Pornography and Free Speech
Pornography and Its Impact on American Culture

Pornography, defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, consists of “writing, pictures, etc. intended primarily to arouse sexual desire.” This definition of pornography is much more broad and benign than the description given by Catherine MacKinnon, an American activist and feminist scholar. Along with many other feminists, she believes that pornography is “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or in words.” These two interpretations of pornography are clearly quite different and involve a wide-ranging degree of moral attention by the general public.

Ideally, in order to determine the morality of pornography, society would first be able to agree on the definition. Obviously, this is impossible, so in order to discuss the qualities of pornography and determine its inherent worth, if any, the definition used here will be as inclusive as possible.

Despite lacking a consistent definition, three main factions have emerged on the issue of pornography - pro-censorship, anti-censorship/anti-porn, and anti-censorship/pro-porn. Despite the extreme difference of opinion regarding the legality and morality of pornography among these groups, all sides seem to be in agreement that child pornography is wrong and that no one should be subjected to it. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, child pornography will not be addressed assuming it is not at the heart of the debate.

However, another issue relating to children is at the center of a great deal of controversy. Today in the United States, a large number of kids have access to the Internet via personal and public computers. The pornography industry also has unlimited access to the Internet and enjoys a great deal of profit from online sites and services. Entrance to pornography sites currently cannot be policed in the same way that pornographic video stores can. With a few clicks of the mouse, minors can gain access to millions of sexually explicit images ranging from MySpace pages to hard-core video downloads.

Again, no matter which side of the pornography debate an individual happens to be on, the ease with which minors can access pornography websites is a disturbing issue. The opponents of pornography insist that the remedy to this dilemma is a crackdown on all sexually explicit materials currently available on the web. Even before the Internet, this issue has always received a significant amount of attention from government and the general public. For example, in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Communication Decency Act, engineered by anti-porn lobbyists and congress, which would have limited access to pornography websites and decreased the amount of sexually explicit material available. The court declared the act unconstitutional and in violation of the first amendment right guaranteeing free speech. While the Supreme Court wanted to concern themselves with the legality of censorship, their ruling also had an inevitably impact on the moral acceptance of graphic material.

Censorship is often seen as a way to protect America’s children from exposure to harmful ideas that degrade the values and beliefs of our society. Opponents of censorship view it as a dangerous practice and a threat to freedom of speech. In fact, even some of the people that find pornography immoral still believe that we must allow it, if in fact America is based on the principles of freedom and personal liberty.

The British philosopher John Stuart Mill insists that the only reason to limit personal liberty is if it causes harm to others. The application to pornography is clearly visible when he writes, “If the material causes harm to others then it should be restricted” (White p.339). Based on this premise, it can be concluded that the merit of censorship is dependent on whether the material in question causes harm to another person or the general public as a society. Again, the argument must circle back to the debated definition of pornography and whether it is truly harmful or merely a disliked expression of free speech.

Based on MacKinnon’s definition, outlined in her book Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech, pornography promotes and maintains the inferior status of women, violates their civil rights, and discriminates against women on the basis of their gender (MacKinnon p.347). She continues by stating that pornography eroticizes male hierarchy, sexualizes inequality, and transforms dominance and submission into sex acts. By portraying women enjoying pain, humiliation, and even rape, pornographic materials condition men to view women as objects and desensitize them to violence against women. MacKinnon further argues that this attitude causes men to commit acts of sexual assault and rape. She insists that the images seen in pornographic materials become the sexual reality for those that view them, and that pornography cannot be solely for entertainment purposes (MacKinnon p.340, 347-348). MacKinnon insists that evidence for this conclusion comes from everyday life.

Many other feminists share this view, but are met with a great deal of disagreement. For example, in his book Pornography and Free Speech: The Civil Rights Approach, Barry Lynn claims that there is no evidence, general or scientific, that pornography causes men to commit acts of sexual assault. In fact, Lynn points to the contrary, citing Denmark and Japan as countries that have both high availability of pornographic material and low rates of rape and other sex crimes. Another country Lynn refers to is Saudi Arabia, where the status of women is far worse than in the United States even though they have little or no pornography. Lynn uses these examples to illustrate that if a connection between pornography and sexual violence existed it, “would be apparent, no plausible” (Lynn p.358-359).

Lynn continues this argument by outlining why pornographic speech should be protected under the Constitution, just like any other form of speech. “If someone wishes to argue the merits of oral sex, he or she should not be accorded lesser Constitutional protection if the argument is made in an XXX-rated video than in the prose of an academic psychology journal” (Lynn p.356).

The desire to police pornographic speech because it is unpopular or disrespectful is seen as a dangerous proposition and little more than an effort to institute government censorship. As Jonathan Rauch argues in his article In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected, repressing pornographic or hate speech allows for the censorship of all unpopular ideas, including those of religion or race equality (Rauch p.402-406).

Again, the issue of the morality of pornography is tied to the moral and legal implications of censorship. MacKinnon and others argue that the harms of pornography outweigh the good of free speech and that restricting speech is necessary to regulate this industry that is responsible for so many problems. Lynn and Rauch argue that the benefits of free speech far surpass any perceived harms of pornography and that America must endure unpopular speech if we wish to maintain our liberty.

These widely different perspectives may result from the fact that a clear definition of pornography has never been reached. Likewise, the inherent worth of pornography is still in debate. For most people, sexually explicit material is not highly favored, but it is tolerated. The importance of this conflict is far reaching and its implications on society will continue to have a tremendous impact. The freedom to express ideas, even unpopular ones, is a basic right in the United States. Restricting that right, by censoring pornography, could potentially cause greater damage by leading to the suppression of other types of unpopular speech.

Sources:
1. Lynn, Barry. Pornography and Free Speech: The Civil Right Approach. Contemporary Moral Problems. Sixth Edition. Editor: James White. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA. Copyright 2000.
2. MacKinnon, Catherine. Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech. Contemporary Moral Problems. Sixth Edition. Editor: James White. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA. Copyright 2000.
3. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Contemporary Moral Problems. Sixth Edition. Editor: James White. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA. Copyright 2000.
4. Rauch, Jonathan. In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected. Contemporary Moral Problems. Sixth Edition. Editor: James White. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA. Copyright 2000.
5. Webster’s New World Dictionary. Editor: Victoria Neufeldt. Warner Book: New York. Copyright 1990.
6. White, James E. Pornography and Hate Speech: Introduction. Contemporary Moral Problems. Sixth Edition. Editor: James White. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA. Copyright 2000.