Better than Chocolate!
In this paper, I will attempt to review the debate on pornography in Chapter 4 - State and Society - of Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, Seventh Edition by John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger.
Can or should a state justifiably prohibit citizens from viewing pornography? Would that not be an unwarranted infringement of basic freedoms? This question lies at the center of a deliberation about just when, and on what grounds, the state should use its powers to limit the freedom of individuals.
Standing against the principle of censorship are the liberals. They believe that people should be able to live the sort of life they choose exercising their own taste, not being subject to the rule of others (338). They defend the freedom of consenting adults to view pornography - in contrast with moral and religious conservatives who wish to prohibit pornography because of its obscenity or corrupting impact on family and religious values.
According to conservatives, the state is justified in using its coercive power to uphold and enforce a community's moral convictions, and in that sense, to prevent citizens from delibrating actions that offend their perceived "right and wrong" standards of morality and decency. Conservatives believe that it is in their and the state's duty to steer people, by force if necessary, into the right paths and away from the wrong paths – and they belive that "what is right and wrong is known independently of the values and interests that people actually have" (339). On the same side though on different grounds, some feminists call on the state to regulate or prohibit pornography - but the primary focus of feminists revolves on the harm that pornography causes to women rather than the obsceni...
... middle of paper ...
... vicious loop.
One lesson is clear, prohibition induces temptation! In the internet digital TV age, most walls and boundaries have fallen. It is the duty of society to regulate itself, and to immunize itself against perceivable vice. The Netherland experiece with legalized drugs is a good example. Instead of spending money chasing drug consumers and traffickers, they thought better and regulated the "industry," and they choose to spend the money on education on the risk of drugs.
As a final statement for this trimester, feminists can burn as many bras as they deem enough to liberate them, and conservatives can burn as many books to protect their virtues, but even if they wanted to, there is nothing they can do about it. Not to mention that given half a chance, both sides they will end up banning everything that is pleasant in life. Next target could be chochlate!
Have you ever realized that the world you live in was not the same anymore? Like something is wrong, but you can never quite figure out why? This is what I felt after reading “America’s War on Sex” by Dr. Martin Klein. While reading this book I learned many different things about organization that do everything in their power to stop freedom of sexual expression.
Pornography Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The United States. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 27-52.
A moral panic is defined as a public panic over a matter that is considered to be threatening or shocking to the social order. One example of a significant matter that caused a moral panic in the public eye is homosexuality. The public discriminated against homosexuals, viewing them as sick, unnatural, immoral and a threat to society. Another example of a moral panic is America’s effort to protect its children from sex, which is discussed in the Harmful to Minors book by the author Judith Levine. This controversial argument by Levine explores why Americans demonize the topic of sex and keep their children away from it in fear that it will harm them, and in return Levine explains how protecting them away from sex actually ends up harming them.
Have you ever fallen victim to an uninvited image? I remember the first time I was caught off guard by the discovery of some magazines under the bed of a relative. I was amazed and stunned, but I peeked and giggled. I may have even told a friend of the discovery. Since that day so long ago, I’ve been caught off guard a few more times when I’ve had a photograph pop up on the computer screen without invitation; I never giggled again. As a Mom, I’ve had moments of shocking discovery when searching a home computer. Not long ago, I was stunned as I entered a Facebook writer’s group and right before my eyes, was a picture I hadn’t asked to see; an invitation I did not desire to receive. These images can appear when least expected and one look can have a lasting impact.
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
When deliberating over whether access to pornography should be prohibited, four areas of contention must be elaborated upon and evaluated critically to provide a sensible basis on which a judgement can be made. Firstly, it must be concluded whether pornography can be classed as a form of speech, and whether it enjoys the same protections as art and literature under the principle. Secondly, works such as those of Catherine MacKinnon can be drawn upon to offer a feminist perspective of the effects of pornography on the treatment of women within modern democratic society. Moreover, the principles of Devlin and Feinberg offer relevant acumen regarding the criminalisation of pornographic media. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst access to pornography should not be entirely prohibited; publications that depict ‘extreme’ situations should be subject to regulation and restriction.
