Don't Censor Child Pornography
In November of 1997 a Williamson County, Tenn. grand jury indicted Barnes & Noble booksellers for violating state obscenity laws prohibiting the display of "material harmful to minors". The materials in question were two books that featured photographs of nude children: Jock Sturges' Radiant Identities and David Hamilton's The Age of Innocence. Since then, Radical Right activist Randall Terry has launched a crusade aimed at forcing bookstores to remove the "criminal garbage" of Sturges, Hamilton and (recently added to his list of demons) Sally Mann from their bookshelves (bookweb). To implement his program Terry issued a call to Right sympathizers, urging them to march into bookstores and tear offensive pages from the targeted books. Several bookstores around the country fell prey to Terry's vandals. In response to these incidents and the threat of future public vandalism, Barnes & Noble recently issued a memo to each of its 1000+ stores directing them to place the contested materials under lock and key, and to allow customers to view them only in the presence of a store manager (apocalypse 9709).
This response is upsetting. It is upsetting because it means that, in several significant ways, Terry has won. True, no one (as of yet) has put Sturges or the others in jail (as Terry has called for), but the public's right to view the supposed "pornographic" content of their work has been significantly diminished by Barnes & Noble's action. By acknowledging the threat of Terry and his small group of supporters, B&N has reified their claim that the work of the named photographers needs to be segregated from the "decent" public's reach. It installs a technology of surveillance that in...
... middle of paper ...
...ms to me that it would be rather unlikely for a young child to stumble onto the work of a contemporary professional photographer. S/he would have to know something about that photographer, know what his or her work is about, and know how to get to it. This means that, in the case of these photographers, the child would have to know something about nudity, art and photography to want to seek them out. If s/he already knows something about these subjects, then what harm is viewing nude bodies going to have?
Works Cited:
Foucault, Michel, History of Sexuality, Vol I: An Introduction, New York: Pantheon, 1978.
www.bookweb.org/news/btw/905.html
http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9709/terry.html
http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9509/terry.html
www.villagevoice.com/pride/10goldstein.shtml
They started a petition on Change.org, and created a campaign on one star reviews on Amazon in attempts to prevent people from purchasing the book. In the beginning Scholastic, the book’s publisher, stood beside the author and illustrator of the book giving support and telling people that the book is not as bad as it seems. The School Library Journal then issued their review and criticism of the books claiming that
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).
giving him the welcome of a god, "give me the tributes of a man, / and
...net. I liked the valid points and evidence that she gave to get pornography removed from the public because they had some sense to them. I also like some of the methods that she used. I agreed that pornography has a negative influence on our society, I agree that pornography is degradable to women because they are obviously being used as objects, and the statement that pornography is being forced on a lot of people who don’t even go looking for porn or even compelled to look at porn isn’t true. It just flaunts itself. And the last but not least, my final reason for porn to be removed from the public is that people will begin to think it’s an art. Overall from Susan Brown Miller’s persuasive essay about how pornography has many negative influence and effects on our society, I am persuaded to agree with the conclusion of taking pornography of public shelves.
the book included considerable profanity and "filthy and profane" language that premoted premarital sex, homosexuality, and perversion, as
The Fear of Socialism and the Rise to Power of the Nazis in Germany between 1919 and 1933
for voting how they did, and many may have been torn who to give their
I believe in the fact that everyone has their own opinion and the right for freedom of speech and press. People might say that I have no opinion or that I dont know what I am talkin about because I am under 18, but I still stand behind my opinion. The recent controversy over the censorship and banning of Toni Morrisons "The Bluest Eye" is simply a group of people trying to give thier opinion. They got their right and where able to challenged the book, but are now taking this too far. I believe this should be eliminated and they should not be able to get their way by threatening their point. The mother who has challenged this book has every right to censor what her child reads. As for other parents they might want their children to read this book. I dont see how this women really sees herself as Bakersfields "parental figure" and takes it among herself to say what other peoples children may read. Personally I feel as if she thinks me and my peers too stupid to understand the meaning of the book, and not mature enough to seperate the reality of those 11 "pornographic" lines. Sex, incest, and rape are all things that are real and happen in our world. Many children are exposed to these unpleasant realities. I believe that this women is out of touch with her daughter if she thinks that her daughter does nott know what these things are. I am very insulted at the fact that she thinks it her job to take on the responsibility to choose what I can not read. I have two parents already that make fine descisions for me, I don't really need another one. Those 11 lines are said to be pornographic and probably are when taking out of text. Those 11 lines are merely particles of the total piece of literature. I have not yet read "The Bluest Eye," but plan to. This book is said to be very eduactional and a great piece of literature. Should students really be banned from reading this book because of 11 lines? If any parent does not want to have their child read a book they have every right to not let them, but this women should have no say over any one elses child except her own. Also I think it very ridiculous of her to carry this on any further than it has already gone.
is not true love, he is just in love with the the fact of being in
Shakespeare emphasizes Juliet’s age, fourteen, many times through out the play. She, like many fourteen-year-olds, is very susceptible to getting caught up in the temptation of a forbidden passion (Asimov 479). Now some might consider these fantasies as a flaw, since she gives into them, but since it is so heavily emphasized, it is not likely.
obligation for all those who love god to take care of it and all the
"What is at stake here it the right to read and be exposed to controversial, thoughts and language. The most effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy is ready access to a broad sweep of ideas and philosophies. There is no danger in such exposure. The danger is mind control especially when that control is exercised by a few over the majority" (qtd. in Hunt
...ellow Spots’ expository analysis of “the persecution of Jewish people in Germany” demonstrated the anti-Jewish violence as a larger, systematic campaign to annihilate Jews in the process of creating the Volksgemeinschaft. This clearly emphasises that people in Britain from 1936 were aware of the barbarism and cruelty of the Nazi regime, which was subsequently validated through the Holocaust. Furthermore, the book’s challenge for a “vocal and insistent protest of the civilised conscience against the Nazis” evidently suggests that particular Britain’s grasped the extensive horror of the Nazi totalitarian regime and implored that the population opposed the Nazis. Thus, the publication of ‘The Yellow Spot’ suggest that people in Britain had a significant insight into the maltreatment and prosecution of the Jews which was permeated to the core by Nazi’s racist ideology.
Perception of Women in William Shakespeare's Hamlet In Hamlet, Shakespeare carefully represents Getrude and Ophelia. Individually, Gertrude is essentially seen as weak and immoral whilst Ophelia is seen as meek and a victim of society. Collectively, they are seen to fulfil a conventional 16th century role, and it is as our beliefs and views of women change that we are able to perceive the characters in a different angle.
To some, pornography is nothing more than a few pictures of scantily clad Women in seductive poses. But pornography has become much more than just Photographs of nude women. Computer technology is providing child molesters and child pornographers with powerful new tools for victimizing children. Pornography as "the sexually explicit depiction of persons, in words or images, Sexual arousal on the part of the consumer of such materials. No one can prove those films with graphic sex or violence has a harmful effect on viewers. But there seems to be little doubt that films do have some effect on society and that all of us live with such effects.