Lets Put Pornography Back in the Closet by Susan Brownmiller

Tropp, Sandra Fehl., and Ann Pierson. D'Angelo. "Pornography (1983)." Essays in Context. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 543-47. Print.

The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.

In today's society though, people are starting to become extremely confused on what the First Amendment actually covers. For example, burning the American flag in a protest is actually protected by the First Amendment, but many people see burning the

Using a few points from a Derek Bok essay and a short quote from Susan Jacoby, this paragraph will highlight the First Amendment. Bok, a Harvard University President for 20 years, handled a similar situation as the St. Cloud University President. The presentation of two Confederate flags and then a swastika, aggravated some students who found the symbols

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

Free speech shall not incite evil and hatred in this country. The First Amendment prevents the government from infringing upon our freedom of assembly and speech. “The disability is so complete that Congress is expressly forbidden to enact laws respecting an establishment of religion, or laws abridging the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the right to petition the government” (Bybee). As a whole, our founding fathers only had good intentions with regards to First Amendment rights in America.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of

There are always two sides to anything and these are the two sides of the First Amendment. The first side, Side A is some believe that social media should censor what we show to everybody because everybody may be shocked by it. Another side, Side B is some people believe that social media shouldn’t censor what we post because people should accept how in the world it isn’t

The first amendment of the United States says that as a United States citizen we have the freedom to speak what we believe. We have been given the right to speak our mind in public and let our views be heard. But does this mean we can insult our listeners or be harsh to them according to race or gender? Does this mean we can speak without any regard for others views and personal feelings? No it does not. By allowing everyone to speak their mind in public, it would cause havoc and disarray among us. This is why certain people should censor the speech beforehand to make sure it has no abrasive material and will be beneficial to the public.

MacKinnon(1981),claims that if pornography is part of a person 's sexuality, then that person has no right to their sexuality. Women who enjoy pornography claim that they are offended by these kinds of attitudes, and want it recognized that they get more out of pornography than oppression. As writer Sallie Tisdale writes, "pornography tells me the opposite [of what Dworkin and MacKinnon tell me]: that none of my thoughts are bad, that anything goes. The message of pornography is that our sexual selves are real." (Strossen, 1995). (Albee, 2002)

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).

Thesis – Multiple outlooks have been taken on the ethics of pornography, and the means by which it may either negatively influence power in sexuality, or actually provide some sort of social value and worth. These different ethical perspectives display the flaws in the industry and what it represents; yet they also end up proving the fact that it can be modified with positive influence and that pornography is not something to be deemed utterly unethical.

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

In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.