København
2010). With the development of a multitude of competing distribution channels, most of the
old pornography stores have been closed down. During the last years, the public debate has
seemingly become somewhat more critical towards the issue (e.g. Krog-Meyer 2002,
Henriksen 2008).
NORWAY: JURIDICALLY ILLEGAL, BUT OFTEN ALLOWED IN PRACTICE
There are long traditions for concerted action against sexuality in general and pornography in
particular in Norway. For example, in 1948 there was a protest movement gathering 400 000
signatures against provision of condoms to the Norwegian soldiers in Tysklandsbrigaden (the
Norwegian troops in Germany) (Tessem 2012). Rolness (2003:238, 239) maintains that the
paragraph in the Criminal Code about pornography, § 2112, has spurred more controversy and
discussion in Parliament than any other in Norwegian history. Between 1902 and 1985, it was
only subject to minor changes. The paragraph prohibited distribution and publication of
obscene (i.e. might impede sexual moral or decency) writings, pictures and similar material.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Today, the legal framework on pornography is described in § 204 in Norway’s Criminal Code. § 2011 was
repealed 11. August 2000. !
12
!
Obscene was viewed as what might impede sexual moral, or people’s decency. To qualify, the
creator’s motive had to be arousal as well as that the depiction or writing was derogatory and
intimidating for the viewer (e.g. Enger 2007). Like many other countries with similar
legislation, for example in Great Britain3, the definition of “obscenity” has become narrower
over time. Accordingly, jurisdiction has gradually permitted more and more sexual depictions,
until there in practice was legalization in Norway in 2006.
In the beginning of the 1930’s, the doctor and health pioneer Karl Evang wanted to
work for a better public view of moral, sexuality and body, according to Ebbestad Hansen
(2011a and 2011b). Evang did this through being the initiator and a co-writer in Populært
Tidsskrift for Seksuell Oplysning (“Popular Magazine for Sexual Enlightenment”) from 1932
to 1935, writing articles, holding speeches and performing illegal abortions. A main target
was to spread knowledge about prevention and spread knowledge about sexual issues, but
also fight what he perceived as the hypocritical sexual moral at the time. He met massive
criticism, and was accused of being Norway’s largest criminal and a youth deceiver. Evang’s
science-based magazine was charged of being pornographic by different Christian groups
(Evang 1962, Ebbestad Hansen 2011a, Store norske leksikon 2012).
After the World War 2, a row of magazines with softcore/erotic content were launched
in Norway. Krydder (“Spice”) was first published in 1946, and Coctail was published in 1950.
In 1952, the councils in 150 municipalities, all the Norwegian bishops and Norske Kvinners
Nasjonalråd (“Norwegian Women’s National Council” protested against Coctail and other
publications in the same genre4. Thore Lystad, the publisher of other magazines in this genre,
such as Paris Tabou, was convicted in Norway’s Supreme Court in 1954 for publishing
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 E.g. The Crown Prosecution Service (2012). !
4 Such publications with sex/crime topics were popularly called “smusslitteratur” (Ebbestad Hansen 2011a:21).!
13
!
magazines that depicted a sexual relationship between two women. Homosexuality was illegal
until 1972. On the other hand, Lystad was not evicted for other series of pictures displaying
sexualized nudity as a violation of § 211 in the criminal sense, although the court stated that
the pictures clearly were lewd. Despite harsh and widespread popular resistance, publishers
launched gradually more sexually explicit erotic/softcore magazines (Enger 2007:24-25,
Ebbestad Hansen 2011a:23-34, 128-129). Further, the Kinsey reports about men’s and
women’s sexuality were perceived as a large threat to Christian groups and cultural
conservative people when they were published in 1947 and 19535. This group included
virtually all publicly known Christians Norway, such as Per Lønning, later to be bishop, the
Christian Newspaper Vårt Land (“Our country”), and several prominent persons such as
Minister of Justice, Jens Christian Hauge. In particular, a group of called Den annen front,
marked itself as being sceptical towards the new tendencies of sexual emancipation (Ebbestad
Hansen 2011a).
A small group of cultural liberals and cultural radicals, on the other hand, were
positive to the Kinsey Reports and honed them for showing an honest picture about people’s
sexual life. This group defended pornographic/erotic literature and publications about
sexuality, and included famous authors such as Andre Bjerke, Jens Bjørneboe and Agnar
Mykle. Others were psychologists, such as the famous psychologists Ingjald Nissen and some
literary critics. Their argumentation rested on several grounds, such as the liberating effect on
people’s sexuality and being positive stimulation for a healthy sexual life (Ebbestad Hansen
2011a:81-123).
In the 1950s and 1960s, there were court cases against the Norwegian author Agar
Mykle’s book Sangen om den røde rubin (“Song about the red ruby” 1957-58), the American
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 The book about women’s sexuality was translated to Norwegian and published in 1954. !
14
!
author Henry Millers “Sexus” (1959) and the radical Norwegian author Jens Bjørneboe’s
book Uten en tråd (“Without a Stitch”, 1966). Mykle and his publisher Harald Grieg in
Gyldendal were cleared after long procedures in one of the most famous court cases in
Norwegian history in 1957-1958. Still, the rest of the books editions for sale were confiscated.
Later, the Norwegian Supreme Court noted its strong artistic qualities, reversed the judgement
and thereby permitted sale of the book6. Bjørneboe and his publisher’s convictions were, on
the other hand, upheld in Supreme Court. His book was perceived as more or less purely
pornographic, and it counts among his least important works (Wandrup 1984, Heger 1994,
Sabo 2005, Ebbestad Hansen 2007, Ebbestad Hansen 2011a).
