Pornography and Morality - Essay Example

Pornography and Morality Pornography and Morality Pornography has been a hot debate in the public domains. Individuals, private organizations and state institutions have been taking different stands on the topic. Even the definition of pornography has remained a subject of discussion. Individuals representing the similar institutions have differed greatly on the definition of pornography as well as its impacts on both men and women. Also, law courts have not been spared. Various court cases have been ruled basing on the judge’s ability to interpret the first amendment as well as personal understanding and interpretation of the topic. Some judges have confessed having difficulties to offer exact definitions of pornography or classify it on moral grounds. As a result, various laws have been enacted to provide a better understanding of pornography and morality. However, the laws have received increased criticisms from individuals and organizations who believe that the act is already protected by the first amendment. Therefore, this research paper will provide detailed explanations of the concept of pornography and morality based on the two instances of American Booksellers v. Hudnut and Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. The ordinances enacted in Indianapolis, famously identified as American Booksellers v Hudnut, identified and described pornography from women’s point of view (Langton, 1993). The ordinance identified pornography as an act that discriminates against women, by portraying them in a subordinate role. According to the ordinance, women are depicted explicitly in any of the six explicit situations identified. Among the description provided in the ordinance to justify how women are depicted insubordination throughout pornographic materials is the general concept of portraying women as sexual objects, subjected to pain or humiliation during the act. Also, the ordinance associated pornography with the subordination of women by alleging that having been depicted as sexual objects, women experience sexual pleasure while being raped. Therefore, the provision of the ordinance sought to win and enlist sympathy for women. The other provisions of the ordinance described the subordination role of women by proposing various negative acts committed against women. For instance, the ordinance proposed that women, as sexual objects, they are tied up, mutilated, cut up, physically hurt, bruised, fragmented, truncated or being dismembered in either explicit pictures or a voice of the pornography materials (Langton, 1993). The terms used to describe the subordination state of women sought to prove the negative experience that women experience during the production of pornographic materials as well as the moral image presented to the viewers. Having been engineered by anti-feminist movement, the ordinance aimed at offering additional restriction to the production, distribution and use of pornographic materials in Indianapolis. Despite several court rulings classifying pornography as speech that should be protected by the first amendment, the laws introduced new restriction aimed at protecting the moral rights of women. Also, the provision that identified women as sexual objects penetrated by either animals or objects paints the image of injury abasement, degradation, torture, bleeding, filthy or inferior (Langton, 1993). Therefore, pornography acquired a new definition whose aim focused on sympathizing with women in the society. By identifying various negative experience among women during the production of pornographic materials, the ordinance offered a new moral ground to restrict pornography in the society. The provisions presented women as being dominated, violated, exploited, and conquered or being used. Therefore, women are supposed to be submissive by accepting negative acts advanced against them, which implies a disregard for the moral rights of women in the society. Enactment of the ordinance received widespread criticisms leading to various legal battles. The criticisms and objections resulted from the ordinance’s focus on women. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance presented a platform that discriminated against women in the society. Despite the strong support from the drafters and the Indianapolis mayor, the ordinance was declared unconstitutional for failing to offer substantial ground as required under obscenity statutes. Instead, the ordinance portrayed women in a subordination state, which was viewed as a way of discrimination (Benson, 1986). Also, one can simply argue that the ordinance offered a way of degrading the moral judgment of women. Following the controversy sparked by the enactment of the Indianapolis ordinances, several debates and studies have been conducted to try and provide meanings of pornography. For instance, the study by Gerard V. Bradley provided various moral grounds whose use can help in explaining various moral grounds of defining pornography (2010). While providing the moral ground of pornography, the author argued that pornography is a regulated act in the present society. He observed that there is no need to introduce additional laws restricting pornography, as the topic is already regulated by not only the first amendment but also by copyright and commercial laws. Since various court rulings, including that presented by Judge Easterbrook, nullified the Indianapolis ordinance by identifying it to be unconstitutional, the definitions of pornography can only gain the support of restriction if addressed from the decency point of view. In addition to pornography being protected by the first amendment, the moral rights of members of the public, including women, can receive protection by use of the decency laws. Through the decency laws, people members of the society, whether women or children, will receive protection from acts perceived as private. All acts identified as private should only be performed in private, and members of the public have a moral right of protection against such acts. Among the indecent acts classified as private include urinating, excessive display of pleasure. Although the acts may enjoy protection under the first amendment as well as not being declared immoral, they can be restricted based on indecency laws. Sometimes, interpretation of decency is based on feelings. For instance, indecency has