Two Contrasting Feminist Views on How to Address Pornography in Keeping with First Amendment Rights
Essay by Nicole Krabill • July 15, 2017 • Research Paper • 1,141 Words (5 Pages) • 1,852 Views
Essay Preview: Two Contrasting Feminist Views on How to Address Pornography in Keeping with First Amendment Rights
Nicole Krabill
Professor Withrow
English 102
19 June 2017
Two Contrasting Feminist Views on How to Address Pornography in Keeping With First Amendment Rights
The allowance of pornographic distribution has been a long disputed issue in the
United Sates. It has been brought into question whether or not pornography should be
protected under the First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The reason its protection
is in question is because the Supreme Court does not interpret freedom of speech to
include obscenity (“Centuries of Citizenship”). The main reason there has been a dispute
on the issue is because the courts have been unable to agree upon an absolute definition
of what obscenity really is. (Sunstein, 580) Some people can view certain material and
immediately be repulsed declaring it “obscene” while others feel that there is no problem
with it at all. Since a consistent consensus cannot be made, the distribution of
pornography needs to be combated by intelligent discussion in keeping with the
democratic process.
Comparing the essays of Susan Brownmiller and Susan Jacoby shows two opposing
stances on the topic of pornography and freedom of speech. Brownmiller and Jacoby are
two feminists that have had many years of writing experience and involvement in the
feminist rights community. Both women have very firm beliefs that the First Amendment
rights should be protected and both admit they do not personally appreciate pornographic
material. Despite these similar beliefs they came to different conclusions as to how the
distribution of pornography should be handled.
Susan Brownmiller believed it is important to protect a person’s rights to freedom of
speech but she did not believe that pornographic distribution was protected under the
First Amendment (68) Her thesis in Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet states, “To
equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial
exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment
and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”(68). On the other hand, In the
essay A First Amendment Junkie Susan Jacoby states in her thesis that, “The Federal
Government is without any power whatsoever under the Constitution to put any type of
burden on free speech and expression of ideas of any kind.”(57).
While Brownmiller seems quick to call certain pornographic material obscene the
Supreme Court has not been able to come up with an inclusive definition of the term
“obscene”. They therefore will not be able to set standards for criminal punishment of
pornographic material. (“First Amendment”, 613) The Supreme Court stated that that the
material in question must be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a
particularly susceptible or sensitive person (“First Amendment”, 614).
Another argument that Bronmiller tries to make is that the intent of pornography is to
degrade and dehumanize the female body (69). Arguing intent is not a valid way to
address this issue since intent is subjective. While it may be true in some instances that
idea cannot be held equally for all cases.
There has been evidence that does however show some women are taken advantage
of and harmed in the business of pornography, which is a very troubling issue. (Sustein,
“Pronograpy”). While these horrible crimes should certainly be prosecuted it does not fall
under the scope prohibiting the material itself from being created and distributed. Jacoby
addressed a similar issue in her essay. She addresses those who may counter her
arguments to allowing pornography by bringing up the issue surrounding child
pornography. She acknowledges that this is not an issue of addressing obscenity but it is a
fight against the abuse of power (57). As long as nothing criminal is occurring the
making and distribution of material should be protected under the First Amendment.
Browmiller tries to make the audience see that that exposure to pornography creates a
culture where the degrading depictions that are a standard in most pornography will begin
to be seen as “normal” and “healthy” resulting in sexual masochism for women (69).
There is not overwhelming evidence of this occurring however (Sustein, 590). It does not
seem right to restrict an activity simply because you believe it could develop harmful
behavior. There are many things that people may believe could trigger harmful behavior.
One person may be exposed to the material and choose not to commit a criminal act
while it may have a different effect on another individual. The varying reactions are why
the person’s criminal actions should be prosecuted instead of prohibiting the material
altogether.
Jacoby brings up a very good point in her essay that pornographic material can hardly
be prohibited or restricted when other more harmful acts are not. (57) Someone really
...
...