Inciting hatred/ violence can take many forms. The multi-jurisdictional nature of the words ‘inciting violence’ carry great weight in our legal system in countering the wrongful acts that cause harm to others and raise questions of what should be counted as a legal offence as opposed to a moral offence and, further, if these two go hand in hand. While crimes such as killing or stealing may be recognised as intuitively wrong, depictions of violence shown in violent pornographic images are generally considered as comparatively ‘low value’ due to the subsidiary nature of the offence that is caused. Throughout this essay, I will be focusing on the possible causal connections between the producing, distributing and viewing violent pornography with …show more content…
This consequentialist approach to countering violence is prominent in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Mill’s Harm Principle states that ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will is to prevent harm to others.’ It should be noted that this principle excludes children, as does this essay, and does not apply to ‘backwards’ societies as both parties cannot evoke ‘free and equal discussion’. It should also be noted that Mill steers away from discussing violent pornography; however, his appeal to utility in the principle of harm ( actions that are not in the general interest of society and thus can be deemed immoral and face legal restrictions) is a sufficient ground to base this the discussion of whether violent pornography is as justifiable basis of inciting violence to restrict viewers access to it and ,in turn, their sexual autonomy. However, the circumstantial nature of the principle leaves many unanswered questions as, on the one hand, Mill upholds that the state should not intervene if someone ‘directly and in the first instance’ harms themselves (this could be both the person viewing the violent porn and and the performers in the videos) but it is also clear …show more content…
While Mill states that ‘As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it’, with issues like violent pornography that I would consider to be indirect harm as you have, in most cases, a certain level of autonomy of whether you click on the imagery, the issue of relativity does seem to arise as what may offend some, may not offend others. While I accept all illegal acts such as killing can not be viewed in this way as society would not function if restrictions of freedom were lifted on this matter, the extent of harm can vary greatly on different individuals in the case of violent pornography and may not even cause harm. For example, if the viewer has been a victim of violent abuse or sexual assault, they might be more susceptible to offence and harm due to past experiences; however, an adult who has not experienced any personal offence of this nature would maybe not react in the same way or even adopt the mentality of validating that form of violent behaviour towards men and woman. Either way, while showing a victim of abuse violent imagery would not be a kind thing to do, or chancing an unaffected adults belief systems to change, the offence that is caused
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).
Kristol, I. (1971). Pornography, obscenity, and the case for censorship. In L. Faigley & J. Selzer (Eds.), “Good reasons with contemporary arguments.” (pp. 535-538). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
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
...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.
Mill stated the ‘classic liberal view of the relationship between law and morality’, introducing the Harm Principle: ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’.
***Mill spends a substantial amount of time exhibiting his harm principle by saying, “that actions can only be punished when they harm others.”2 I feel that the most primitive and obvious issue is whether Mill’s harm princi...
Some of the governing models of moral panics include Jock Young (1971) and Stanley Cohen (1972). Stanley Cohen fabricated the idea of moral panics in his book Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), whilst Jock Young concentrated more on the correlation of deviance amplification and drug taking. The main feature of a moral panic is deviance amplification; this was looked at in more detail by Stanley Cohen (1972) in what he called the deviancy amplification spiral. Some examples of media moral panics include; internet pornography, violence in video games, immigration, single parents etc… Moral panics can affect the public’s perceptions of crime in many ways, making the ext... ... middle of paper ... ...
According to John Davidson's essay Menace to Society, "three-quarters of Americans surveyed [are] convinced that movies, television and music spur young people to violence." While public opinion is strong, the results of research are divided on the effects of media violence on the youth in this country. Davidson wrote that most experts agree that some correlation between media violence and actual violent acts exists, yet the results are contradictory and researchers quibble about how the effects are to be measured (271). Moreover, Davidson is not convinced that the media is the sole problem of violence, or even a primary problem. He points out that other factors, such as "poverty, the easy accessibility of guns, domestic abuse, [and] social instability" may have a greater impact on a child becoming violent than the influence of the media (277). Even though other forces may be stronger, media violence does have some adverse effects on the members of society. If senseless violence on television and in movies had no effect, it would not be such a hotly debated topic. What type of effects and whom they affect are the most argued aspects of the discussion.
Does entertainment influence society's attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one's powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another; examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, music, and novels. Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come to a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored.
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.
He also states that if you are causing harm to yourself, the government shall not involve themselves. Different forms of harm are applicable, such as physical harm, property damage, and emotional harm. Mill also explains that harm, in whatever form to others, can be the result of an action or the result of inaction. Both of these are a violation of the harm principle and the government has the right to step in; it does not matter whether harm was caused by the result of your action or inaction to the situation. The harm principle’s purpose is to be able to only let government interfere with human society when one is causing harm to another, therefore limiting government control....
A moral panic can be defined as a phenomenon, frequently initiated by disquieting media and reinforced by responsive laws and public policies, of embellished public concern, angst or anger over a perceived danger to societal order (Krinsky, 2013). The media plays a crucial role in emphasizing a current moral panic. In Jock Young’s chapter Images of Deviance (1971), he comments on the phenomenon of deviance magnification, he deems dramatic media coverage of deviant behaviours to be ironic, owing to the fact that it unintentionally increases rather than restrains the apparent deviance. In hind sight the media create social problems, owing to the fact that they can present them dramatically and are able to do it swiftly (Young & Cohen, 1971: 37).
In the today’s society, social media has gone out of hand. Most people these days have a cell phone, Ipad and/or laptop and most definitely a television at their home. Therefore, access to pornography has become extremely easy and can be available to any individual in less than 5 minutes. The best definition of pornography can be explained as sexually explicit words or images intended to provoke sexual arousal. The easy access to porn has raised many people to question if porn is harmful, if it should be censored, and if it is unsafe. Many debates have been going on about porn concerning freedom of rights, speech, and entertainment and right of privacy. The main people to have argued on this point are Catherine Mackinnon and philosopher J.S. Mill.
In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.
Parents are the desired target audience of these stories which is evident through the mentioning of “children” and “youth”. Both news reports state that the media available to children today has proven to be devastating on the way they portray everyday life events. “Music Video Ban” is about a graphically violent music video produced by Perth band Beaverloop, creating outrage in society. “Video Game Violence” is a story about the effect of both suitable and non-suitable video games on children, supported by interviews and a psychiatric case study. In “Music Video Ban” to heighten the seriousness of this situation, the Columbine massacre is randomly mentioned and images of victims’ families are shown. This is to ‘help’ the viewer in understanding the attitude given, and reveals the possibilities of what can happen when access to violent media is too broad. In the “Video Game Violence” story, images of a devastated family from an incident involving a copy-cat murder are displayed. The ideas were taken from an R-rated Australian film known as “Bad Boy Bubby” and were used on Perth girl Natasha in her sleep by her 17 year old boyfriend. This is evidence enough that even the most unexpected can be influenced by meaningless entertainment media. The stories are shown to be warnings for parents around Australia to keep careful watch over what their children are exposed to and through graphic examples, express that failure is not an option.