The Distinction Between Pornography and Obscenity - Coursework Example

The Distinction Between Pornography and Obscenity This paper will examine Catharine MacKinnon’s views on pornography and whether or not her views adequately illuminate the issues. Based on MacKinnon’s discussion, as well as other research on the subject, this paper will also address the question or whether or not the United States government or certain citizen groups should mount a concerted effort to clean up the internet by attempting to ban pornography. Lastly, this paper will attempt to provide a distinction between pornography and obscenity. In Catharine MacKinnon’s 1998 book, In Harm’s Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings,she and co-author Andrea Dworkin provided both commentary as well as actual hearing transcripts relative to pornography, its victims, legislation, and public policy in key cities in the United states, including Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Massachusetts, and Minneapolis. MacKinnon, a feminist and an attorney, believes that society in the US applied different legal rights, lesser rights, to women as compared to men. Obscene speech is not protected under the First Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court, but there is much debate over the distinction between pornography and obscenity. Perhaps one of the most remembered Supreme Court Justice quotes is that of Potter Stewart, who said, I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. (Jacobellis) Linda Susan Boreman MacKinnon rose to fame when she represented Linda Susan Boreman, the actress known as Linda Lovelace, in a lawsuit that claimed that Boreman had been forced at gunpoint to perform in pornographic films by her husband. Following her appearance in the film Deep Throat, Boreman gave up the adult film industry and became a spokeswoman for the antipornography movement (IMBD). Boreman also testified before the Meese Commission in New York City to the effect that while moviegoers were watching the sex scenes in Deep Throat, they were witnessing her being raped (105-113). MacKinnon’s View Certainly a dichotomy, Catharine McKinnon felt that the First Amendment should protect the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, but she also wanted to condemn and outlaw pornography. She actively pursued civil rights remedies for victims of pornography and advocated to treat pornography as hate speech. During a PBS interview with Ben Wattenberg, MacKinnon defined pornography as, a practice of sex inequality, and defined as the sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and words that also includes a list of other very specific activities. In other words, its defined in terms of what it actually does. It subordinates women as well as being a sexually explicit medium. There are other media that subordinate women but are not sexually explicit, and therefore dont have the same effects. (PBS) The harmful effects of those who engage in viewing pornography are widely described as including the following: Harm to existing marriages, including a 25.6% greater likelihood of divorce, 3.18 times greater likelihood of having an extra marital affair, and an 8% chance of being less likely to have a happy marriage (Weiss). Higher Rates of Substance Abuse (Weiss) Higher acceptance of premarital and casual sexual behavior (Weiss) A nearly five times higher number of lifetime sexual partners than non-pornography users (Weiss). In 1985, MacKinnon wrote about the civil rights violations of pornography in the Harvard Civil rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. She asserted that the female stars in pornographic films or photographs had clearly not given consent as evidenced by the scratches, bruises, and other injuries on their bodies. She further argued that audiences respond to pornography because it is perceived as real and as such, they act out in real life the violent acts portrayed in films. She likened it to “snuff” films wherein during the making of the sex film, a person is tortured death. It is this connection between pornography and violence on which MacKinnon placed her beliefs that sexually explicit media promotes violence against women, which is a hate crime not protected by the First Amendment. Anti-pornography Civil Rights Ordinance MacKinnon and Dworkin proposed an Anti-pornography Civil Rights Ordinance as an amendment to a city civil rights ordinance in Minneapolis in 1983, defining pornography as a civil rights violation against women. The Amendment succeeded, was defeated as well as determined to be unconstitutional by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. MacKinnon is thought to be the first to develop a theory of fighting pornography as a civil rights issue. The proposal of connecting her concerns to civil right was unique because civil rights had been defined as basic rights that should be available to all citizens in a community. Civil rights include among them the protection of people’s safety and it was on this basis that MacKinnon fought for women who had become victims of pornography. Civil rights, not established in the United States until the 1960’s were developed from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) written in 1948. It was the first globally accepted document on inherent human rights. Of note is Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights . . .” and Article 