been associated with an ability to induce disgust on individuals. On the other hand, pornography has been associated with the ability to excite lust among viewers and readers, due to the display of excessive pleasure. Also, instead of introducing Indianapolis ordinance to restrict and regulate pornography, the state should apply the consent laws. The use of consent laws will promote the moral rights of every member of the society without interfering with the provisions of the first amendment on speech (Hult et al. 2011). It is clear that the state has a moral obligation to protect members of the public against forceful exposure to pornographic materials. In fact, the first amendment allows the both local governments and the state to restrict all activities about obscene speech in a way deemed fit as well as in the general interest of the public. However, the amendment restricts any measures aimed at enacting or installing additional regulations against the obscene speech. Therefore, the ruling by both the district court and Judge Easterbrook was in line with the constitutional provisions that protects speech. Therefore, the moral concepts of pornography should be interpreted based on the laws of consent. It is important to note that members of the public buy pornographic materials at their wish. Even majority of those involved in the production of pornographic materials participate willingly (Stone, 2010). Therefore, the state should only take part in protecting individuals against being coerced into pornographic acts. Although the Indianapolis ordinance was right to restrict coercing individuals to participate in pornographic activities, the constitution had restricted enacted of additional laws against obscene speech. Instead, the state should have applied the existing laws on consent to protect members of the public against coercion. Also, provision against trafficking in pornography as well as forcing pornography, on unwilling individuals, had the good intention of protecting unwilling members of the public against abuse resulting from pornography. Everyone might agree to the fact that public authorities should be involved in combating various acts deemed to cause injustices against unwilling individuals. Thus, the Indianapolis ordinance could have evaded public criticisms if the provisions had targeted to protect innocent members of the public from injustices arising from pornographic materials. However, over-emphasis on women as well as introducing new rules in an area that had already been covered by the first amendment resulted into the constitutional crisis. Despite having the moral obligation to protect the public against exposure to pornographic materials, the new laws resulted in a state of confusion, as judges were torn between observing the provisions of the first amendment that protected pornography and obscene message and the Indianapolis ordinance. The description and portrayal of women as playing subordinate roles in the society made the Indianapolis ordinance to be considered as discriminating against women. Although the initial intention was to protect women against participation in pornographic materials, the general outcome painted women in a negative way (Langton, 1999). The general feeling was that the ordinance had degraded the moral character of women in the society, by putting a lot of emphasis on the expression of sexual object. Publicity of the Indianapolis ordinance had a negative impact on women, especially those involved in the production of pornographic material. That is, women who willingly participate in the pornographic materials were depicted as individuals who had agreed to be used as the sexual object. They had degraded their morals by accepted the humiliation, exploitation and injuries associated with pornography. Although pornography has been considered as being educative, it should be restricted to preserve the morals of the society. Since pornography has been associated with the ability to incite sexual desires among viewers and readers, it should be regulated to protect innocent members of the society like children. Children should be brought up and allowed to learn good morals. Sexualization of children will have devastating effects on their growth and development as most of them are likely to lose concentration while undertaking their studies. Since children are not in a position to decide for themselves, the state should apply laws of decency and consent to protect them against exposure to obscene contents. Exposure of children to pornographic content can lead to sexual exploitation. Also, exposure of children to pornography may corrode their morals, by arousing sexual desires in most of the children as well as leading to children pornography. Therefore, the ordinance went far in trying to regulate obscene materials, in addition to creating confusion with the provisions of the first amendment. The ordinance’s definition of pornography was broad, in context. The overall message about women was discriminatory, as it painted women in a negative way. Although there are instances of pornography that involve women alone, the emphasis given to women degraded the moral definition of women. The ordinance associated women with subordination in the society. The six sexual explicit descriptions resulted in negative publicity about women. Therefore, the ordinance’s act of outlawing pornography could have resulted in restricting speech, which enjoys protection from the first amendment. Although the state has the moral obligation to protect innocent and unwilling individuals against exposure to pornography, its acts should be guided by the existing constitutionally accepted laws. References Benson, R. (1986). Pornography and the First Amendment: American Booksellers v. Hudnut. Harv. Womens LJ, 9, 153. Bradley, G. V. (2010). The Moral Bases for Legal Regulation of Pornography. The Social Costs of Pornography, 199. Hult, N. A. M., Schmedes, J. R., Johansen, G. H., Munch, K., & Kragh, J. E. S. (2011). The Ethics of Pornography and its Impact on the Individual (Doctoral dissertation). Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & public affairs, 293-330. Langton, R. (2009). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Stone, G. R. (2010). American Booksellers Association v Hudnut: The Government Must Leave to the People the Evaluation of Ideas. U. Chi. L. Rev., 77, 1219. Read More