86%(7)6 out of 7 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 7 out of 12 pages.
of individual liberty that involve no harm to others, rather than by “compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”Offense principle questionableHis view is consistent with our constitution
The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography04/21/2013°Commission was requested by Reagan to reexamine the problem of pornography in American society°Some of the factual findings of this second commission contrasts the central factual finding of the earlier commission°The 1986 commission, using the word pornography to refer to material that is “predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal,” thought it important to distinguish among (1) violent pornography, (2) nonviolent but degrading pornography, and (3) nonviolent and nondegrading pornography°The commission concluded that both category (1) and category (2) materials, butnotcategory (3) materials, bear a causal relationship to undesirable attitudinal changes and acts of sexual violence°In a brief reference to the category of child pornography, the commission emphasizes the way in which the production of child pornography entails child abuse°
Wicclair04/21/2013°Wicclair considers the definition of porn that includes violent degradingmaterial mostly regarding women°Discussing legal censorshipThere is a serious risk that once any censorship is allowed, the power to censor will, over time, expand in unintended and undesirable directions (the “slippery slope”)°Wicclair’s liberal view: Freedom should be limited only on the basis of aclear and present danger°The Let’s pay it safe argument. “Just in case porn does increase the likelihood of rape, and other sexual harms, let’s censor it”°RebuttalThe cathartic effort: porn as a substituteoWill produce a net reduction in harm to womenPorn is not the real culprit-socio-economic conditions and the criminal justice system areMost importantly: whatever ill effects porn may be said to have maybe neutralized in way that are more effective than censorship- educational campaigns, picketing, more cops on the streetoKrecz agrees°More problems with censorship:Some of the practices depicted in porn are illegal, but some are not.How can we outlaw the latter?oKrecz doesn’t see how this furthers his argumentIt would be difficult to formulate laws without a precise definition of pornLecturer: Who would be the censor?
Susan Brison04/21/2013°1. Porn (as she defines it) is significantly harmful and we do not have a “moral” right to enjoy it°2. Her definition of porn: violent misogynistic speech (where “speech” includes words, pictures, films, etc.). Women portrayed as being worthy of demeaning and tortureKrecz says demeaning is a broad word°3. Not arguing for its legal censorship, but seems to want it°4. Harm to women: based on first person testimony from those in the trade. The Evelina Giobbe exampleRan away when she was 13 and raped her first night on the streets
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 12 pages?
individual liberty, racial insults, Paris Adult Theater