“Mykle and Bjørneboe were set on liberating sexuality through articles and novels.
Their novels are legendary for the proceedings against them, the trials and the
confiscations, accused of being pornographic” (Sabo 2009:149).
On the other hand, decency norms were also gradually changing. For example, in
1952, an uncensored version of D. H. Lawrence’s book “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was
published without legal interference. In 1955, Carl Erik Soya’s book Sytten år (“Seventeen
years”) was published. In 1978, a sexually explicit and controversial work, “History of O”,
was published without any juridical attention (Rolness 2003:238, Ebbestad Hansen 2011b). A
stricter stance was long upheld against film and pictures. For instance, in 1978, a man was
convicted in Supreme Court for showing pornographic movies in his private film club.
Further, in 1984, the animation film “Snow White and the Seven Lovers” was convicted in
Supreme Court because of indecency (Rolness 2003:240).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 Afterwards, Bjørneboe thanked the Norwegian court system for the attention. He published the novel, and a
sequel, “Uden en trævl 2” in Denmark. The controversy sparked large sales and was economically beneficial for
him and his family. They dearly needed money because of his artist occupation’s unsteady income (Wandrup
1984).!
15
!
In 1969, 12 000 people in a charismatic Christian layman movement demonstrated
against pornography at a gathering in the Norwegian village Kvinesdal. Enger (2007:28)
writes that the Criminal Code was changed in 1973. Then, “public interest” became a criterion
for being prosecuted. Prosecution would only be made when public interest demanded it, and
if not, the police could give waiver as a way of showing guilt. The practical consequence of
this law change was that the prosecuting authorities only charged the large violation of the
pornography law.
In 1974, groups in the new feminist movement started arguing and acting against
pornography (Karlsen 1990:5). The anti-pornography “movement” in the 70’s was extremely
heterogeneous. In 1977, Kvinnefronten (“The Women’s Front”) was at first the only feminist
organization willing to side with Christian conservative groups. These worked with a general
rather fundamentalist attitude, and were sceptical towards women's emancipation in general.
Under the perceived pressure from the pornography industry, many people’s attitudes
changed. On the initiative of the women in Senterpartiet (Centre Party, traditionally the
farmers' party), 30 different women's organizations met and formed the broad coalition
Kvinnenes Fellesaksjon mot pornografi (“Women’s Joint Action Against Pornography”)
autumn 1977 (Rolness 2003:146, Rustad 2007). This broad coalition consisted of different
groups that normally do not cooperate, such as the Christian women organizations, people
from political parties from the right to the left such as the Christian Democratic Party and the
Socialist left party, the Norwegian Housewives Union, trade union groups and traditional
feminist groups. At its’ peak it claimed to have 500 000 (indirect) members and in 1979, it
collected 42 000 signatures in support of the organization's requests (Rustad 2007, Nilsen
2008).
The feminist movement declared pornography and prostitution as their main targets of
attack. Activist actions against pornography included large-scale demonstrations, making
16
!
“porn-fires” of pornographic magazines, holding speeches and lectures, educational
campaigns and participating in debates in newspapers. Some of their methods were militant,
like the tagging of cars to people who were whore-customers (Karlsen 1990, Rolness
2003:137, 138, Schaffer 2010). “All pornography is systematic propaganda for sexual abuse
of children and women”, anti-porn feminist Karlsen (1990:3) argued. They did not make a
distinction between “hard” and “soft” pornography, because to them, all porn was just a
matter of the degree of sexual abuse the depictions featured. The anti-pornography movement
was led by the feminists Unni Rustad and Torill Dahl. Especially Rustad’s large, charismatic
and restless engagement for the case has been given credit for affecting Norwegians’ attitudes
towards pornography (Karlsen 1990:8, citing Tessem and Wiedswang 1984:8). What, exactly
the anti-pornography movement argued against was not always so clear, though:
“We defined pornography as images or films with sexual content and presented in a
way that oppresses women. We emphasized that we were not against sexual images
per se, but only images that eroticize the domination, humiliation and coercion of
women” (Strøm 2009:30).
Due to the strong politicization, an expert commission was formed in 1984 to suggest
the foundation for a new legal framework. This group was called Straffelovrådet, and was
headed by a female Supreme Court Judge, Else Bugge Fougner. Straffelovrådet recommended
that the principle of harm should replace the former decency-principle as a guideline for
jurisdiction in accordance with normal principles behind criminal code. This is the guiding
principle in the Criminal Code in Western countries. Since research had shown that
pornography depicting normal sexual activities lacked the alleged harmful effects feminists
claimed, introducing the harm principle would lead to a legalization of pornography. In
addition, pornography should be matter of choice. Therefore Straffelovrådet also
recommended prohibition of displaying pornography in public spaces (NOU 1985:19, Rolness
17
!
2003:242, 243). The only issue that the legal group suggested prohibiting was depictions
involving children, dead corpses, violence and coercion. This implied that “everything that
was legal in Norwegian beds, also should be allowed to show on film and TV” (Rolness
2003:243).
