Pornography it Is Often Said That Pornography

Pornography It is often said that pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Material that was considered pornographic a few decades years ago are considered acceptable today. These changes illustrate the shifting notions of what material constitutes pornography or obscenity. This paper argues that while anti-pornography activists have valid concerns regarding pornography's exploitative nature, to censor pornography would be an assault on free speech and the freedom of expression. Therefore, any attempt to curtail pornography would be unconstitutional.

Currently, material that is considered "obscene" and pornographic is illegal both on the federal level and in over 40 states in the United States. Though it is difficult to create an all-inclusive definition, the United States Supreme Court has drafted three general criteria to determine whether a work or material could be considered pornographic. First, the work must meet the "average person" test. This states that an average person, applying the prevailing community standards, must find that the work as a whole appeals solely to the prurient interests.

Second, the work itself should depict sexual behavior in a way that is "patently offensive." Finally, the said work must lack any other serious aesthetic or scientific value (Wein). Arguments against pornography These criteria are necessarily vague and therefore open to wide interpretation. As a result, society has been largely divided on the issue of what constitutes pornography. Furthermore, society is also divided on how to address any problems raised by pornography.

On one side, activists argue that pornography is a great corruptor of values, and is therefore harmful to American society. As such, the government should be allowed to "protect" society by regulating material that is pornographic. Catherine Itzin and other critics of pornography, for example, argue that the porn industry harms society in many ways. First, many women and young girls are physically and psychologically harmed in the production of pornographic magazines and films.

Other sex workers testified of being raped and beaten by "johns" who were carrying S&M magazines. A recent case in the United Kingdom involved the filming of a young boy who was bound and raped by a group of men. This film is currently selling for 50 pounds (Itzin). Cases like these shore up the argument that pornography must be regulated. In 1983, for example, the Minneapolis City Council based its anti-pornography ordinances on existing civil rights statutes. Under this ordinance, pornography was described as discrimination against women (Itzin).

Criticism of anti-pornography position On the other hand, critics of such reasoning do not support or like pornography per se. Rather, they frame their argument in terms of free speech and freedom of expression. Any attempts to "regulate" such speech are therefore construed as censorship and is additionally deemed unconstitutional. Jeffrey Douglas of the Free Speech Coalition, for example, point out that the dangers of government regulation far outweigh any dangers ascribed to pornography.

The government, Douglas argues, is "ill-equipped" to determine which forms of expression should be deemed beneficial or harmful. Instead of making determinations based on legal precedent, the author fears that censors would simply make decisions geared towards avoiding controversy (Douglas). Critics of censorship also challenge the notion that laws provide judges with clear-cut guidelines to determine and regulate pornographic material. The landmark case of Roth v. United States, for example, is the first Supreme Court ruling regarding the relationship between pornography and the First Amendment.

In this ruling, Justice William Brennan ruled that any law regulating pornography contained a fatal flaw. The vagueness of the definitions meant that censorship laws could be misapplied to unprotected speech. Brennan felt that the threat of prosecution under these restrictions would have a "chilling" effect on all protected speech (cited in "Pornography should not be censored). Conclusion In the end, as with most genres, pornography could be interpreted as demeaning or even empowering, as art or trash, as aesthetic or offensive.

It remains difficult to create a criteria defining pornography that is broad enough to include all works that cater only to the "prurient" interests and still specific enough to exclude works such as classical nude paintings by Michelangelo or books like DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. Until a satisfactory compromise is reached, however, the only clear guideline is the Constitution, whose First Amendment protects the freedom of expression. This is why court cases against pornography have continued to be dismissed in the judicial system.

Furthermore, "regulating" pornography has a subtle effect of discouraging creativity and innovation. In this way, censorship and the regulation of free speech create more potential social harm than good. Works Cited Douglas, Jeffrey J. "Government Should Not Censor Pornography." Free Speech. Scott Barbour, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2000. Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale Group. 2004.