Equality and Speech by Catherine

¶ … Equality and Speech by Catherine MacKinnon. Specifically, it will reflect on the reading, giving an analysis and opinion of the article. MacKinnon's essay is a treatise on the inequality of gender and law, in a time when it seems that should not even be an issue that needs to be worried about or discussed.

MacKinnon's piece is actually quite startling to read in the year 2004. It seems that issues such as these would no longer be key issues in gender and law, and yet they are, and because they exist, it guarantees inequality in law, in the Constitution, and in American life. MacKinnon's ideas indicate that free speech and inequality live side-by-side in the country, and that they have never been contested together in the courts. She writes, "First Amendment speech and Fourteenth Amendment equality have never contended on Constitutional terrain" (MacKinnon 73). She worries that speech will be restricted, and this is a constant worry in a country that prides itself on free speech and all the inherent freedoms that provides and intimates. If speech is restricted, even a little, then it can happen again and again, and it will. Everyone should have the right to say what they want, no matter how abhorrent it may be to others. It is more abhorrent to restrict the right to free speech. However, there is a danger when it comes to free speech. No matter how pervasive it is in our country, there are still people who have more "speech" than others because of education, lack of it, or lack of opportunity. MacKinnon notes, "Understanding that there is a relationship between these two issues - the less speech you have, the more the speech of those who have it keeps you unequal; the more the speech of the dominant is protected" (MacKinnon 72). However, there are other restrictions on free speech, such as fear of libel, slander, and such, as the author notes, (McKinnon 78), and so, there is restriction on speech, even if Americans do not want to admit it. These restrictions add up to inequality in race and gender, and they seem to be inherent in the laws that govern the country, even if that was not their particular intent. MacKinnon's piece shows that free speech is not as free as many people in the country would like to believe, and that the people still have many inroads to reach real gender equality.

MacKinnon cites several examples of court rulings on free speech that actually seem to ensure hate crimes and speech can continue, even though they could incite further crimes of hatred that cause injury or death. This is disturbing for a number of reasons. It means that hate speech is considered free speech, and that hate speech, and the violence that often accompanies it, is condoned by the courts, which is not only dangerous but degrading. The ability to speak one's mind should not harm others, but it seems there is little distinction made in that regard, and that not only incites hatred and prejudice, it harbors danger for anyone who disagrees and chooses to answer with their own right to free speech. The same can be said for obscenity laws, which consider who might be hurt by the laws, but not the women who are demeaned and degraded by pornography. Again, it indicates the gap between speech and equality, and how free speech laws can actually create more harm than good in some cases. Underlying pornography is the degradation of women, and only a very few states and legislatures are exploring that issue, as MacKinnon notes.