The debate also mobilised politicians in Kristelig Folkeparti (the Christian Democratic
Party), Senterpartiet (the Centre Party) and Arbeiderpartiet (the Labour Party). Bypassing the
ordinary preparatory process for new laws, they launched a private law proposal with
obscenity as the guiding principle. The proposal included prohibition of the marketing of
other derogatory depictions, such as of children, animals, violence, coercion and sadism
(Karlsen 1990:16, NOU 1997:23, Rolness 2003:243-244)7.While Rolness (2003:243)
maintains that the Labour Party purely acted to make obstacles for the centre-right coalition
government ruling at the time, Karlsen (1990:16) argues that the main motivation for this
private law proposal was winning approval from the voters before the up-coming
parliamentary elections autumn 1985. The private proposal became law in express speed
Easter 1985, but it had essentially no practical ramifications. Soft pornography in print was at
this time considered normal, and was thus accepted. Hardcore pornography consumed
privately was on the other hand permitted, while public showing of it was illegal.
The practical consequence of the prohibition was that pornography on Norwegian TV
screens was censored through a black marker hiding penetration. However, this did not mean
that Norwegians could not view the material from public sources in its complete version.
Through either turning off the “text TV” function, or switching on the decoder in order to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7 All Western countries today prohibit child pornography and “extreme pornography”, typically defined as:
depictions of a) An act which threatens a person’s life; this could include depictions of hanging, suffocation, or
sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon. b) An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury
to a person’s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts
or genitals. c) An act involving sexual interference with a human corpse; or d) A person performing an act of
intercourse or oral sex with an animal, and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the animals
and people portrayed were real (United Kingdom Ministry of Justice 2009).
!
18
!
view the channels in the other Scandinavian languages, the ban was easily circumvented
(Rolness 2003)8. The feminists in the anti-pornography movement were dissatisfied with the
new law because in effect it changed nothing, apart from protecting certain weak groups
better. “The new law was essentially useless”, remarks Karlsen (1990:16). The same year,
Cupido, Norway’s first erotic magazine for both sexes was launched. Many of the anti-
pornography feminists were against it, but it was not banned – which would probably also
draw protests from many of their allies. After the law amendment, the anti-pornography
movement gradually split up. Feminist groups did not longer want to co-operate with
Christian conservative groups, and among themselves, the groups could not agree on problem
perceptions and priorities. The following years, anti-pornography actions were mainly carried
on by the feminists in Ottar together with ad-hoc organizations (Schaffer 2010).
In 1989, the Parliament prohibited import of pornography for sale. Import and
possession of child pornography was prohibited in 1992 (Enger 2007:36). In the 1990s,
pornography continued to be a hot political topic. Three large, public commissions working
on behalf of the Government revised the legal framework again in the 1990s.
Seksuallovbruddsutvalget, Konvergensutvalget and Ytringsfrihetskommisjonen all
recommended a liberalization of the legal framework. The Women group in Norway’s largest
political party, the Labour Party, was also positive to liberalization. In addition, liberalization
gained support from 105 of 120 different organizations and different public bodies that were
invited to state their views when the law again was revised. Headed by the highly profiled
Norwegian lawyer Mona Høiness, anti-pornography activists declared new mobilization
against liberalization, and thus founded “Spontaneous-action against hard porn” in 1997.
104 000 signatures were collected and presented to the Minister of Justice. However, the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 Indeed, a journalist claims that the desire to view pornography probably was one of the main reasons why
Norwegians acquired parabolas in the 1980s (Rolness 2003).!
19
!
centre-right government rejected the new legal proposal (Rolness 2003:245-253, Sabo 2005).
Rolness (2003:247) argues that this was partly because of a deal made at the formation of the
Bondevik-1 government. There, the liberals (V) gave up their principal stance on the matter in
return for government participation. In 2000 the politicians again discussed pornography laws.
They were shown a movie depicting gang rape, which allegedly contained normal scenes
from pornographic movies. The strict legal framework was upheld (Rolness 2003).
During the same years, the international trend towards liberalization continued. Films,
such as “Romance”, passed the censorship of the Norwegian Film Authority that would have
been unheard of earlier because of their explicit sexual content. The argumentation for
accepting the films in unabridged version was that they had strong artistic qualities. Thus, it
could be accepted because artistic works had long been exempted from censorship in the legal
framework (Hansen 2005). In 2003, to spark a new debate, the porn producer Hagen
distributed free pornography magazines to members of the Norwegian Parliament and
passers-by outside the Parliament. This led to a Supreme Court-case in 2005 regarding
whether or not there should be censorship on pornographic magazines and films. The porn-
producer Mattson then showed a cavalcade of uncensored scenes from ordinary movies which
had been shown uncensored in Norwegian cinemas the last years. This video demonstrated
that scenes in pornographic movies and magazines often were less “hard” and explicit than
what the Norwegian population saw in movies and magazines that already had been
published. In the Regional Court, all the expert witnesses were positive to a repeal of the ban.
The court case ended with the Supreme Court lifting the ban on censorship of hard porn in
magazines, but not films (Bjørkeng 2005). There were heavy commercial interests exerting
pressure to have the censorship on film porn lifted. Next year, satellite channels complained
to the State Media Authority about the censorship of programmes showing porn. They got
approval for their complaints (Enger 2007).
20
!
In 2006, the censorship on movies for adults (movies with 18 years age limit) was
lifted in the film and video law, which had regulated pornography in these media. The
ministry handling the case, the Ministry of Church and Cultural Affairs, writes in its legal
proposal that this change might have meant a certain involuntary liberalization. Still,
depictions being “obscene” will be punishable by law. What is regarded as obscene, however,
alters as people’s attitudes and society’s attitudes changes. In 2006, the Body for complaint in
cases regarding film and video decided that the complainants were allowed to publish three
videos which normally would be characterised as hardcore pornography. This decision would
serve as a guideline for the State Media Authority in its interpretation of what is regarded as
“indecent”. Public showings of obscene material were and are, however, still prohibited.
