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,...

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…