Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John254 (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 27 May 2006 (Added a section about the role of the United States Supreme Court in the anti-pornography movement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The term Anti-pornography movement is used to describe those who argue that pornography has a variety of harmful effects.

Though objections to pornography might come from many perspectives, they can often be classified as one of the categories noted below.

Religious objections

Some religious conservatives, such Jerry Falwell criticize pornography on moral grounds. They say sex is reserved for married couples, and assert that use of pornography could lead to an overall increase in behavior considered to be sexually immoral.

Many are opposed to pornography because of religious conventions and morals, as exemplified by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials." Section 2354 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM)

Feminist objections

Feminist positions on pornography are divided. Some feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Susan Brownmiller, Dorchen Leidholdt, and Robin Morgan, argue that pornography is degrading to women, and complicit in violence against women both in its production (where, they charge, abuse and exploitation of women performing in pornography is rampant) and in its consumption (where, they charge, pornography eroticizes the domination, humiliation, and coercion of women, and reinforces sexual and cultural attitudes that are complicit in rape and sexual harassment). Many feminists differentiate between different sorts of porn and may see some as fairly harmless. Those that favour a complete ban on pornography are actually a small minority, but they tend to receive more attention in the media. The majority of feminists would consider porn to be a small issue.

Beginning in the late 1970s, anti-pornography radical feminists formed organizations such as Women Against Pornography that provided educational events, including slide-shows, speeches, and guided tours of the sex industry in Times Square, in order to raise awareness of the content of pornography and the sexual subculture in pornography shops and live sex shows.

The feminist anti-pornography movement was galvanized by the publication of Ordeal, in which Linda Boreman (who had allegedly been abused in the making of Deep Throat under the name "Linda Lovelace") stated that she had been beaten, raped, and pimped by her husband Chuck Traynor, and that Traynor had forced her at gunpoint to make scenes in Deep Throat, as well as forcing her, by use of both physical violence against Boreman as well as emotional abuse and outright threats of violence (some made against members of her family), to make other pornographic films. Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Women Against Pornography issued public statements of support, and worked with her in public appearances and speeches. Boreman's criticism focused feminist attention not only on the effects of the consumption of pornography (which had dominated feminist discussions of pornography in the 1970s), but also the effects of the production of pornography, in which abundant evidence has shown that abuse, harassment, economic exploitation, and physical and sexual violence are rampant. This evidence has received additional publicity because of the testimonies of other well known survivors of pornography such as Traci Lords, and expressed in recent feminist works such as Susan Cole's Power Surge: Sex, Violence and Pornography. MacKinnon applies the critical test to determine whether the production of pornography is exploitative: would women choose to work in the pornography industry if it were not for the money? Critics note that this test fails to distinguish pornography from any other industry.

Some anti-pornography feminists -- Dworkin and MacKinnon in particular -- advocated laws which would allow women who were sexually abused and otherwise hurt by pornography to sue pornographers in civil court. The antipornography civil rights ordinance that they drafted was passed twice by the Minneapolis city council in 1983, but vetoed by Mayor Donald Fraser, on the grounds that the city could not afford the litigation over the law's constitutionality. The ordinance was successfully passed in 1984 by the Indianapolis city council and signed by Mayor William Hudnut, and passed by a voter initiative in Bellingham, Washington in 1988, but struck down both times as unconstitutional by the state and federal courts. In 1986, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in the Indianapolis case without comment.

Many anti-pornography feminists supported the legislative efforts, but others -- including Susan Brownmiller, Janet Gornick, and Wendy Kaminer -- objected that legislative campaigns would be rendered ineffectual by the courts, would violate principles of free speech, or would harm the anti-pornography movement by taking organizing energy away from education and direct action and entangling it in political squabbles (Brownmiller 318-321).

Other feminists, sometimes describing themselves as "sex-positive feminists," criticize anti-pornography feminism. They take a wide range of views towards the mainstream of actually existing pornography: some view the growth of pornography as a crucial part of the sexual revolution that they allege has contributed to women's liberation; others view the existing pornography industry as misogynist and rife with exploitation, but hold that pornography could be and sometimes is feminist, and propose to reform or radically alter the pornography industry rather than opposing it wholesale. They typically oppose the theory of anti-pornography feminism -- which they accuse of selective handling of evidence, and sometimes of being prudish or as intolerant of sexual difference -- and also the political practice of anti-pornography feminism -- which they characterize as censorship and accuse of complicity with conservative defenses of the oppressive sexual status quo. Notable advocates of the position include sociologist Laura Kipnis, columnist and editor Susie Bright, essayist and pornographer Patrick Califia (formerly known as "Pat Califa"), and porn actress and writer Nina Hartley.