Films with sexual elements would still be regarded as a whole and permitted only if they had
sufficiently scientific, artistic or informative elements. In practice, the decision by the appeal
body thereby led to a legalization of public distribution of most forms of pornography on
films and videos for private consumption to adults, but not public viewing of them (Kultur- og
kirkedepartementet 2005-2006:13-14).
21
Table 1: Overview of the present legislation in Denmark and Norway
DENMARK
NORWAY
Definition of
pornography
Very liberal, no distinction between
hard core and soft core material.
Depictions of animal pornography
allowed as long as the animal suffers
no harm or pain.
Depictions of sex that are obscene or
in other ways seem humiliating or
derogatory, including depictions of
sex involving dead bodies, animals,
violence and coercion.
Exceptions
Depictions that are sexual that are
regarded as proper from an artistic,
scientific, informative or similar
purpose.
Age limit for
possession
16 years
18 years
Punishment for
violation of
general
pornography laws
No punishment.
Fines and until 3 years of
imprisonment, fines and imprisonment
until 6 months if laws have been
unintended violated.
Laws regarding
child
pornography
Illegal since 1980. Since 2003: Photos,
film and video with concrete sexual
actions of children under 18 years are
prohibited from possession and
distribution. This does not include so
called “posing pictures” of children.
Production, owning, accessing,
distributing, importing of depictions
of sexual abuse of children under 18
years, and depictions that are
sexualising children.
Definition of
child
A person who is, or appears to be
below 18 years old.
A person who is, or appears to be
below 18 years old.
Exceptions
When a person over 15 years and less
than 18 years old has agreed to the
possession of a pornographic picture of
itself.
Taking and possessing pictures of
underage people between 16 years
and 18 years if the person who has
taken or possesses a picture if it is
consensual and they are at about the
same stage in age and development.
22
!
Punishment for
violation of child
pornography laws
Distribution of child pornography up to
2 years of is imprisonment, in
especially severe cases 6 years of
imprisonment. Severe cases include
threat of life, severe physical violence,
and when production has been done in
an organized way. Possession of child
pornography: fines and up to 1 year of
imprisonment.
Fines and until 3 years of
imprisonment, fines and imprisonment
until 6 months if laws have been
unintended violated. The same
punishments are for the head or
leader who at purpose or unintended
does not prevent production, selling
and distribution of child pornography
within his business.
Sources: NOU 1997:23, Norsk Lovtidend 2005, INTERPOL 2006, Kultur- og
kirkedepartementet (2005-2006), Det Dyreetiske Råd (2006), Enger 2007, Kierkegaard 2008,
Harpsøe et. al 2009, Lovdata 2011.
WHY DID SO SIMILAR COUNTRIES END UP DOING IT SO DIFFERENTLY?
Value change can be viewed as one underlying explanatory factor for the change in legislation
on pornography. In both Denmark and Norway, new policies in the late 1960s and 1970s
reflected new attitudes in the up-growing generations in Western societies. This included new
feminist movements being influential, especially in Norway, while, in addition, trends such as
sexual emancipation and youth protest had a major impact in Denmark (Heidar and Bakke
2008:31, Aarhus University 2009a). Kutchinsky (1999:51) argues that the sexual
liberalization that took place in most countries in the Western world was an important
precondition for “the porno wave”. The paper argues that four main factors explain the large
legal differences.
First, one important difference that may explain much of the large legal differences is
that Denmark has had a more liberal culture regarding sexuality than Norway. In Norway, on
23
!
the other hand, Christian conservative values, as seen by large mobilization from different
Christian groups, probably have made a major impact on the laws and how they have been
interpreted. Kutchinsky (1999:51) maintains that Denmark is not to be considered a
particularly permissive society, but rather that it is somewhat above average liberal regarding
sexuality and sexual permissiveness in its popular culture. This is also reflected in the legal
framework. For instance the ban homosexual relations between consenting adults was lifted
already in 1933, and the age of consent for heterosexuals have been 15 years since the same
year. Thus, Denmark has long had a tradition of official liberalism regarding sexual issues
(Kutchinsky 1999:52, 53, Graugaard et al 2004:330-335). In contradiction, Norway has had a
more conservative public tradition on most matters regarding sexuality. For example, Norway
first lifted the ban on homosexual relations, § 213 in Norway’s Criminal Code, between
consenting grownups in 1972.
Kutchinsky (1999:65) also points out that the countries which had legalized
pornography at the time all had a political trend between “liberal socialism” and “social
liberalism”. These countries were West-Germany, Denmark and Sweden. During the 1960s,
the political climate in Denmark was characterized by social liberalism. The Social
Democratic Party, Socialdemokraterne, was the major party 1950-1980, being in office much
of the time. The Social Liberal Party, Det Radikale Venstre, grew markedly during the 1960s.
Together with the Socialist People's party, Socialistisk Folkeparti, these three parties had
more than two thirds of the seats in the Parliament. Proposals for legalization came in 1964
and 1965 from representatives from exactly these parties (Kutchinsky 1999:65). When the ban
on pornographic depictions was withdrawn in 1969, the government in charge was centre-
right and had a Social Liberal Prime Minister and a Conservative Minister of Justice.
