Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment.
In addition to bolstering my argument in favor of pornography, I will also demonstrate the strength the argument has in modern discourse by dispelling common myths in favor of the censorship of pornography, such as the increase in violence towards, the subjugation of, and objectification of women, and I will subsequently offer a substantial rebuttal.
DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY
To sufficiently take a side in the ever-growing debate of pornography, one must first define the concept around which this discourse surrounds itself. A working definition for pornography is a piece of material that has the object purpose of arousing erotic feelings. Radical feminists, however, strictly define it as “the act of sexual subordination of women” (Dworkin 1986).
The existence of pornography is not a new invention. For years, humans have found certain depictions to be sexually arousing. Holmes and Holmes (2009), for example discuss how in ancient civilizations, Mesopotamia, for example, there were depictions of men and women in sexually explicit scenes on various household goods, such as plates and washbasi...
... middle of paper ...
...of pornography as an expression that should be defended. I have described ways that pornography is currently being battled for in modern legislation, as well as the Liberal Feminist arguments for pornography as expression. The Radical Feminist arguments against pornography were addressed and negated, as not having any empirical support to their theoretical claims. Pornography has no substantial evidence in favor of harm to women, in terms of subjugation or violence, and therefore cannot be regulated as a form of free speech.
In conclusion, pornography is the perfect example of an unpopular form of speech. It is despised by many, but is nonetheless a necessary part of our society. Without the protection of unpopular speech, we cannot move forward as a society that fosters new ideas. If we do not protect the voice of the unpopular, then we cannot call ourselves free.
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.
Susan Brownmiller is a feminist, the founder of Women Against Pornography, and an author of several books (57). The essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” comes from the book Take Back the Night, published in 1980 (57). She clearly wants to inform and persuade the audience of this essay to believe that pornography is degrading to women. In her introduction, Brownmiller tries to gain the reader’s sympathy by stating, “Free speech is one of the great foundations on which our democracy rests” (57). However, she does not think that pornography should be protected under the First Amendment. Her reasoning is biased and based on her own moral beliefs.
A pornographic world [What is normal] by Robert Jensen takes an inside look at the culture of masculinity and what role pornography takes in shaping that culture. Jensen describes how he was forced to play a “macho” role as a child out of fear of being bullied and ridiculed for not being manly enough. Pornography use started for him and his friends in grade school – they would steal magazines and hide them to share in a group later. He talks of how he learned of a social concept, called the “ideal of prostitution” (the notion of men “buying” women in various forms of undress, solely for their pleasure), at a young age. While there has always been a stigma around pornography, whether stemming from moral or religious reasons, Jenson continued to use porn until his 30s.
Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” is an persuasive essay written by Susan Brown Miller stating and giving her reasons on why she thinks pornography should be removed from all the shelves in America. She goes on to state what kind of influence porn has negatively on society, and how it’s no good in our society to persuade readers that pornography should be taken off of public shelves. In her article, she does state very valid points and substantial reasons why pornography should be removed from shelves. But also, she does sound a lot like a person who is very critical of something that she believes is wrong morals wise because that’s how she was raised perhaps. Some of the methods she uses are the analogy method, quantitative method, and some emotional appeal as well. She also has some unsupported generalizations that she had made up herself. Either way, there were a few instances to where I was completely against with Miller’s arguments, but they were outweighed by the instances where I did agree with Miller. In all, this essay persuades me to support her opinion on pornography being taken out the public shelves because of the valid reasons and points that she used to support her opinion.
