Author Nigel Warburton makes an interesting point in his book Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction, specifically in chapter four discussing pornography, when he writes "pornography presents a difficult challenge to anyone who believes in freedom of expression. Should pornography be tolerated, in all its manifestations, provided that no one is directly harmed in its making; or are there more important values at stake here than freedom?" (59) When discussing freedom of speech and censoring pornography, one has to ask: is pornography (Warburton specifies "hardcore pornography) speech and should it be protected as such? If it's not considered speech in any important way, Warburton argues, then it shouldn't be protected as such (60). However, could it be protected as artistic expression, and if so, to what extent?
Looking particularly to our readings for class this week, Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women's Equality by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon and Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights by Nadine Strossen, it's clear that they take opposite positions on the topic of censoring pornography, particularly when it involves women's rights. Dworkin and MacKinnon argue that porn should be considered a question of "personal injury and collective abuse" (24) rather than it typically is: a question of morality and virtue. They make an argument that porn should be censored because it "increases social levels of violence, hostility, and discrimination" (25) and make a point to say that it perpetuates rape and child sexual abuse (25). They state "What it [pornography] does is subordinate women, usually through sexually explicit words and pictures" (38). Essentially, they do not agree with the statement that porn is liberating for women or allows for women to experience freedom in their sexuality. Rather, it continues the trend of men (who are largely in control of the porn industry) taking advantage of women for their own gain.
Nadine Strossen has a different take, however. She writes "[...] Historically, information about sex, sexual orientation, reproduction and birth control, has been banned under the guise of the 'protection' of women. [...] It is the right of every woman to read, view, or produce the sexual material she chooses without the intervention of the state 'for her own good'" (11). In Strossen's opinion, porn should not be censored because it allows women to explore "forbidden" topics that were previously hid from them, and allows for the betterment of women and their personal lives/freedom. She claims that this kind of censorship "poses a serious threat not only to human rights in general but also to women's rights in particular" (15).
This is an extremely difficult topic to come to any kind of succinct conclusion on, but I want to ask everyone: Should porn be censored? Who do you agree with, Dworkin and MacKinnon or Strossen?
I'm not entirely sure which author I agree with more. To me porn is more of an "art" or "video art" because it is technically considered the film industry and therefore the "movies" they make are considered movies. I did a little Googling and it turns out that all movies are covered by freedom of speech unless they break the law (aka child pornography). DO you remember the when the movie the Interview was released? The entire world was in an uproar about the ideas it expressed and hinted at. I believe North Korea even banned the movie and most movie providers such as Netflix wouldn't offer it as an options for its viewers. Well I saw it offered as an option while scrolling through Netflix the other day. The point I'm trying to make is that every movie, adult film or not, can create a wave of shouting but unless it breaks the laws it will not be punished under the government's laws. So technically, movies are covered by the freedom of speech right?
ReplyDeleteI agree Nicole, I'm not sure which author I agree with entirely, either. Even my own opinions while reading this blog post were changing throughout. At first, I didn't believe that pornography needed to be any different than it is now. Then, while reading the different points, made, there is something to say for pornography spreading ideas that might be harmful, such as the abuse and control of women and children. That being said, however, there is also something to be said about women having the right to their own bodies and being able to do things as they wish, without laws and regulations against it.
DeleteThat's an interesting fact you found about movies, I had no idea. But I do remember that film being released. While I don't agree with how the movie handled the topics that it did, I do very much agree that films should be protected under freedom of speech unless the content is deliberately violent or harmful to a person or group.
Both authors bring up very important points about freedom and oppression, but they have very different ways of dealing with them. I think that Mackinnon and Dworkin make some valuable observations about pornography and possible dangers it presents. For example, coercion and assault committed against sex workers is something that needs to be talked about. I also think it is fair to want to give sex workers a way to sue people who have mistreated them in the industry--so I think the ideas behind "the Ordinance" have some merit, even if I believe a lot of it simply amounts to an attempt at censorship. That being said, I think Strossen's evaluation of the anti-pornography text addresses a lot of the very issues I have with it as well. Most importantly, that it is censorship. I think ideas, even if they are personal ideas and not critiques upon society as a whole, can be communicated via sexual art and pornography. So by putting rules on what is and isn't allowed within pornography, many people have their first amendment rights stripped from them. I agree with Strossen when she says that violence against women is a problem, just not one that will be solved by creating laws which actually limit women's abilities. We need greater societal change in order to protect women--both sex workers and non-sex workers alike.