In Norway, legalization of pornography has met massive popular resistance by a wide
range of different groups. In particular, Christian conservative groups have engaged
24
!
themselves strongly in the debates in the decades after World War 2. The participants include
Norwegian bishops, Christian newspapers and many Christian organizations/groups. In
striking contrast, the church in Denmark chose to abstain from this debate. Rolness (2003)
and Ebbestad Hansen (2011a) demonstrate how for example the Norwegian Christian
Democratic Party, Kristelig Folkeparti, has worked continuously and to a certain extent
successfully against a more liberal legal framework. The role of the Christian Democratic
parties is extremely different in the two countries. The Kristelig Folkeparti, has had far higher
levels of public support and thereby also more political power and influence than its Danish
sister party (Heidar and Bakke 2008:47, 79). Founded in 1933, the party has had seats in
parliament ever since, with support between 8 and 14% of the votes in the period 1945-2001.
It had the prime minister 1972-73, 1997-2001 and 2001-2005 (Heidar and Berntzen 2007,
Heidar and Bakke 2008:53). In contrast, the Danish sister party (now called Christian
Democrats) was founded in 1970, and its popular support peaked in 1975, with 5.3% of votes
and 9 seats in parliament. From 1979-2001, the support was below 3%. In the 2005 and 2007
elections, none of its candidates won seats (Heidar and Bakke 2008:77). Because of its central
political position, the Norwegian party was able to create alliances and strongly influence the
pornography legislation from 1966-2005, even when this contradicted legal and expert advice.
This would, however, probably not have been possible without broad popular anti-
pornography support (Rolness 2003).
At first glance, the national differences in positions taken by similar groups in the
pornography law debates seems striking, especially among the left wing representatives:
There, all Danish spokesmen were proponents in 1969, while the Norwegian representatives,
though principally for it, expressed scepticism even in the last parliamentary debate in 2006.
This may be seen more as indications of rhetorical hegemony than political stance, and the
actual political actions in Norway were clear enough (Stortinget 2006, Hertoft 2008). The
25
!
representatives were talking to their voters. Only among the Right Populist, Conservative and
Liberal audiences there was a strong support for deregulation, almost regardless of
consequences. The majority of the other voters were principally positive, although they had
reservations towards several aspects of pornography – many probably viewed is as a kind of
necessary evil.
Controlling enforcement is one source of power (Bolman and Deal 2003:221). For
example, the political parties that introduced and implemented their own private legal
proposal in 1985, Kristelig Folkeparti, Senterpartiet and Arbeiderpartiet, did it at express
speed and outside the normal parliamentary procedures. Hence, in this case they were able to
grab this kind of power. The judges in Supreme Court are also endowed with this kind of
power, in addition to having power in their capacity of being legal experts, in other words
power based on information and expertise. In both Norway and Denmark, politicians in
practice often left the drawing of limits to the judiciary, where the judges were free to exert
their position power. In Norway, the judges increasingly often concluded that the
pornographic material taken to court should not be punished. This position power was also
clear in the last Supreme Court case in Norway in 2005, because only expert witnesses, such
as sexologists, were there to have their say. These people were positive towards legalization.
No dissenting voices were invited to the court case, according to a journalist from the
newspaper Aftenposten (Bjørkeng 2005). Still, the law practices before legalization seem to
have been stricter in Norway than in Denmark – reflecting the differences in legislation9.
Second, the organization and influence of the cooperation between feminist and other
anti-pornography movements is characteristic for Norway. Bolman and Deal (2003:214)
argue that coalitions are made because the members are reciprocally dependent on each other,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9 According to Enger (2007:2), 150 persons were punished for violating the pornography laws in Norway in
2005. All of these were men. 106 of these were sentenced to imprisonment. !
26
!
albeit their interests only are partially overlapping. For example, Women’s Joint Action
Against Pornography, consisted of groups that seldom cooperated. Further, Norway probably
has had one of Europe’s largest feminist movements working against pornography. Feminists
in many parts of the western world made pornography their main target during the 1980’s
(e.g. MacRae 2003). The anti-pornography feminist activism in Norway can be viewed as part
of this. Much of their argumentation was inspired by the leading American feminists Andrea
Dworkin and law professor Cathriona MacKinnon (Rolness 2003:322-323, MacRae 2003).
Anti-pornography groups were guaranteed some public support for more reasons: Selling of
the human body in the form of intimate services is by most regarded as inherently
problematic. Few would want their partners to engage in such, and the pornography industry
has not always lived up to the best standards of humanism and gender equity, to put it mildly.
The feminists’ argumentation ventured far beyond this. For example, despite scientific studies
showing no connection or diverging results, the anti-pornography feminists kept on asserting
that there is, generally, a connection between pornography and rape10.
The anti-porn movement’s argumentation became public “truths” that few stood up
against (Rolness 2003). Thereby they exercised a form of symbolic power, influencing the
opinion through setting most of the premises for public discourse. They became “norm
entrepreneurs” in Finnemore’s and Sikkink’s (1998) terminology. This kind of power is
characterised by elites’ and opinion leaders’ opportunities to define and even impose the
perceptions of reality that define identity, core beliefs and values. In addition, some of the
leaders of the anti-pornography movement, like the restless and energetic Unni Rustad,
probably possessed a personal power. This is defined by qualities such as having the ability to
convince, and having energy and rhetorical talent to put cases on the political agenda (Bolman
and Deal 2003:222). It is difficult to be a proponent of something that is inherently
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 This is still the situation regarding research on the effects of pornography today (e.g. Meland 2011).!
