This work is protected by
international copyrights. (c) 2004 The Author.
This
work must be cited if it is referred to any other work. For information on how to cite this work correctly,
please email mtrdrone@yahoo.ca ; include
your name, email address and the name of your educational institution.
Free To Talk Dirty:
A Discussion of
Pornography and Free Speech
Feminism and free speech relate to each other in a number of ways and one place where they lock horns is in the debate over pornography. This paper will consider the issue of pornography and its relevance to free speech as well as feminist and traditional arguments for its repression. Ultimately this paper will demonstrate why the repression of pornography is inconsistent with the values of free speech.
Before setting out, it is necessary to have a working definition of
pornography. For the purpose of this
paper, pornography will be defined as any visual image produced with the intent
that the viewer will consume it mainly, if not solely, for sexual stimulation
and/or pleasure. It should also be noted
that any term referring to pornography (such as photography) will not discern
between print and film. Furthermore,
this paper will only concern itself with mainstream pornography, that is to say
pornography which is produced legally and can be purchased at a legitimate
business under legitimate pretenses.
Moreover, this paper will consider the issue of pornography and free
speech within the context of free, democratic countries such as
If one subscribes to the notion that free speech is valuable, then attempts to regulate it must be considered under close scrutiny. Most governments who value free speech do make attempts to regulate it, for example most governments have laws against slander and libel because the general consensus is that those acts cause a greater amount of harm than any good that comes from having the freedom to carry them out. When a government censors a book because of political incorrectness or because it speaks against the establishment, it is seen as an unjustified restriction on freedom. The main problem in censoring anything is that it creates a dangerous president for governments to censor legitimate expression, it creates a slippery slope which can lead to governments exploiting those presidents, or special interest groups may use those presidents to influence legislation which suppresses freedom of expression. For this reason people are justified in being extremely suspicious and cautious of attempts by governments to repress anything. So should pornography be repressed?
Arguments against pornography, or for its repression by the state, can be grouped into two broad, though in no way mutually exclusive, categories: traditional and feminist. Let us first consider the former. The traditional argument against the production and consumption of pornography has been largely that pornography is simply obscene and has no real artistic value. Generally speaking, it is the notion of people being photographed while they engage in sexually explicit acts that is offensive to people. In the 21st century, the response to arguments such as this are largely “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.” Citizens of free countries intuitively do not appreciate people trying to restrict their freedoms or judge their decisions simply because others do not like it. This argument, however, should be considered. What validity, if any, does it hold?
Most reasonable people would agree that pornography has no real artistic merit and that it really does not express anything besides the sexual desires of people, but this is certainly not sufficient grounds to argue that something should be repressed. Many, many of the things which people enjoy do not have any artistic merit. For examples of this one need look no further then popular music or the newest reality based television show. If the state, however, took these things off the air citing that they have no artistic value, people would be enraged, and on this level pornography is no different. What differentiates pornography from other forms of entertainment is that it largely, if not exclusively, includes images of sexual acts and human sexual organs. These things are photographed without taste or shame, and that is what people find offensive and/or obscene. So is obscenity sufficient to justify the repression of pornography? Let us assume for a moment that pornography is entirely restricted to a world in which it is produced, sold, and consumed by consenting adults. If the argument for repression in this world was based solely on the fact that some people find pornography to be obscene and thus offensive then this would not be a valid argument. In free societies, it is highly valued that consenting adults, in their own homes, should be allowed to do as they please without fear of reprisal. After all, how would one feel if the government issued an edict against painting north walls yellow in one’s home? If person x, a blue collar worker, enjoys watching pornography and finds nothing morally objectionable about it, then why should person y, who is a politician and finds pornography disgusting and morally objectionable, be able to restrict person x’s freedom? To this question there is no positive answer which is reasonable. People who find pornography offensive are under no obligation to participate in its production/consumption and simply because they find it offensive is not a good reason to restrict the freedom of others to do as they wish. If society allowed for the offensiveness of something to be a mitigating factor in legislating it, then logically it would be acceptable to ban pop artists on the grounds that their pointless music lessens the value of music and art as a whole and is therefore offensive. At this point I call your attention to the many subjective terms used in this paragraph; if one allows subjectivity to become sufficient grounds for forming policy then the precipitation that follows allows for policy to be arbitrarily defined based on the opinions and values of the powerful; a notion contradictory to the values of freedom and democracy. The old saying “if you don’t like it, don’t watch” is a good compromise, it allows those who wish to consume pornography to do so without forcing those who don’t want to consume to do so. Of course, many opponents of pornography claim that pornography has consequences which reach further then being offensive because pornography compromises the safety and humanistic value of people. This objection will be visited next.
