Abuse Of Child Pornography By Susan Jacoby

In the censorship arena, there are variety of controversial, hateful and inappropriate topics debated for subjectivity. Yet, child pornography became the “leading rationale for censorship” and was outlawed in 1982 by New York vs. Ferber (Mintcheva, p.167; Adler, p.228). Children are one of the most exposed demographics in society because they don’t have autonomy and are reliant on adults. Thus, the child pornography law aimed to prevent sexual abuse and molestation. Amy Adler, contributor to Censoring Culture, argues that child pornography law is self-indulgent and further exacerbates the problem by bringing it into the public eye (Adler, p. 229). She also cites taking on the “gaze of the pedophile” as part of the problem. By stooping to the level of a sexual predator, courts and policy makers are making the problem worse. In an arena like the arts, where nudity and vulnerability are king, this controversy over what is pornography is especially delicate.

Jacoby states that the people who most support the censorship of pornography are women. These women are often self-proclaimed feminists who ironically support the First Amendment. While criticizing the production of pornography, these feminists attempt to argue that “mainstream” pornography is no different than child porn.

12.5. Is this it the average number of times Cornell students cry during Finals week? Nope. 12.5 is the number of videos viewed per person on Pornhub.com if it was divided evenly among every person on Earth. Pornography has become a crucial part of our our entertainment consumption, especially with the rise of the Internet, where anything you can dream of can be found with a click. Although porn is as accessible as Facebook nowadays, many feminists believe that pornography is problematic and is a tool for female oppression. One feminist scholar who believes that pornography should be eliminated completely is Catherine MacKinnon. In her essay, “Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: ‘Pleasure under Patriarchy’”, she discusses the issues with pornography in our society. Although McKinnon makes valid points in saying that pornography is an extension of the patriarchy, I believe that pornography should not be eliminated because doing so will not address underlying social problems and because alternative ways, such as changing pornography to be more feminist, is more effective.

She urges society to take action in stricter laws on pornography and obscenity to protect women in an ethical manner.

Susan Brownmiller's essay voices her feminist view towards pornographic material. Her claim is that without restriction, the first amendment has allowed women to be publicly perceived as objects.

Good sex is considered to be legal and healthy, whereas bad sex is criminalized and dangerous. In contrast to MacKinnon’s view on pornography, Rubin argues that pornography is a means of sexual exploration and can be liberating. Sexual activities are a means through which sexuality can be explored. Rubin argues that anti-pornography movements exaggerate the dangers of pornography as destructive and negative. Anti-pornography movements depict pornography as harmful and degrading to women, but this in itself is harmful for it does not account for consensual and desired sexual activities. Through classifying sexual activities, such as BDSM and sex work, as good and bad, the state effectively limits sexual exploration to certain acceptable societal norms. This is further illustrated through R v. Price, in which the judge ruled that there was no evidence that BDSM videos cause harm (Lecture Slides: February 9). Conforming to cultural norms subsequently ensures that the patriarchal system of sexual value, in which MacKinnon argued is male dominated, is adhered to. Even though pornography can perpetuate sexual objectification, the oppression of sexual desire by the state limits any form of positive sexual exploration. The state and law should not penalize possibilities for positive sexual experiences because of social stigmas. The disapproval of society and the state of particular sexual

Sally Mann’s child photography should not be censored due to other people’s views or distaste for her child photography. She has the right to express her love for her children and herself through the arts. As a mother, she experienced a significant amount of backlash which is a common narrative in current society. By censoring her form of expression of her kids, we are restricting the mother’s right over her children. As a matter of fact, a large negative criticism of Sally Mann’s photos is that many consider her child photography to be obscene when in fact it is not obscene. According to a court case called Miller vs. California, art is only considered obscene if it meets all of the following criteria: 1) the average person finds the art lustful with prurient interest, 2) the art is offensive and displays any sexual conduct that is defined by the state law, and 3) the art lacks artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. Sally Mann’s child photography does not meet the criteria since the average person does not find her work to be salacious, the art displays no sexual conduct or penetration in any form, and her work lacks no artistic value. In fact, her art displayed a significant amount of artistic value due to the controversy and her way of challenging the hegemonic ideals of society. Thus, her work should not be censored because it is not considered obscene in the state law.