Susan Jacoby, in her essay entitled “A First Amendment Junkie,” attacks those who believe that the first amendment should not be cause for the continuation of public obscenity. Jacoby, adamant defender of the first amendment, questions those who wish for the freedom of expression to be denied in the case of pornography, yet seem complacent about the racism and sexism that comes from freedom of speech as well. Additionally, Jacoby argues that it is too difficult to distinguish pornography from beauty and art from obscenity. One person may see David as a wonder to behold, and yet another may look at it as degrading towards men. Jacoby believes that rather than censorship-supporters controlling what their family watches, they want the government
Brownmiller first acknowledges that “free speech is one of the great foundations on which our democracy rests” (57). However, she then argues that the First Amendment was not established to protect obscene images. In arguing on what is considered obscene the Court made some guidelines that follow: “The materials are obscene if they lack depict patently offensive, hard-core sexual conduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; and appeal to the prurient interest of an average person- as measured by contemporary community standards” (Brownmiller 59). Brownmiller argues that feminist object to pornography because they believe that pornography, “dehumanizes the female body for the purpose of erotic stimulation and pleasure” (59). Brownmiller then states that even women with fit bodies will feel insecure and embarrassed seeing other women’s body parts shown in such a degrading ways. She makes a valid point in saying that pornography may give rapist the idea that what they do is simply giving into natural urges. She also shows that pornography, “encourages women to believe that sexual masochism is healthy, liberated and fun” (59). In order to help those who are hurt by pornography Brownmiller suggests to censor out what the average person considers obscene. She then explains that with the help of the Courts and legislator’s, pornography will no longer be a threat to men, women, and
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.
Proof of this is women becoming more free during the Jennings 6 Counterculture of the 1960s, but also Playboy rising in popularity at the same time. Wolf is sure to clarify that sexual explicitness is not the issue at hand. The real issue lies in the interpretation of what sexual explicitness is. She argues that if the full spectrum of erotic images were shown with no censor, beauty pornography would be harmless. Instead, we are fed images of “living mannequins, made to contort and grimace, immobilized, and uncomfortable under hot lights” (136).
In their work, Penley et al. define feminist pornography as, “[using] sexually explicit imagery to contest and complicate dominant representations of gender, sex, race, ethnicity, class, ability, age, body type, and other identity markers” (2013: 9). By depicting marginalized identities as desirable and in positions of control, feminist pornography seeks to challenge heteronormative representations of sex and gender where men are dominant. It also seeks to display alternative forms of attraction and pleasure that are not portrayed in the media in an attempt to destigmatize wide a range of sexual acts and identities. Penley et al. further define feminist pornography as a political movement; thus, pornography can be used to transform how sexuality is expressed and practiced throughout society
‘I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.’ (P. Stewart, US Supreme Court’) Justice Potter Stewart’s remarks in the Jacobellis Vs. Ohio Supreme Court case are infamous in both American law and pop culture. Since the inception of the first amendment, American law has excluded the use of profanity or obscene content from protected free speech. However, as Justice Stewart stated, courts and lawmakers have routinely struggled to outline what constitutes obscenities…… This struggle is largely in part to the fluid dynamic of morality in society.
Susan Brownmiller’s essay Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet is the argument as to whether or not pornography should be protected by the first amendment. Her essay also brings up points regarding pornography that is degrading to women and how some consider educational material to be pornographic.
Sven Birkerts, as noted in Tribble and Trubek, speaks about the downfall of printed text. "This shift [from printed word] is happening throughout our culture, away from the patterns and habits of the printed page and toward a new world distinguished by its reliance on electronic communucatuins"(63). Pornography has not been left in the dark regarding this phenomenon, and is blazing its own trail as it goes. Internet porn is breaking ground for a “sexual liberation” of sorts as well as becoming a full-fledged addiction for some and a means for artistic expression for others.
In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.
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.
Pornography in legal terms is “any sexually explicit work deemed obscene according to legal criteria and therefore exempt from freedom of speech protections (Hock, 569). My definition of pornography would consider any printed or visual material that contains the explicit display of sexual organs or activity, with the intent to stimulate erotic behavior. I believe wholeheartedly that pornography is very discriminating towards women and I agree with the five basic ideas that Catherine MacKinnon advocates. Her basic ideas are as follows: Pornography, by its very nature, is discrimination against women which in turn advocates and justifies rape. The distinctions between sexually explicit materials and actions they depict are meaningless. Pornography reflects and constitutes male domination and dehumanization of women as well as objectifying women by portraying them as nothing more than tools or male pleasure. Pornography represents men’s power over women in society and embodies the dehumanization of women in an already male dominated world (Hock, 573).