Many of you have taken an interest in my studies, so I wanted to share a short paper of mine. It was written for a philosophy class, I am taking this quarter; Human Rights and Social Justice. The paper is an analysis of two articles which discuss civil legislation on pornography. I hope you enjoy...

 

 

 

Anti-Pornography Legislation

 

Pornography and the adult entertainment industry are a part of is a growing trade world wide but along with its growing popularity comes increased scrutiny by many of it adversaries. Pornography is the presentation or production of sexually explicit material whether it is written or visual used to trigger sexual arousal in its audience. A debate has been waged, whether pornographic material should be legally protected or legally regulated. Supporters and opponents have developed arguments which they solidly stand by. Feminist groups along side religious groups stand at the forefront of the opposition. In an article entitled, "Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech," Catherine MacKinnon, a lawyer and known feminist discusses her conflict with pornography and the measures she and feminist writer Andrea Dworkin took to try to have women who were negatively affected by pornography be able to take civil ramifications against the producers and manufacturers. Feminists feel that pornography is detrimental to society's views of women. In a time where women should be continuing to solidify their equality in society, pornography is seen to negatively effect the movement, to them it is nothing but a public abuse of women; sexualizing them and putting them in a vulnerable and submissive state. Whereas allies of pornography feel that it mere fantasy and such harsh criticisms can be seen as a slippery slope, grouping all pornography into one category when it caters to and is made for a variety of preferences. In Martha Nussbaum's, "Sex and Social Justice," she discusses at length in her chapter 'Rage and Reason,' her objection to Dworkin and MacKinnon's approach. Nussbaum brings forth points of objection within MacKinnon and Dworkin's push for pornography to possess a civil ordinance policy. Pornography is a sensitive subject that oscillates between morality and violation of civil rights.

"Pornography sexualizes rape, battery, sexual harassment, prostitution, and child sexual abuse; it thereby celebrates, promotes, authorizes, and legitimizes them...it erotizes the dominance and submission that is the dynamic common to them all" ("Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech," MacKinnon, p. 369), because of these negative connotations associated with pornography, feminist like Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin began an attack against pornography. They proposed that women be able to sue the distributors and manufacturers for damages under the Civil Right Acts. By request of the city of Minneapolis, Dworkin and MacKinnon designed a local human rights ordinance in agreement with their approach to pornography. "We define pornography as a practice of sex discrimination, a violation of women's civil rights, the opposite of sexual equality. Its point is to hold those who profit from and benefit from that injury accountable to those who are injured. It means that women's injury-our damage, or pain, our enforced inferiority- should outweigh their pleasure and their profits, or sex equality is meaningless," ("Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech," MacKinnon, p. 372) During the hearings experiences from the public that supported the argument about the damaging effects of pornography were brought forth. Their testimonials discussed various sexual experiences in which men tried to reenact sex acts they viewed in pornographic material. The hearing showed that both men and women were being negatively affected by such images and that it did not just affect heterosexuals, a gay male testified saying the images depicted in Playboy and Penthouse he had seen as a child gave him a harmful view of sex. "It was one of the places I learned about sex and it showed me that sex was violence...the woman was to be used...the man was in a superior position...I learned that what it meant to be sexual with a man or to be loved by a man was to accept this violence"("Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech," MacKinnon, pp. 375-376), and therefore he did when he was abused by his first lover. MacKinnon continually expresses the idea that pornography places women in a state of inferiority and makes it difficult for males to view women in any other way, "...pornography conditions male orgasm to female subordination. It tells men what sex means, what a real women is, and codes them together in a way that is behaviorally reinforcing" ("Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech," MacKinnon, p.376).

In a society where women are still struggling to prove their equality, pornography can be seen as a step in the wrong direction. Supporters of the ordinance argued that the legislation was a civil rights measure whose purpose was to fight sex discrimination whereas the defense proposed it as a First Amendment Right. Supporters felt the ordinance regulated conduct rather than free speech and thus did not violate the First Amendment. They argued that even if pornography was viewed as speech, it should be treated as a low level form of speech similar to "'fighting words' speech which, 'by {its} very utterance inflicts injury,'" ("Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech," MacKinnon, p. 378) such words are not entitled to First Amendment protection. âecePerhaps the only reason that pornography has not been 'fighting words'- in the sense of words that by their utterance tend to incite immediate breach of the peace- is that women have seldom fought back, yet" ("Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech," MacKinnon, p. 378). MacKinnon feels that women "will never have that dignity, security, compensation that is the promise of equality so long as the pornography exists as it does now" ("Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech," MacKinnon, p. 380)

In Martha Nussbaum's "Sex and Social Justice," more specifically the chapter entitled 'Rage and Reason' she addresses how one might find objection to Mackinnon and Dworkin's proposal. However, Nussbaum does agree from a moral stand point pornography can be seen as problematic and such representations of women may âececontribute in some ways to the general climate of violence against women that is among our pressing social problems, (Nussbaum, "Sex and Social Justice," p. 248) she must note that there are still some soft spots in their argument that bring about reasonable objections.

First, Nussbaum feels that MacKinnon and Dworkin never differentiated the distinction between law and morals. She presents that even though Dworkin seems to agree with John Stuart Mills "harm" principle; the objection to laws against the merely offensive and the fact that the case could have been argued on that basis for regulation of pornography, she never addresses this in her case. Second, "the casual links between pornography and any particular case of harm may simply be too difficult to establish" (Nussbaum, "Sex and Social Justice," p. 248). It is too hard to distinguish how much guilt should be placed on the pornography industry, when men are receiving such images from many different avenues with in the media. "Third, it is unclear under what circumstances we should hold the producer of a work liable for harms it inflicts," (Nussbaum, "Sex and Social Justice," p. 248). If authors and producers began being responsible for how others choose to interpret their words, they may begin to repress their speech out fear of repercussion, therefore affecting freedom of speech. Lastly, the ordinance may be abused in practice by judges, "the history of obscenity law shows us that work of high human value is likely to be targeted while much harmful trash escapes unscathed" (Nussbaum, "Sex and Social Justice," p. 249). Nussbaum feels that through a combination of the stated objections she opposes Dworkin and MacKinnonâeTMs ordinance, though she does recognize the violence against women that needs to be address, but attacking pornography is just too narrowly focused.

Dworkin and MacKinnon focused predominately on the negativity of pornography and only from a male perspective to build their case. I feel they were so one-sided it made it hard to completely view pornography with such negativity. I feel their argument wasn't rational and based solely on opinion, so, I would agree with Nussbaum on her view of opposition against their ordinance, there are just too many loop holes. Personally, I feel pornography has come a long way and that women can find empowerment through pornography. Women are now very much involved in the production and manufacturing of pornography. Why must we view sex in porn as rape, why can't the women be taking control of their sexuality and using it in a liberating way? They are choosing to express themselves sexually. If someone possesses a negative, inferior outlook on women they are going to have that view whether or not they view pornography. Pornography displays both females in a dominate role as well as in equal partnership with men, to me it is merely fantasy and you take from it what you choose. To me pornography caters to all and includes willing participants of legal age. Where it should be regulated and closely examined is where minors are being exploited. People have their sexual preferences and regardless if pornography is around or not they will continue to explore their sexuality and it is not our place to control such exploration. We should be focusing our energy on the violence against women, but in my opinion pornography is not the starting point of such an issue.