Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on individual liberty
the principle of individual freedom
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: essay on individual liberty
The Offense Principle claims that individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent offensive behavior. I believe that the Offense Principle provides the correct liberty limit n principles that the state should invoke. The state should prevent behavior that causes shame, embarrassment and discomfort from pornographic material and cts.There are three conditions that are typically understood to be part of the Offense Principle. The first condition states that behavior must be significantly offensive.
A person burping in public is not offensive enough to be limited under this condition. But a man urinating as he walks down the street is significantly offensive and should be limited.The second condition states that the behavior must be offensive to almost everyone. This is an important condition because I think that if only a few people find something offensive, does not constitute the act to be limited. Many people may believe that someone picking his nose in public is offensive but not almost everyone believes this act to be offensive, therefore, this act could not be limited.
A man masturbating in public is offensive to almost everyone, therefore, this act should be limited.The final condition states that an offensive act should be limited if you have to go out of your way to avoid the act. An "adult" bookstore containing pornographic material should not be limited because one does not have to go out of their way to avoid the store. They simply just do not enter into the store. But a man and woman having sex on a bench should be limited because one would have to restrain from looking in certain directions to avoid seeing the offensive act.I believe that pornography in public should be banned.
This includes stores that sell pornographic material. Instead, these magazines and other pornographic materials should be kept separately in a private room, where you must be an adult to enter and purchase materials. Pornographic material that is kept privately either to be sold or to be viewed or used in the privacy of one's home, should not be banned. I see absolutely no reason why a person should not be allowed to view pornographic material in the privacy of their own home.Some people may argue with me and say that the Harm Principle should be invoked by the government. They may say that pornography increases the likelihood of harm. And I somewhat agree.
I am sure that some harm has occurred because of pornography.
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.
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.
Imagine a place where you have access to anything and everything one could want. Some would say that is only existent in a utopia, and some would say that describes the Internet. Many adults go on to the net and access pornographic material that would be unsuitable for children. This is called cyberporn. The controversy lies in the fact that children are accessing these materials also. Government, activist groups, and concerned parents are fighting to regulate obscene material found over the Internet to protect children. The first amendment is the only thing protecting adults from losing their rights to obtain pornographic or indecent material on the net. Under the first amendment the government must not regulate cyberporn. Online sex has been around since the first bulletin boards were available over the computer in the early 1980's. People would pay to down load pornographic pictures and talk dirty to each other. Usenet groups took control of porn after the Internet came about. They did not charge people to down load picture and to interact with others. In result, Internet porn grew (Rosen 16). Things have changed drastically since then with over a million different sites available to access porn. Now it is not just for adults. Children are accessing the obscene materials. This brings rise to issues of how to protect them from problems that can arise. The materials they view, could influence children. They could also be subjected to cybersex in a chat room full of people that could be three times their age. Worst of all pedophilias could influence children to meet with them outside of the computer. The government and the United States citizens must now figure out how to protect our children from the effects of cyberporn, and y...
Therefore, there would be 1) a wrongful disliked mental state 2) in violation of a persons rights (setback to their interests) in order for something to violate the offense principle. Only wrongful disliked mental states in violation of a persons right allows for the need to prevent “some people from wrongfully offending others” through the use of legislation (Feinberg, p. 1). However, the offensive act “must be taken by the offended person to wrong him [or her] whether in fact it does or not” (Feinberg, p. 2). The use of the swastika armband is a good example of offense in the strict sense. This is because the conventional symbol is deemed offensive and wrong whether or not the victim feels that they have been wronged when being confronted with it (Feinberg, p. 2). Subsequently, the very existence of the swastika has a profound offensiveness to it whether seen or not. It is not simply that the swastika symbol on the armband causes personal resentment or caused an experience that one would like to avoid, but it is the fact that “one is outraged at the offending conduct [of the wearing of swastika armband] quite independent of the effect on oneself” (Feinberg, “Offenses to Others”, p. 93). Simply because it offensive in and of
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.
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).
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.
Maybe a good place to start with this question is to define the terms “pornography” and “obscenity”. According to the text Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media, “pornography is a broad term used to describe all material that is sexually explicit and intended for the purpose of sexual arousal”. (Zelezny, p. 448). The term “obscenity”, according to the same text, “has taken on a narrower legal meaning, indicating a class of sexual material so offensive that it is deemed by the Supreme Court to have virtually no First Amendment protection” (Zelezny, p. 448).
The First Amendment was established to protect the citizens of the United States from the government overstepping their power. Since pornography is a form of expression many feminist writers like Susan Jacoby and Susan Brownmiller have argued on whether or not pornography should be protected by the First Amendment. Jacoby, writer of “A First Amendment Junkie” argues that “any form of censorship of pornography is wrong” (46). Brownmiller, the writer of “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet”, on the other hand, argues that “using realistic and humane contemporary community standards” legislators should decide “what can be displayed and what cannot” (60). Both Jacoby and Brownmiller make solid points to help sway their audience to agree with
While it is certainly interesting to see how deeply pornography has permeated our culture, it does nothing to show whether this is good or bad. Many defend their right to record, publish, sell, buy, and view pornography, but that is not the real question. Rational people will decide for themselves what they should do about it and parents will decide what they need to do for their children, but first pornography must analyzed. Only after the pros and cons are measured should the policy be altered.
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.
Pornography on the Internet creates many unwanted vices in today's society. Internet pornography should have stricter laws and regulations or even better, pornography should be banned from the Internet.
Hence censorship is essential in order to maintain peace and stability in the society. It will decrease the crime rates. Children can be exposed to sexual matters in school in a different manner as education. Excessive amount of sexual explicit material would surely be harmful. Censorship does not have a downside and it will be a better society.
...p websites. Most families do not have Internet filters on their home computers, nor are those filters able to be used on cellular devices, which are getting into the hands of kids at younger and younger of ages. So, why not reconstruct how the Internet is set up? I don’t necessarily believe that sexual health information should be blocked from the youth, but I do believe that dating sites and pornographic material should be. The government should take the extra step and section off sexual content websites that are not suitable for all ages into an Internet portal that is accessible only to people that can provide proof of identification, such as an identification card that is issued by the state. If people have to have form of identification to purchase or rent pornographic material in stores, why shouldn’t they have to do so when viewing content on the Internet?
One of the unique challenges to regulating or settling on the appropriate way to regulate is that there is no concrete definition of pornography. While law enforcement bodies such as the police, prosecutors and judges, are accustomed to dealing with issues that are exclusive to the United States, the Internet is a worldwide community with servers and members coming from hundreds of countries. Defining "pornographic content" on a global level has not been easy because of different moral and legal variations. In the United States one type of act may be defined as being "hard-core porn", however, another country could see this act as much less offensive. So while the United States may try to regulate one level of pornography, a person could go find it on a website launched from another country. This is one the problems that is being acknowledged when trying to find a way of dealing with the pornography on the Internet.