The Supreme Court of Canada's 1992 ruling in R. v. Butler (the "Butler decision") fueled further controversy, when the court decided to incorporate some elements of Dworkin and MacKinnon's legal work on pornography into the existing Canadian obscenity law. In Butler the Court held that Canadian obscenity law violated Canadian citizens' rights to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if enforced on grounds of morality or community standards of decency; but that obscenity law could be enforced constitutionally against some pornography on the basis of the Charter's guarantees of sex equality. The Court's decision cited extensively from briefs prepared by the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), with the support and participation of Catharine MacKinnon. Andrea Dworkin opposed LEAF's position, arguing that feminists should not support or attempt to reform criminal obscenity law.

Controversy between anti-pornography feminists and their critics grew when the Canadian government raided and prosecuted Glad Day Bookshop, a gay bookstore in Ontario, in its first obscenity prosecution under the Butler criteria. The bookstore was prosecuted for selling copies of the lesbian sado-masochist magazine, Bad Attitude. In 1993, copies of Andrea Dworkin's book Pornography: Men Possessing Women were held for inspection by Canadian customs agents , fostering an urban legend that Dworkin's own books had also been banned from Canada under a law that she herself had promoted. However, the Butler decision did not adopt the whole of Dworkin and MacKinnon's ordinance; Dworkin did not support the decision; and the impoundment of her books (which were released shortly after they were inspected) was a standard procedural measure, unrelated to the Butler decision .

Government actions

In the United States, a 1968 Supreme Court decision which held that people could view whatever they wished in the privacy of their own homes caused Congress to fund and President Lyndon B. Johnson to appoint a commission to study pornography. The commission's report, called "Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography", recommended sex education, funding of research into the effects of pornography, restriction of children's access to pornography, and recommended against any restrictions for adults. The report was widely criticized and rejected by Congress.

In 1983, prosecutors in California tried to use pandering and prostitution state statutes against a producer of and actors in a pornographic movie; the California Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that these statutes do not apply to the production of nonobscene pornography (People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 41). Some speculate that this decision implictly condones pornography and was one of the reasons most modern American porn is produced in California.

"Evidence of the harm of exposure to sexually explicit images or words in childhood is inconclusive, even nonexistent. The 1970 U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, the 'Lockhart' commission, uncovered no link between adult exposure to pornography and bad behavior and called for the dismantling of legal restrictions on Erotica." - Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed another commission to study pornography issues, specifically to overturn the findings of the Lockhart commission. It was headed by Attorney General Edwin Meese and is generally known as the Meese Commission. The commission's report, released in 1986, found that "violent pornography" is harmful and can lead to "violent acts". This report has been criticised for allegedly producing findings that were politically expedient rather than reflecting the empirical evidence; among those criticising it were some of the scientists who gathered that evidence and reported a conclusion to the Meese commission much different from the conclusion the commission later announced.

United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence

In a line of cases beginning with Roth vs. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, or by any other provisions of the United States Constitution. In explaining its position, in MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)the US Supreme Court found that

The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, 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. It is a "misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press . . . ." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S., at 645 .

and in PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) that

In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby. 7 Rights and interests "other than those of the advocates are involved." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 642 (1951). These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself... As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a "right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society . . .," Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 199 (1964) (dissenting opinion)... The sum of experience, including that of the past two decades, affords an ample basis for legislatures to conclude that a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality, can be debased and distorted by crass commercial exploitation of sex.

The Supreme Court defined obscenity in MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) with the Miller test.

External links

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Pornography and Censorship

Anti-pornography Websites

• One Angry Girl
• Obscenity Crimes
• National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families
• Critical Mass- Catholic rock band with an anti-porn video "Dorian Gray"
• wwwxxxchurch.com Anti-porn ministry

References

• Brownmiller, Susan (1999). In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution (ISBN 0385314868).

• Pornography