ReplyDeleteI found both articles interesting, but noticed they focused heavily on the women. Mackinnon and Dworkin both strongly opposed and critique the horrible parts effects the pornography industry has on women. Their critiques are rightly made, but as Strossen notes, they choose to decide all pornography should be banned instead of changed. Strossen looked at pornography to have faults, rightly so, but also believed that the government should not step in to "protect" women from erotic images. Strossen then goes on to list various scenarios where women felt uncomfortable of art or semi-nude to nude images in public places and had those images removed or covered. This part is a step away from the porn industry, but she makes her point that these censorings have infringed on the freedom of speech. I think that if both articles were taken into consideration, the pornography industry could find ways to make porn less degrading to women and less harmful toward women. However, both articles are cautious about talking about women who freely watch pornography for their own entertainment and pleasure or delve into research on women created pornography, which are both areas that would have made this conversation better rounded. Additionally, while the authors were all feminists, I think it would have been good to look more into the male perspective of this topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these arguments are both rather sex-negative in the sense that they seem to ignore that women can and do experience sexual feelings and actions. They especially erase women (and people of any gender!) who desire to take part in or consume "hardcore porn" because they genuinely enjoy it. These people (especially people who want to be in such pornography) are certainly a minority, but they are not nonexistent. Why is it our right to take their freedom to express themselves away, even if the content they produce is offensive to us? Also, for the reading today, the author seems to suggest that hardcore pornography should be censored for the good of children (p. 87-88). I found this problematic. This is reminiscent of the old conservative "but family values!!" argument. There are better ways to keep children safe than censorship. It reminds me of the tumblr porn ban; trying to make the internet "Family friendly" seems to often be code for "let's get rid of people's rights to express themselves, especially if they're from a marginalized group."
DeleteI agree, Sarah, I thought it was strange! I also wondered how these authors would feel about pornography that does not depict straight sex (ie gay male sex or two women) and whether or not this would affect their views on what should or should not be restricted
DeleteI thought it was strange too, especially since males are so much more open about watching porn and enjoying it, while women aren't vocal about it. I do think that porn is oppressing women, while the men in the videos are just there for enjoyment. While it is important to consider the female perspective, the attitudes towards porn won't change until men are involved in the conversation and recognize the sexism involved.
DeleteHi Kaitlyn! After reading Dworkin and MacKinnon, I had trouble articulating exactly what I disagreed with in "The Ordinance". While it is clear that pornography can encourage misogyny and violence against women, I hesitate when I think of censoring porn. I agree with Strossen when she points out that the historical censorship of porn can be seen as an infringement on women's rights. By censoring porn, we disenfranchise voices that the state deems to be "harmed" by sexual content. These voices, like Elaine and Sarah pointed out, do not just belong to women, however. Censorship of porn can infringe on the rights of sex-workers, people of color, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, in ADDITION to women. While I understand Dworkin and Mackinnon's point of view, I also understand that pornography is a valued art form for many. Like we have been discussing, there is a lot of power in art, especially in political art, and I don't think we should undermine the power pornography may give otherwise silenced voices.
ReplyDeleteWell there was the Supreme Court case ruling, Miller v. California in which the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".So, straight-up porn should be censored, especially young kids. Porn sites do nothing to verify the age of the viewer (besides make you check a box) which leads young kids to be exposed to porn and sometimes addicted at a young, impressionable age. And let's face it, sex is often portrayed in a particularly way in movies and pornography. Sexual acts can be a beautiful thing and I think porn just diminishes that and leads kids to believe that's all it is. "Scientific" purposes could include sex ed, but again, pornhub isn't exactly teaching sex in a realistic, scientific way and are often giving false impressions of what sex is. This makes young males have inflated views of what to expect during sex. I think it should absolutely be censored, especially for the youth. And all step-sibling porn/ step-mom porn should be removed because what the heck. No kid should watch that and then think it's okay and even sexy. It's the opposite of tasteful and these distasteful things shouldn't be able to distort people's mindset towards sex so easily.
ReplyDelete