Wendy McElroy addresses the moral issue on censorship of pornography. She approaches the issue by asking whether or not pornography aids or hinders women. In both articles, she establishes her position, arguing that pornography should not be censored and that it does more good for women than harm. The underlying concerns, however, are where the lines are drawn at censorship and when does a group gains the right to restrict another? McElroy states that the issues with censorship is that it’s very rigid, where even simply tightening the definition of what pornography is can affect publicized works by feminists.
“Those of us who trust sexuality must not allow ourselves to be controlled by those who fear it (Marty Klein).” In America censorship has affected various mediums: print, art, television, and internet, as it pertains to sexuality. However, the first amendment “protects” the right to free speech, and press. Congress has tried to pass bills to outlaw pornography, but have failed to ban books for sexual content, and dictate what can be said on TV and radio. If the government is allowed to censor these ways of communication, then we, as citizens of a democracy, will be treated as citizens under a dictatorship.
In “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Brownmiller discusses her views on the First Amendment and pornography. She explains that pornography has become a disturbingly common sight and there should be some type of restrictions put forth to protect the people who are subject to seeing such obscene materials. Brownmiller uses her feminist views to convince the reader that these restrictions are needed, but only in cases dealing with pornographic material. She uses examples of court cases dealing with banned materials to show when the First Amendment was being used correctly to protect obscene works of art.
The issue of pornography has been debated and argued among many about its effects on morality and society. The questions most raised are is pornography moral or immoral and what defines it as such. Also, what makes something be seen as pornographic and therefore immoral. Often when someone brings up the subject of pornography they often envision something dark and seedy which in no way could ever be justified as virtuous. However, there are others who see it’s as being a healthy outlet and without harm to others. When applying the sociological theories of utilitarianism and deontology we can understand the different ideas of pornography. We can also use the perspectives of Emotivism and ethical egoism to make a rational argument about
Whether pornography is an excuse to make acts of violence public? A big number of famous scholars, no matter men or women, have given their opinions. Each of them has their own view, but we can sort them into two groups, which are against to serious censorship and willing to convict and uproot pornography. Because of pornography, women’s status can never be equal to men’s. Recently, a revolution about the perception of moral values comes out in the world, which refers to how deep the changes of the method people think and act. Media have continuously played a big role in processing those changes in the revolution. Whereas, a lot of changes have been much worse. New violations of human dignity and Christian ideals have taken place. Within here, the media is also important. In the media, widespread pornography and wanton violence have increased in these years. Books and magazines, recordings, the cinema, the theater, television, videocassettes, advertising displays and even telecommunications regularly present a representation of violent behavior in sexual activity, which has been openly pornographic and morally offensive.
Despite it's negative consequences such as making victims feel degraded and fear for their safety, cat-calling and street harassment are situations that have been normalized in society and accepted when it should be something people can be punished for by receiving fines or tickets. It is arguable that cat-calling and street sexual harassment are recognized as something that is a problem today, but with very little research actually examining how sexual harassment and other similar forms of sexism are negatively effecting women, and very little to almost nothing done to stop the system of sexual objectification, do people really consider it that much of an issue?
The Supreme Court has been active in the past decades in review of democratic morality policies. The judicial review of state and local laws is important for organizations to use policy-making tools to show a direct link between the courts and other officials. The constitution has a significant impact on policy adoption and how these impacts are sometimes at the conditional of state political power. Morality policies raises important constitutional questions that are answered by the US Supreme Court, these questions involv...
The combination of liberal and radical feminism is not one that often comes to the mind, but it can be useful to consult various viewpoints when tackling complex issues. Despite drastic differences between them, these two views of feminism do hold some similarities with each other by virtue of their common goal (when that goal is simplified to simply equality of the genders). In this paper I will be outlining some of the basic similarities and differences between these two ideologies of feminism and I may not cover all of the connections and gaps between the two for the sake of length. Moving forward from this explanation of liberal and radical feminism, I will use it to explain their views of pornography and how it aided my own understanding
...nt and Civil Liberties groups, no one seems to be making much headway in determining where the line should be drawn when it comes to pornography. The positive is that child pornography is being acknowledged as a real problem, but law enforcement officials are still having a great deal of difficulty fighting it. The United States is taking steps toward implementing a multi-layered approach to governance, which will allow adults their freedom and protect children at the same time, but as of right now we are a long way from a solution.