Two Contrasting Feminist Views on How to Address Pornography in Keeping with First Amendment Rights

Nicole Krabill

Professor Withrow

English 102

19 June 2017

Two Contrasting Feminist Views on How to Address Pornography in Keeping With First Amendment Rights

     The allowance of pornographic distribution has been a long disputed issue in the

United Sates. It has been brought into question whether or not pornography should be

protected under the First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The reason its protection

is in question is because the Supreme Court does not interpret freedom of speech to

include obscenity (“Centuries of Citizenship”). The main reason there has been a dispute

on the issue is because the courts have been unable to agree upon an absolute definition

of what obscenity really is. (Sunstein, 580) Some people can view certain material and

immediately be repulsed declaring it “obscene” while others feel that there is no problem

with it at all.  Since a consistent consensus cannot be made, the distribution of

pornography needs to be combated by intelligent discussion in keeping with the

democratic process.

     Comparing the essays of Susan Brownmiller and Susan Jacoby shows two opposing

stances on the topic of pornography and freedom of speech. Brownmiller and Jacoby are

two feminists that have had many years of writing experience and involvement in the

feminist rights community. Both women have very firm beliefs that the First Amendment

rights should be protected and both admit they do not personally appreciate pornographic

material. Despite these similar beliefs they came to different conclusions as to how the

distribution of pornography should be handled.

     Susan Brownmiller believed it is important to protect a person’s rights to freedom of

speech but she did not believe that pornographic distribution was protected under the

First Amendment (68) Her thesis in Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet states, “To

equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial

exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment

and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”(68). On the other hand, In the

essay A First Amendment Junkie Susan Jacoby states in her thesis that, “The Federal

Government is without any power whatsoever under the Constitution to put any type of

burden on free speech and expression of ideas of any kind.”(57).

     While Brownmiller seems quick to call certain pornographic material obscene the

Supreme Court has not been able to come up with an inclusive definition of the term

“obscene”. They therefore will not be able to set standards for criminal punishment of

pornographic material. (“First Amendment”, 613) The Supreme Court stated that that the

material in question must be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a

particularly susceptible or sensitive person (“First Amendment”, 614).

     Another argument that Bronmiller tries to make is that the intent of pornography is to

degrade and dehumanize the female body (69). Arguing intent is not a valid way to

address this issue since intent is subjective. While it may be true in some instances that

idea cannot be held equally for all cases.

      There has been evidence that does however show some women are taken advantage

of and harmed in the business of pornography, which is a very troubling issue. (Sustein,

“Pronograpy”). While these horrible crimes should certainly be prosecuted it does not fall

under the scope prohibiting the material itself from being created and distributed.  Jacoby

addressed a similar issue in her essay. She addresses those who may counter her

arguments to allowing pornography by bringing up the issue surrounding child

pornography. She acknowledges that this is not an issue of addressing obscenity but it is a

fight against the abuse of power (57). As long as nothing criminal is occurring the

making and distribution of material should be protected under the First Amendment.

   Browmiller tries to make the audience see that that exposure to pornography creates a

culture where the degrading depictions that are a standard in most pornography will begin

to be seen as “normal” and “healthy” resulting in sexual masochism for women (69).

There is not overwhelming evidence of this occurring however (Sustein, 590). It does not

seem right to restrict an activity simply because you believe it could develop harmful

behavior. There are many things that people may believe could trigger harmful behavior.

One person may be exposed to the material and choose not to commit a criminal act

while it may have a different effect on another individual. The varying reactions are why

the person’s criminal actions should be prosecuted instead of prohibiting the material

altogether.

    Jacoby brings up a very good point in her essay that pornographic material can hardly

be prohibited or restricted when other more harmful acts are not. (57) Someone really