Susan Jacoby's essay represents her unique image as a “First Amendment Junkie” and what it means for her in society of her times. Her belief that the First Amendment must be carried on at all costs without regarding the content, which in this case she expresses particularly in pornography. Jacoby states that allowing censorship of pornography could open up the possibilities of censoring other things if so, what could be those other things? Could we agree with her? Had we censored pornography back in the 70's would we as women be where we are now? After analyzing Jacoby's article, She does not excuse or deny that pornography can be or is vulgar,

In New York Times journalist Susan Jacoby's essay, "A First Amendment Junkie," Susan Jacoby makes an argument against the censorship of pornography. She mentions at the beginning of her essay that the majority of those who support censoring pornography are women, often feminists, and that these women generally consider themselves supporters of the First Amendment. Those who would usually support free speech, but will change their minds when it comes to pornography, are certain that pornography is more damaging than other controversial expressions. Jacoby finds it rather ridiculous that these feminists hold the belief that pornography is the most offensive example of free speech, when neo-Nazis are marching through neighborhoods inhabited by

The premise of my argument that one would consider to be most controversial would be the premise that pornography does encourage freedom of speech/expression. Many may object to this because many people specifically feminists such as Catherine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin regard pornography as immoral because it is a form of sex discrimination. Other feminists as stated by Garry believe that pornography is a form of hate speech and that it defames women. In Garry’s paper she argues that certain content of pornography violates the moral principle of respecting people and how pornography degrades women as it depicts them as mere sex objects and how it is because of this pornography is morally impermissible. Due to the fact that the conclusion of my argument opposes Garry’s view, I will also discuss what she would say in response to the support of my “controversial” premise.

     Today, in the 1990's, citizens in our society are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction. From the hate lyrics of Gun's 'N Roses to the satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit graphical content of today's movies, the issue is how much society is going to permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line. The freedom of speech has always been considered a right, but that doesn't mean that you can shout, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The real question is whether such material is harmful or dangerous to our society.

The first step in the investigation would be to attempt to determine the validity of the child pornography claim. In an attempt to determine what the child saw, the investigator would need to speak to the child directly, instead of basing any decisions on what the mother told him. Due to an ongoing custody battle between the parents, this could be a ploy by the mother to get the upper hand in the battle. Upon questioning the five-year-old, it would need to be determined whether these photos were child pornography or could they simply be innocent pictures of their son taken by one of the parents while the other parent was bathing or changing him. If the child tells the investigator the pictures he saw where indeed of other children, without

One issue that feminists should bring to the open and question is the definition of pornography. Often times anti-porn feminists argue that we can tell what is and isn’t porn easily. Yet the definition these feminists use to decide what counts as porn and whether it should be censored from the public applies to many things as Lumby points out in paragraphs nine and twelve. She draws up the movie Siren as an example of how Elle Macpherson’s nudity in the movie was widely accepted and went uncontested, but then Lumby points out how Macpherson’s shoot for Playboy was more modest than some of the shots in the film yet the photo shoot receives more flack because it’s categorized as porn (par 9).

Catharine MacKinnon, in her book Feminism Unmodified, takes a unique approach to the problem of gender inequality in America. She claims that pornography defines the way in which America’s patriarchal society perpetuates male dominance, and attacks traditional liberal methods that defend pornography on the basis of the first amendment’s right to free speech. According to MacKinnon, pornography is not an example of speech but rather an act. She proposes that this act discriminates against women as a class, and therefore violates their civil rights and should be outlawed. MacKinnon’s critics may think her argument is excessively radical, and contemporary society may not embrace the