Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

Free speech is an issue that affects all Americans, whether they realize it or not. Hanging an American flag upside down in a window, declaring communist views and walking in a protest are all protected under the First Amendment, and all seem to be weighty and important ways to communicate an idea. However, I doubt many people think about the First Amendment.

One person, Professor Catherine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan law school, has been spearheading the anti-pornography movement, forcing people to think about porn as free speech. She believes there is a direct link between the prevalence of pornographic material and crimes against women, and defines porn as material which shows women (or men, or children) being degraded, hurt or raped. This is different from erotica, which is sexual material in which both parties involved in the sexual activity can be perceived by the viewer as being equal participants.

Viewed in this light, should the right to view pornography be protected? When violence is involved, I believe restriction may be warranted. When it comes down to free speech rights in making porn to the equal protection of women under the law, we have to strike a balance.

Traditionally, the religious right has criticized the pornography industry for its 'moral degradation' and its ability to corrupt those who watch it. Religious leaders often claim pornography is an affront to family and religious values.

They maintain the corrupting force of pornography is severe enough to warrant government control over the media. These leaders have gained allegiance from an unlikely source-portions of the feminist left.

Pornography has recently come under attack from this group because of the idea that the material being distributed is inherently degrading to women. Porn, according to MacKinnon, leads to women being harassed in the workplace, leads men to believe women enjoy being humiliated and raped and leads society to feel women hold a lesser place than men.

read more nazi bullshit here

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

I have had a difficult time with some of the content and the balance with free speach as well. Being a woman there are some websites and material distributed online that is difficult to accept, but what I find acceptable someone else does or doesn't and it's not up to me. One example which I hate to even share is www.humantoiletbowls.com where in many of the videos the woman are degraded, now is this for real or for the camera? Were they ticked or in agreement? I don't know and I can see why some people would be horrified and want to blanketly target everything because of sites like this.

On another note with such easy access to this material by teens developing their sexuality and with a lack of open discussion with their parents on the subject matter I can see confusion about sex, intimacy and porn after having exposure to material even most of us agree is degrading and horrific.

What next we have girls beating eachother up to post the video online are we going to have a new generation of teen pornographers imitating the ultimate hole and human toilet bowls.. Free Speech is great but education is key and right now our Educators and Parents are still buying old books and playing 1970's sex education videos for their kids; These Educators definitely shouldn't be leading a anti-porn coalition if they have time on their hands.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

McKinnon has been spearheading anti-porn feminism for thirty years or more - this isn't news. She and Dworkin did more with their combined efforts to ensure that women viewed all penatrative sex as analogous to rape.

There are very few women or feminists who hold to this view, by the by.

The second wave and its radical offshoots have been extremely detrimental to the ideas of feminine sex positivity - by taking the view that all m/f sex (or even f/f sex using insertables) is tantamount to rape and that all sexual behaviour that has one partner in a prone position necessarily subjugates that partner (regardless of any potentially negotiated power exchanges, explicit or otherwise), women have been disenfranchised from their own sexuality. The whole topic is one of the most divisive items in the feminist portfolio.

I think it's a straw man argument though, myself, because it hearkens back to the idea that women must be protected for their own good that made sufferage such a difficult fight. And to MY mind, that is completely antithetical to the entirety of the feminist movement and its associated ideals.

McKinnon and her ilk have taken the questionable road that to be feminist is to refute womanhood - and that to make the choice to be submissive in a consensual arrangement is by definition oppressive is faulty at best and dangerous at worst.

Heaven forfend we are provided the ability to make our own decisions and choose for ourselves.

Silly me. I thought that was the whole point.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

I dont care of aforementioned content and further more I think it only brings more heat to our business as a whole.

I think Max Hardcore is a steaming piece of shit.

However Free Speech means Free Speech.

I dont like it and I damned sure dont look at it.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

I don't care for it either, but I also don't care for hate speech - so I don't engage in it or give it my support. But on the other hand, I have views many people disagree with and I don't think my views should be silenced by the religious zealots - and therefore I have to protect the opportunity for human slime to spew their filth so I maintain my freedom to speak my mind as well.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

Define "violent" in legal terms.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

Describe "pornography" in legal terms.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

Hmm. That is the international distress signal, hanging your flag upside down. How does that get grouped with declaring communist view...lololol

Anyway, free speech means that you take the good with the bad. It is an all or nothing proposition.

The one(s) that get to me lately are the one(s) advocating different free speech for different people/groups of people. ie: It is ok for a person of African-American ancestry to say nigger but it isn't ok for anyone else to say the word.

It is all a bunch of bullshit. Like I said to a student when they accused me of making discriminatory/rascist comments at one point:

"There are a whole lot of words in the English language and I reserve the right to use any of them that I please, anytime I please."

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

I don't have to. Pornography is remarkably legal and the AG has even admitted that much of it is protected free speech.

You never have to define legal, just define illegal in a manner that can be measured and used in court. This thread starts down the same road as trying to define obscenity.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

That is because it is one and the same. The only porn that is illegal (other than kp of course) is that which is obscene.

So, whether porn is legal or not pretty much solely depends on whether it is obscene or not and of course, here in the US, that has been left to that wonderfully crystal clear standard of "community standards"

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

I love this question...

The reason all these free speech cases are lost and a waste of tax payer money is the hypocricy; point Boxing and Ultimate Fighting which is quite violent and doesn't come with a disclaimer for minors to view is not mentioned. These people just use adult to sensationalize their position - they all need to get a life or have sex.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

In the Great White North, the only definition of "obscenity" used is sex with violence, ie., a violent act during the penetration, slapping and fucking, whatever...

Violence can precede the penetrative act, or follow it, but can't occur simultaneously.

Hey, I met Max Hardcore, he's a mellow dude, quiet and polite, and good conversationalist, and if his freak or kink or turn-on is violent, degrading sex, it doesn't affect his demeanor or treatment of people (men and women) outside the boudoir.

Personally, it turns me right off... I'm also not turned on by women in diapers, or foot fetish (though I 've seen the occasional pretty foot) and balloons.

But, some people are and do get into those fetishes... to me that's all it is.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

Sarettah, thank you for understanding my point. You have become my Thursday night hero.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

OK, next step, define community.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

That's kinda the whole point, though, isn't it? The entire legal status of porn is hinged on very tremulous definitions that can vary wildly and have no standard.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

This is actually the most important part of the new action by the DoJ. One of the most pressing issues will be the definition of community as it deals with the internet. The community of the internet isn't made up of nothing but bible thumpers and no-booze no sex mormons, but rather the entire population of the US (over the age of 18, as the under 18 crowd cannot access the internet without parental permission, because they cannot legally enter into a contract with an ISP).

Further, the internet (and internet porn) has been around for at least 12 years now (longer, yes, but commercial, call it 1995 or 1996 for real), which means that porn has long since been established within this community, including all forms from straight sex to fisting, cumshots to squirting, anal to plushies. The community that I see as a whole tolerates it in the same manner that we tolerate ignorant blogs, poor taste youtube home movies, Perez Hilton, and goatse.

I think that the DoJ is about 10 years too late on this one.

Re: Free speech shouldn't include violent porn
 

Precisely...the market place should be the decider of free speech. WHY should someone else, anyone else, have power over me to decide what I can look at or express?

Free speech, is free speech. If it's not "good" speech, no one will buy it. Then it really will be "free speech," and won't last long in the marketplace.

And the po' children...gotta protect them. Tell the parents to lock them into the .kids extension. Then control that. I guarantee we have no desire to market there. But don't limit the rest of the world to what's safe for what YOU (the Nazis) think, is safe for kids.