Suppose one accepts MacKinnon and Dworkin's suggested statutory definition of pornography. How does one who generally accepts MacKinnon and Dworkin's views on the pervasively harmful effect of pornography, and who accepts a need for legal redress of the harms perpetrated by pornography, deal with pornographic material?
The ordinance proposed by MacKinnon and Dworkin would deal with such material by enacting legislation which gives people adversely affected by the works, which clearly fit their definition of pornography, a cause of action against the producers, vendors, exhibitors or distributors for "trafficking", or for an assault "directly caused by the specific work.
I do not think liberals, or others for that matter, should have much problem with the clause dealing with assault, since a causal connection to specific works is demanded by it. However,
s. 3.2(iii) which deals with trafficking would be very problematic for liberals and legal conservatives because it creates a cause of action for a person contrary to the traditional conception of a rights holder's cause of action.
This subsection reads:
Any woman has a claim hereunder as a woman acting
against the subordination of women. Any man, child or
transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the
way women are injured by it also has a claim.
[emphasis added]
My goal in this paper is to suggest that a slight modification to this subsection of the ordinance would make it very difficult for liberals and legal conservatives to object to
it. This modification would restrict the cause of action to the same persons as the other sections of the ordinance, namely, the particular victim of the specified injury. I shall argue that
such a modification would largely cohere with the conception of harm already at work in Ontario law, would afford only a minor reduction in the potential efficacy of such legislation in curbing the harm of pornography, and would offer to empower the feminist camp which is behind such an ordinance with a mechanism for social and political change if a sufficiently organized
2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?
Pornography Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The United States. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 27-52.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
...ealize that there are men out there who have sick minds and the use of pornography adds to the power of their horrifying acts. I think women should stand up and fight for the rights they know they deserve. Women should be able to see themselves in a sexual matter without having to feel submissive, used, and dehumanized at the same moment. We women are powerful and I hope more powerful women like MacKinnon and Dworkin stand up, for then men will have no choice but to face the fact that it’s wrong and it’s going to change forever.
Ordinance as the source of rights, privileges, and immunities." The Yale law journal. no. 7 (2011): 1820.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
...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.
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.
...pornography often objectify women and force them into submissive positions in movies and society. But pornography has a detrimental affect on men as well, in that it “hurts men’s capacity to relate to women” (189). Generally, men consider it is better to have power, and do not recognize the need for men and women to work together. Pornography is one of the largest obstacles that prevents men from seeing this truth, and the practice should be banned. Even according to MacKinnon’s definition of pornography, sexually explicit material could remain legal if it portrayed both sexes equally. However, this can not happen until men and women are equal in society. If this is accomplished, the male need to view pornography would drastically decrease. Women could become part of the power structure and world on their own terms. Gender equality would be a victory for both sexes.
Again, there are different ideas of what is considered pornographic from artwork, movies, and books. While one may look at a painting that depicts nude forms or read a book that includes sexual acts may not see this as a form of pornography while others would find it morally offensive. Feminist would argue that the morality of porn is it is degrading and humiliating to those involved, not of its sexual nature. Their concern is that it promotes sexism and violence against women or children. “What is objectionable about pornography…is its abusive and degrading portrayal of females and female sexuality, not its content or explicitness” (Rodgerson & Wilson, 1994) However, others may feel that it is sexually liberating and in no way degrading to those involved. Those women feel in control of their sexuality and choose to participate in acts as a way of expressing themselves while feeling it has no barring on their moral character. While others would argue that it promotes immoral behavior which would lead to criminal acts or an unhealthy obsession with sex. “The most commonly feared adverse effects of pornography include undesirable sexual behaviors (e.g. adultery), sexual aggression, and loss of respect for traditional family structures and values, loss of respect for authorities, and a general nonspecific moral decay.” (Hald & Linz,
Laura Kipnis has described pornography as “an archive of data about...our history as a culture”. Therefore if, she described it as such, what can it tell us about the sexual history of the 20th century? Examining the history of the forms of archive from pornographic playing cards to blu-ray discs and the internet, this shows the ever changing form of how as a society we view pornography. From the forms of archive come the social implications of pornography. This will be examined through the 1986 Meese Commission in the United States of America into the pornographic industry. Finally, this exposition will also examine the differing views of Gay and Straight pornography and the changes that have taken over the 20th century. Overall, the 20th century was a fundamental shift in sexual attitudes towards pornography.
Many feminist theories believe that pornography is part of male culture and the patriarchy in which women are exploited and abused. In fact, one of radical feminism philosophy’s primary concerns is pornography as they believe porn degrades women and that women involved in the industry are physically damaged by patriarchy, as pornography as often directed by male pornographers (McElroy 2016). Renowned radical feminist Andrea Dworkin explored issues like misogyny and pornography. Dworkin spoke out for several causes, primarily in ending violence against women. Her famous work Pornography: men possessing women (1981) argues that porn teaches men to rape and violently abuse women. However, studies show that watching pornography its self does not cause any considerable social harm. Despite this, it is true that the adult industry itself can be torturous and
...raising our voices and using freedom of speech will make more of a difference. I also agree with Mill because though Mackinnon talks about how women are oppressed because of porn, I am sure there are a number of other causes that lead to oppression, not just porn. For instance, if porn was to be censored, I doubt that would immediate abolish rape cases and sexism. I feel like if we let the government control what we watch, we, as a society, will let the government control our lives. We may even lose the simplest privileges and rights we have as individuals. I believe porn is not immoral because, again, it does not cause harm to individuals in society, besides the individual watching it their self. Many people may think that people should not spend money or time on porn but the opinions of the majority should never control the individuals right to choose.
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.