27
!
problematic. In symbol politics, the competition is about being most against the “bad things”
and most in favour of the “good things”. Therefore, activists like Rustad could dominate the
public debate, yet in the end have little impact on the legislation and even less on its
implementation.
It could be “politically correct” for Danish liberal leftist intellectuals to argue for
liberalization in the 1960s public debate, while the situation was quite different in Norway
from 1950 to 2000 (Bråten 2006). Then, the flood of pornography was in practice
unstoppable11, and supporting it would mean supporting lots of rather bad causes. Therefore,
many participants in the public debate rather chose to avoid the pornography issue as much as
possible: The process of liberalization continued anyway – pornography was clearly on its
way losing all the battles, but winning the war in Norway. Combatants on both sides, like
Torill Karlsen and Kjetil Rolness, would, naturally, tend to underplay this dynamic, and rather
present the story as a heroic war against dirty porn, or a fighting for the scientific truth and
freedom of expression, respectively12.
Third, through creating stare decisis, or doctrine of precedence, by acquitting the
publishers of Fanny Hill, the Danish Supreme Court in practice made most pornographic
books legal to publish. In Norway, in contradiction, even books widely viewed as having
strong artistic qualities made by renown authors could be liable to legal prosecution. As
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11Different studies document that high rates of Norwegian and Danes have consumed pornography during their
lives. For example, Træen, Nilsen and Stigum (2006) find that 82 % of their sample of Norwegian respondents
between 18 and 49 years having read pornographic magazines and 84 % having seen pornographic films.
!
12 As late as in 2010, the Norwegian feminist group Ottar argued for introducing a legal prohibition against
buying porn, as an extension of the prohibition of buying sex. They argued for prohibiting selling pornography
both in stores and at the internet. Such material was to be stopped by making it impossible to transfer money to
producers of pornographic material. Another Norwegian feminist group, Kvinnefronten (“The Women’s Front”),
disagreed to this view. Generally, Kvinnefronten argues that pornography also can have positive effects
(Pedersen 2010).!
28
!
commented by Ebbestad Hansen (2011a), pornographic descriptions in it do not seem to have
been the decisive criterion for being prosecuted in Norway, but rather the quantity of them.
A fourth major difference between the two Scandinavian countries is the influence of
liberal intellectuals on the public debate. In Denmark, during the public debate rising in the
1960s, leading intellectuals argued for liberalization, and defended the publishers who were
sued in court for publishing erotic/pornographic literature (Hertoft 2008). The intellectuals
raising their voices for liberalization in Norway usually had to endure harsh public criticism,
as demonstrated by Rolness (2003:146-150) and Ebbestad Hansen (2011a). In contradiction,
until the recent years only a few people in Norway, perhaps most notably the sociologist
Kjetil Rolness, have openly criticized the feminist argumentation on empirical background
(Tessem and Wiedswang 2003).
CONCLUSION
This comparative historical analysis has analysed the legal and political development
influencing the regulation of pornography the last 60 years in Norway and Denmark. The
analysis is based on a multitude of sources, including public documents, historic literature,
previous research and media sources. Analysing a so multi-faceted phenomenon which has
engaged so many different actors has demanded large resources. Going further in depth would
probably give new insights, and possibly also reveal new causal mechanisms as well as
further explanatory variables. Some explanatory variables have at purpose been left out of the
analysis, including the role of media and the possible role of somewhat earlier modernization
in Denmark than in Norway. Sweden was the second country in the world legalizing
pornography in 1971. Finland, on the contrary, has had strict regulations in this field until the
end of the 1990s, according to Paasonen (2009). Therefore, including Sweden and Finland in
29
!
the analysis would make an interesting study regarding which factors that in general might
influence pornography legislation in Western countries.
This paper argues that there are four main explanatory variables for the large legal
differences identified. First, the countries have had different cultural and political cleavages.
While the Danish political elite have had a tradition of cultural-relativistic attitudes, Norway
has had a broad Christian movement, including an influential Christian Democratic party,
working against sexual liberalization in general and legalization of pornography in particular.
Second, in the 1970s and 1980s, Norway had a very strong and well organised feminist
movement that made the fight against pornography one of its main issues. Third, Denmark
has in general had more liberal court rulings influencing how the laws should be interpreted.
Fourth, public figures in Denmark were in general more liberal on the topic, while the people
in Norway defending pornography met massive criticism. Underlying all these features are
traditionally more politically liberal attitudes on certain fields in Denmark, especially in
sexuality-related matters.
The advent of satellite and cable TV first, and then Internet, has made a fundamental
difference in the possibility of controlling the access to pornography. Thus the new
technology contributed to legal liberalization because it has become impossible to outlaw
access to pornography. Based on these findings, there are several hypotheses for further
research on regulation of pornography in Western countries.
H1: The presence of large, and active and politically influential Christian Conservative
groups in morality politics leads to stricter regulations regarding pornography. This is
especially likely when there is an influential Christian Conservative party in
government.
30
!
H2: Especially in the period before internet was introduced, feminist movements could
dominate the public debate and gain legal influence if they are well organised,
participate in alliances and initiate targeted campaigns.
H3: The Internet has influenced laws on pornography because public authorities have
lost most opportunities to control people’s consumption. This has happened in tandem
with generally more positive attitudes towards sexuality, and “pornification of the
public space”, leading to pornography becoming normalised and pornography
becoming legalized.
31
!