4, indicating, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery an d the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” While her proposed amendment to the ordinance was defeated, MacKinnon went on to pursue many more causes of action by representing women in sex discrimination suits related to pornography. Her primary justifications for a suit included forcing pornography on a person, an assault as a result of pornography, trafficking in pornography, and coercing someone into performing pornographic activities. Obscenity The big question that arose as a result of MacKinnon’s work was distinguishing between obscenity and pornography. Obscenity is defined simply as indecency or something that is offensive to conventional stands, particularly sexual explicitness. Obscenity was not the problem, according to MacKinnon. The Supreme Court had already defined obscenity as something prurient in nature, that violates community standards, and that is devoid of value. According to their rules, something had to meet all three of those things to be considered obscenity. There are pornography prevention acts, such as the one signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, but no obscenity prevention acts, so clearly there is a perceived difference between obscenity and pornography. The question, then, is how much protection is there under the First Amendment in terms of attempts to restrict what is considered obscene? Is possession of obscenity punishable by law? It is very difficult to define that line that needs to be crossed in order for obscenity to lose its protection from Freedom of Speech. This is when the “slippery slope” argument is generally made. A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy that is often used as a premise that if small steps are taken, then larger ones will follow. It’s similar to that old expression, “If you give people an inch, they will take a mile.” Politicians notably use the slippery slope argument frequently to prevent legislation that they feel will involve the escalation of unacceptable behavior. The most logical approach by those who advocate against pornography is to try to alter people’s attitudes about pornography and try to get them to decrease their tolerance for it. The Opposing View Many don’t agree with MacKinnon’s views. The position of the opposition is that obscenity is protected and that pornography cannot be legally defined as it varies due to personal preference and subjective opinion. Both First-Amendment activists and anti-feminists challenged MacKinnon, stating that her attempts were an effort to censor sexually explicit material. Furthermore, critics contended that pornography couldn’t strictly breach a woman’s civil rights because then equality or inequality between men and women would come into play. There was concern about a “slippery slope” wherein males would be free to express their tastes in front of women, causing another type of civil rights violation. A ruling in Canada likewise failed to support MacKinnon’s views when its Supreme Court determined that it an attempt to ban obscenity violated the free speech rights of its citizens. Government or Citizen Intervention A study performed in Louisville, KY in 2004 revealed a higher number of sexually oriented businesses per capital than any other city in the United States (ROCK). As a result of those shocking statistics, a group called Reclaim Our Culture, Kentuckiana (ROCK) formed to address the impact of pornography on families and communities and serve the needs of individuals seeking healing from harms of pornography (ROCK). Sites such as AntiPornography.com were created to, “prevent and combat the devastating harms of pornography, prostitution and sex trafficking, as well as all other forms of sexual exploitation, through public education and advocacy. In 2007, two U.S. Senators proposed a bill that would require websites to label their pages, much like the television and movie rating systems for adult content. This was an attempt to help regulate and restrict minors from accessing both obscenity and pornography material on the Internet. It was estimated at that time that there were more than 400 million Websites containing sexually explicit or adult-oriented material. They cited a study that indicated that 90% of children between the ages of eight and sixteen had viewed pornography online. Even a Child Online Protection Act was defeated. The general opinion is that if attempts to protect children from indecent material on the internet haven’t been supported, then it is highly unlikely that any attempt to protect adults or censor online sexually-explicit material would be successful. Works Cited A Conversation with Catherine MacKinnon. Transcript. PBS, 1995. “About ROCK.” MyRockToday.org, n.d. Web. Nov. 2011. Boreman, Linda. Ordeal. Citadel, 2006. Jacobellis v. Ohio 378. Ohio U.S. 184. 1964. “Linda Lovelace Biography.” Imdb.com, n.d. Web. Nov. 2011. MacKinnon, Catharine. In Harms Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings. Harvard University Press, 1998. Print “Mission Statement.” AntiPornography.org, n.d. Web. Nov. 2011 Taub, Nadine. Book Review: A New View of Pornography, Speech, and Equality, or Only Words? Harvard University Press. 1993. Print Weiss, Daniel. Pornography, Infidelity and Divorce. MyRockToday.org, March 31, 2011, Web. 14 Nov. 2011. Weiss, Daniel.Pornography U. Emerging Adults and Pornography Use. MyRockToday.org, April 6, 2011, Web. 14 Nov. 2011. Read More