The Importance Of Pornography

In the debate over the censoring of hate speech, the opponents conclude that hate speech should be censored for peoples ' dignity. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that hate speeches should not be censored on college campuses because it takes away students academic freedom. In this essay, I will conclude that we should not censor hate speech on college campuses. The debate between protection of offensive expression and protection of dignity has been an ongoing issue.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

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.

Centuries ago in American society, individuals were not granted the free will to act and speak freely. First Amendment rights allowed citizens to do so. On a historical outlook, the oppressed fought for the rights of various groups in the United States. Although laws and situations evolve, groups in America continue to face inequality and issues with freedom of speech. There is room for further improvement; freedom for all citizens needs to be fulfilled. The impression of being free is what gives the United States the ideology of being a part of a democracy. Recent events have revealed issues with freedom of speech and questioning about what kinds of speech is protected. In order to close the gap in

Our nation has entered a period where it is becoming increasingly more acceptable to allow censorship for the sake of people’s feelings. This new idea that nothing should be said to cause offense, or distress, to another person is becoming as widespread as to even enter the classrooms of some universities, which now limit what can be discussed (Lukianoff and Haidt, 1). These hypersensitive Americans are beginning to flood into our nation with the belief that we should all care about how people feel about a certain topic. However, the fortunate truth is that we do not and will never care about anyone else’s sensitivity to a topic so much that we limit how express ourselves. The American constitution purposely gives Americans the freedom of speech and expression so that we may cause offense to other people, for the sake of having everyone’s opinions voiced.

In “Free Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance” (Medium, February 6, 2017), Julia Serano addresses the flaws in activists’ Richard Spencer’s and Milo Yiannopoulos’ actions against freedom of speech, as well as the flaws in free speech absolutism. The author explains how free speech absolutism cannot fully be achieved because of the laws that protect our privacy, and how free speech absolutism can only make matters worse. Because there are no laws against Milo Yiannopoulos campaigning for actor/comedian Leslie Jones to delete her personal website, people are allowed to use their freedom of speech to take away that same right from others. Serano explains how she was scared to express herself as transgender during her childhood because she witnessed people being harassed for their identity. The author calls this the paradox of free speech. Another paradox she highlights is the paradox of tolerance. If those who are tolerant do not defend against the intolerant, then the tolerant will one day disappear. Serano believes everyone should be a moderator. People who believe in an open and positive, free speaking society should collectively stand up against those that are intolerant to opposing ideologies, and possibly even incarcerate those who cannot present reason for their beliefs. This, however, is where the line must be drawn. Serano is wrong to believe that free speech absolutism will cause intolerance of fester and one day erupt, and that the minority should be treated like

Frederick Lawrence is a credible source to address the topic of free speech because throughout his life and career, he has been an advocate for free expression and the civil rights movement. He is a visiting professor of law at the Yale Law School as well as a former president of Brandeis university; he has experience working on a college campus paired with a high understanding and knowledge of free expression. His article is from an educational standpoint that has solid reasoning to support how the challenge of free speech on campuses has never been greater.

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.

While some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but we should not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others.

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

Humanity has struggled with determining the best option to solve their ethical dilemmas that they run into in their life. Analyzing and determining the best option to take can leave an individual lost in faith and building a relationship with God. Building a God foundation in your life will help you in every ethical dilemma that you face. The only way to solve an ethical dilemma with viewing pornography is to view the dilemma according to a Christian worldview and compare different options to solve the ethical dilemma.

On that note, we must ask ourselves this: how free is freedom of speech allowed to be? Free enough to voice an opinion but restraining

In modern society, the issue of free speech vs. censorship often comes up. It is a hot topic among those interested in social issues, and represents two well meaning but very different arguments. The argument for freedom of speech says that communication and connectivity promotes progress, while the argument for censorship says that silence and isolation promotes security.

Lindsay Rohland (2015) defined an ethical dilemma as, “a complicated situation in which one must make a difficult choice or decision in the face of conflicting morals.” The choice between right or wrong may seem a challenging but a person’s morals are typically influenced by religion. Christianity has answers for every dilemma a person could be facing. The ethical dilemma of pornography will be analyzed by the Christian worldview, and compared to the perspective of the pantheistic worldview.