Feminists tend to argue against pornography on two main grounds: it oppresses and degrades/dehumanizes woman and encourages sexual and physical violence towards woman. In her paper “Whose Body? Whose Self?” Myrna Kostash claims that pornography degrades woman because pornography is “a graphic metaphor for sex as the power that one (male) person wields over the destiny of another and the hostility that such an imbalance of power provokes” (Kostash 512). Andrea Dworken argues at length that pornography radically reduces woman to objects to be used for the sexual this paper copied illegally gratification of others. Whether or not pornography is degrading to woman remains chiefly a subjective matter, and the evidence to support the feminist thesis leans heavily on whether or not the pornographer intended to degrade woman and how the pornography is interpreted by the consumer. Although it could be perceived that pornography encourages a mindset in which the degradation of woman is seen as morally permissible, this is not sufficient to support the repression of pornography because the consumption of pornography and the degradation of woman is not a causal relationship. Because the claim pornography is degrading to woman is based on an opinion, which is in turn based on a subjective interpretation, it is not a claim which is sufficient to support the repression of pornography.
In order to regulate what people can and cannot express, it must be shown that the expression its okay to plagiarize being published causes society harm, and pornography has not been conclusively found to cause harm. Such a cautious stance concerning the criterion required to justly repress something is reasonable because one’s main concern should be setting a precedent that could be exploited by a government to oppress its people and the ideas of those people, as argued above. Even if society did come to the conclusion that pornography was degrading to woman in a significant way, and therefore should be repressed, it would not neutralize the central issue: the overall attitude of men towards woman. That attitude would at best become less prevalent within society, but it would still exist and therefore would still be a threat to the female population. Instead, feminists should perhaps focus their efforts on educating woman on the “evils” of participating in the pornographic trade and how it affects society. Moreover, it seems the feminist cause would be better served by educating the general population with regards to woman’s rights and liberation instead of trying to restrict the freedom of free people and simply repress a society’s desire to consume pornography.
Feminists further their argument with the claim that pornography encourages physical and sexual abuse of woman. Kostash cites a correlation between the growing explicitness of pornography and an increase in sexual assaults, but even she sees it as a correlation and not as a causal relationship. There could be many factors that account for this correlation such as simply an increase in the percentage of sexual assaults actually being reported. Furthermore, it could be simply a coincidence. Feminists want to be treated with equality, they want to make their own decisions, and have independence in the world; fair enough. A hypocrisy, however, exists. A big part of the woman’s liberation movement is that they want to participate in society where they hold the same rights and privileges as men. Yet when they are active in that society and that society contains elements which they find offensive or threatening, they seek to oppress society; ironic that it is oppression which they rage against. Attempting to legislate society into acting in a manner which is consistent with a certain group’s ideology is politically reckless and creates a hostile environment for freedom. Perhaps Neil Bissoondath said it best:
Those who
seek to subordinate art, its function and its freedoms to sexual, racial or
religious politics seek nothing less than to impose their own ideological
visions on the imaginative expressions of others. They claim rights for themselves that they
would deny to those who do not share their view of the world (Bissoondath 497).
People will always publish materials which are obscene, pointless, stupid, ignorant, void of any artistic value whatsoever, and so on and so forth. This, however, is what a free society has to put up with if it wants to be free. Without a hard, bona fide right to freedom of expression, free societies run a very substantial risk that new ideas, discussion, and art will not make it into the marketplace of ideas. This is important because the value of freedom of expression is at the core of free and democratic thought, and allowing those in power to arbitrarily define what is and is not an expression by means of subjective criterion erodes this central freedom and creates an environment of oppression for all people. As in any democratic principal (at its paradigm), the will of the people decide the public policies by which they live. Given that there are still plenty of people to produce, act in, and purchase pornography points to the fact that the will of the people, or at least a substantial percentage of people, is that the pornographic trade should be allowed to continue. Kostash unintentionally recognizes this when she acknowledges the fact that the pornography trade is a $4 billion a year industry. Simply because some people find pornography disgusting, degrading, offensive, or can show that it may be threatening based on an argument which at its foundation is subjective, is not sufficient to ignore the will of the whole. What it all boils down to is whether or not pornography creates harm significant enough to justify the placing of further limits on its trade and thus create a president which does, or has the potential to, jeopardize free speech? And the answer is that it does not.
Works Cited
Kostash, Myrna. “Whose
Body? Whose Self?” Ethical Issues.
Ed.
Eldon Soifer.
510-516.
Dworken, Andrea. “Pornography is a Civil Rights
Issue” Ethical
Issues.
Ed. Eldon Soifer.
Broadview Press, 1997. 530-537.
Bissoondath, Neil. “Diversity and
Creativity” Ethical Issues.
Ed. Eldon Soifer.
1997. 493-498.