REFERENCES
Bjørkeng, Per-Kristian (2005). Den nakne sannheten om porno. Aftenposten December 7th
2005. Reading date July 8th 2010. Available at:
http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article1173267.ece
Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence Deal (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. Third edition. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Bråten, Beret (2006). ”Porno, frigjørende, undertrykkende eller begge deler?”, Kilden
informasjonssenter for kjønnsforskning. Published online July 31st. Reading date
August 10th 2010. Available
at:http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/c16878/artikkel/vis.html?tid=40104
Childress, Steven Alan (1992). “Pornography, “Serious Rape” and Statistics, a Reply to Dr.
Kutchinsky”, Law and Society Review, 26, pp. 456-456.
Det Dyreetiske Råd, Justitsministeriet (2006). “Udtalelse om menneskers seksuelle omgang
med dyr,” København: AN. Sats.
Ebbestad Hansen, Jan-Erik (2007). ”Et pinlig minne”. Article published in Morgenbladet
September 14th 2007. Reading date January 8th 2012. Available at:
http://www.morgenbladet.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/OAKTUELT001/7
09140027
Ebbestad Hansen, Jan-Erik (2011a). Da Norge mistet dyden. Mykle-saken, ytringsfriheten.
Oslo: Unipub AS.
Ebbestad Hansen, Jan-Erik (2011b). ”Et forsvar for umoralen. Det var først på 1950-tallet
Norge mistet dyden. Er den på vei tilbake?” Article published in Morgenbladet
32
!
November 25th 2011. Reading date January 8th 2012. Available at:
http://www.morgenbladet.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111125/OIDEER/1111299
63/0/DEBATT&template=printart
Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library (2010). “Pornography”.
Enger, Lill Kristin (2007). Straffbar pornografi. Har jussen endret seg i takt med samfunnet?
Master thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo.
European Council (2004). COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2004/68/JHA of 22
December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child
pornography.
Evang, Karl (1962). “Seksualdebatten i 30 årene,” in Evang, Karl (1964). Fred er å skape –
artikler og taler, pp. 64-73. Oslo: Pax.
Finnemore, Martha and Kathrin Sikkink (1998). “Norm Dynamics and Political Change”,
International Organization, 52, 4, pp. 887-917.
Frendreis, John P. (1983). “Explanation of Variation and Detection of Covariation: The
Purpose and Logic of Comparative Analysis”, Comparative Political Studies, 16, 2 pp.
255-272.
George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in
the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Graugaard, Christian, Lene Falgaard Eplov, Annamaria Giraldi, Ellids Kristensen, Else
Munck, Bo Møhl, Annette Fuglsang Owens, Hanne Risør and Gerd Winther (2004).
33
!
Chapter “Denmark”, pp. 329-365, in Francoer Robert D. and Raymond J. Noonan
(eds) (2004). CONTINUUM The Complete International ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
SEXUALITY. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
Hansen, Christian Buch (2005). Samfunnets sekret: fra pornosjappe til kaffebar. Om en
holdningsendring i samfunnet overfor pornografi og mediert seksualitet, med
utgangspunkt i film- og filmsensur i Norge. Master thesis, Faculty of Humanities,
University of Oslo.
Harpsøe, Marlene, Pia Adelsteen, René Christensen, Kim Christiansen, Kristian Thulesen
Dahl, Pia Kjærsgaard and Peter Skaarup (2009). “Forslag til Folketingsbeslutning om
forbud mod segsuelt misbrug af dyr”. 2009/1 BSF 176. Available at:
https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/R0710.aspx?id=131066
Heger, Anders (1994). Agnar Mykle og Norge, historien om en litterær rettergang. Oslo:
Gyldendal.
Heidar, Knut and Einar Berntzen (2007). “Danmark”. Unpublished draft to the book: Politikk
i Europa. Partier, regjeringsmakt, styreform. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Heidar, Knut and Elisabeth Bakke (2008). ”Politikk i Europa”, pp.17-38, in Heidar, Knut,
Elisabeth Bakke and Einar Berntzen (eds). Politikk i Europa. Partier, regjeringsmakt,
styreform. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Henriksen, Lars (2008). ”Det røgfrie miljø skal også gøres pornofrit”. Kristeligt Dagblad,
December 4th 2008. Reading date August 2nd 2010. Available at:
http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/306551:Mennesker--Det-roegfrie-miljoe-skal-
ogsaa-goeres-pornofrit
Hertoft, Preben (2008). De uventede gaver. København: Hans Reitzels forlag.
34
!
INTERPOL (2006). Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against children.
Denmark - Danemark – Dinamarca. Updated spring 2006. Available at:
https://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaDenmark.pdf
Kanal København (2010), available at:
http://www.kanalkobenhavn.dk/6_erotik.html
Karlsen, Torill Enger (1990). ”Antiporno-kampen i Noreg gjennom 15 år”. Term paper in the
course ”Gender and society”, Oslo: University of Oslo.
Kierkegaard, Sylvia (2008). ”Cybering, online grooming and ageplay”, Computer Law &
Security Report, 24, 1 pp. 41-55.
Kierkegaard, Sylvia (2011). “To block or not to block – European child porno law in
question”, Computer Law & Security Report, 27, pp. 573-584.
Kristelig Folkeparti (2008). ”Politisk program 2009-2013”. Programkomitèens forslag april
2008.
Krog-Meyer, Monica (ed) (2002). Patter, pik og penge. Pornificeringen af vores liv.
København: Rosinante.
Kultur- og kirkedepartementet (Ministry of culture). Ot.prp. nr. 72 (2005-2006). Om lov om
endringar i lov 15. mai 1987 nr. 21 om film og videogram.
