Lets Put Pornography Back In The Closet Analysis

Susan Brownmiller, mediocrely delivers a gripping argument on identifying pornography as an obscene visual. Brownmiller merely confirms how she is in favor of the first amendment, yet she still pinpoints some unsatisfying elements of the amendment that effect the view of women in society.

A very popular constitutional issue in America is the First Amendment. The First Amendment is meant to protect, but in today’s society it is being questioned that the argument is being overly used. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference (Esmaili). Freedom of religion created the separation of church and state. It prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The right of freedom of expression gives the right to assemble and gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Court later interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. Putting this is layman’s term, you can pretty much say what you want without being penalized.

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,

The 1st amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” When the Framers of the Constitution wrote the 1st amendment there intention was exactly was to prevent the government from interfering with States’ rights. More specifically, the Framers intent was to allow citizens to speak freely without violating the law or public policy. However, the Framers did not intend the 1st amendment to be a gateway for citizens to say whatever they want, individuals can still be censored. We can find

From the “No” aspect written by Michael Seto, Alexandra Maric, and Howard E. Barbaree, they argue that 1) there is enough evidence any where proving that pornography is the cause of rape or rape crimes. They do not feel that it proves that men objectify and dehumanize women or that violent pornography desensitizes men to rape, 2) Knowing the definition of pornography and understanding the different versions help to identify where the issue lies, and 3) there are causal models that link pornography and aggression.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to make a

he First Amendment protects rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It’s most basic component is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Which gives freedom of speech to press to express themselves without government interference or regulation (Hawkins, 2012). Moreover, when we’re censoring ourselves we are willingly giving away our right to free speech. In today’s fast-paced world with so many social media sites and internet. It is very easy and common for someone or media to write or post an article about someone else’s private life.

Although the first amendment was to protect the people from the government censoring their freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceably assemble and grievances however there are some exceptions. The first amendment provides

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.

When it comes to pornography society views it as something other then normal that should be excluded. However, due to the popular demand and increase in the people watching it I don’t believe it will be banned, or erased from society. Because the truth is we are living in a time were sexuality is acceptable, and should not be frown upon. So in conclusion, I don’t think that it is something bad, and I don’t feel that it is right fro people always discrediting a women in the industry. They like what they do and if they can live with themselves and their choices then who are we as a society to

For many years there has been a lot of arguments about the ethical and morality of pornography. pornography is defined as the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement. When it coms down to pornography, people have different opinions about it. Some people might find it moral because it gives them pleasure and it satisfies them physically. some individuals see it as a form of art that describes the figure of a human body in an artistic form. Others see it as immoral because it harms and degrades an individual. Personally I believe that it all depends how pornography is conducted and how we respond to it. It can be morally healthy that we like it because it makes us happy, such as it helps with your marriage relationship in intimacy, and it can be immoral when it is used in an unhealthy that we do not like it because hurts an innocent person.

Ethics Pornography is a social problem and is a commodity brought into existence by certain characteristics of a highly developed civilization. The problem with pornography is that any form of censorship or downplay cannot solve it. It is difficult to draw the line between ones right to express their ideas and or opinions or sexuality

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).

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.

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