Kutchinsky, Berl (1991). “Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice? Evidence from Crime
Data in Four Countries where Pornography is Easily Available”, International Journal
of Law and Psychiatry, 14, pp. 47-64.
Kutchinsky, Berl (1992a). “Pornography, Sex Crime and Public Policy”. Paper presented at
the Sex Industry and Public Policy, Canberra, Australia.
35
!
Kutchinsky, Berl (1992b). ”The Politics of Pornography Research”, Law and Society Review,
26, 2, pp. 447-455.
Kutchinsky, Berl (1999). Law, Pornography and Crime. The Danish Experience (Edited by
Annika Snare). Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S.
Lijphart, Arend (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, American
Political Science Review, 65, 3, pp. 682-693.
Lovdata (2011). LOV 1902-05-22 nr 10: Almindelig borgerlig Straffelov (Straffeloven).
MacRae, Heather (2003). “Morality, Censorship and Discrimination”, Social Politics, 10, 3,
pp. 314-345.
Meland, Astrid (2011). “Mener porno gjør oss til bedre mennesker. Porno er bra for de fleste,
mener pornoforskere. SV kjemper fortsatt imot”. Article published in Dagbladet
January 12th 2011. Reading date January 18th 2012. Available at:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/01/12/magasinet/pornografi/innenriks/sv/porno/148337
11/
Nilsen, Magnhild (2008). “Når man gir seg ut for å være horekunde, får man finne seg i
karakteristikken”, Rødt, marxistisk tidsskrift, 1.
Norsk Lovtidend (2005) . ”Lov om endringar i straffelova (Eige straffebod om kjønnslege
skildringar som gjer bruk av barn)”, 6, p. 773.
NOU 1985:19. Norwegian Public Evaluations: Pornografi og straff (Pornography and
Punishment).
NOU 1997:23. Norwegian Public Evaluations: Seksuallovbrudd (Sexual Offences).
Straffelovkommisjonens delutredning VI.
36
!
Pedersen, Erik (2010). “Vil ha nyttpornoforbud”. Dagsavisen December 3rd 2010. Reading
date July 4th 2010. Available at:
http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article474771.ece
Paasonen, Susanna (2009). “Healthy Sex and Pop Porn: Pornography, Feminism and the
Finnish Context”, Sexualities, 12, 5, pp. 586-604.
Rolness, Kjetil (2003). Sex, Lies and Videotapes. An Uncensored Settling of Accounts with the
Myths Surrounding Pornography. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Rustad, Liv (2007). “The fight against pornography in the 1970’s”. Introduction to seminar in
the Norwegian Research Council, published July 23rd 2007. Reading date: July 15th
2010. Available at: http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/artikkel/vis.html?tid=44838
Sabo, Anne G. (2005). “The Status of Sexuality, Pornography and Morality in Norway Today:
are critics ready for Bjørneboe’s Joyful Inversion of Mykle’s Guilt Trip?”, Nordic
Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 1, pp. 36-47.
Sabo, Anne G. (2009). “Highbrow and Lowbrow Pornography: Prejudice prevails against
popular culture. A case study”, Journal of popular culture, 42, 1, pp. 147-161.
Schaffer, Johan Karlsson (2010). “The rise and fall of the Joint Action in Norway. Field notes
to A comparative study of prostitution policy reform in the Nordic countries”. Posted
June 8th 2010. Reading date July 15th 2010. Available at:
http://nppr.se/2010/06/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-joint-action-in-norway/
State Film Authority (Statens Filmtilsyn) (2000). “Komparativ studie av lovverk om
pornografi i 14 europeiske land” (comparative study of legal status of pornography in
14 European countries).
37
!
Store norske leksikon, Norsk biografisk leksikon (2012). “Karl Evang- utdypning”. Reading
date: January 24th 2012. Available at:
http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Karl_Evang/utdypning
Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament) (2006). Meeting March 6th at 10 o clock – case number 9.
The document with the debate is available at:
http://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-
publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Referater/Stortinget/2005-2006/060316/9/
Strøm, Agnete (2009). “A glimpse into 30 years of struggle against prostitution by women’s
liberation movement in Norway,” Reproductive Health Matters, 17, 34, pp. 29-37.
Tessem, Liv Berit and Kjetil Wiedswang (2003). “Pornoen eller pornografenes seier”,
Samtiden, 1.
Tessem, Liv Berit (2012). ”Femti års opphisselse.”Article in Aftenposten January 29th 2012.
The Crown Prosecution Service (2012). Obscene Publications. Internet article. Available at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/obscene_publications/
Thing, Morten (1999). Pornografiens historie i Danmark. København: Aschehoug.
Træen, Bente, Toril Sørheim Nilsen and Morten Stigum (2006). “Use of Pornography in
Traditional Media and on the Internet in Norway”, Journal of Sex Research, 43, 3, pp.
245-254.
United Kingdom Ministry of Justice (2009). Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images and
increase in the maximum sentence for offences under the Obscene Publications Act
1959: Implementation of Sections 63-67 and Section 71 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008. Circular No. 2009/01.
38
!
Wandrup, Fredrik (1984). Jens Bjørneboe: mannen, myten og kunsten. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Aarhus University (2009a). ”Folketingsdebat om frigivelse af billedpornografien 1968-1969”.
Institute for History and Area Studies. Available at:
www.danmarkshistorien.dk
Aarhus University (2009b). “Jordskredsvalget 1973”. Institute for History and Area Studies.
Available at: www.danmarkshistorien.dk
