The Free Speech Argument Against Pornography

Abstract

Pornography may harm women in a variety of ways. But among the harms that pornography has sometimes been alleged to cause is a surprising one: it violates women's right to freedom of speech. Pornography ‘silences’ women; and laws against pornography are justified (among other reasons) in order to stop pornographers from expressing themselves in a way that prevents women from speaking. Or so claims Catherine Mackinnon.

A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand (Second Edition)

“…in the philosophy of language, they have studied the role of language in debates about pornography (Langton 1993;hornsby and Langton 1998;Langton and West 1999). in moral and political philosophy, australasian feminists have contributed to feminist bioethics (dodds 2000, 2007), to the feminist analysis and critique of liberalism (barclay 2000;Langton 1990;West 2003), and also to the project of rehabilitating concepts that had been repudiated by earlier feminist theory, such as the concept of autonomy (Mackenzie and Stoljar 2000). analytic feminists working in the history of philosophy have made important contributions to both the rethinking of androcentric concepts in the history of philosophy and to the discovery of the contributions of female philosophers (broad 2002;Green 1994Green , 1995.…”

Pornography and censorship

“…For we might think that a government that allowed people the freedom to produce whatever sounds and scrawls they like, but who implanted some device in the heads of hearers that systematically prevented would-be hearers from comprehending the intended meaning of those sounds and scrawls, would be just as bad as a government who prevented speakers from producing the sounds and scrawls altogether. Either way, speakers are prevented from communicating their opinions to others, which defeats what liberals take to be the point of free speech: the right of speakers not to be prevented by the actions of other agents from communicating their ideas or opinions to others who might wish to hear them (West 2003).…”

“…Inspired by more recent feminist arguments against pornography, some have begun to argue that the liberal commitment to protecting individual autonomy, equality, freedom of expression and other liberal values may in fact support a policy that prohibits certain kinds of pornography, rather than the permissive policy liberals have traditionally favoured. (See e.g., Dyzenhaus 1992, Easton 1994: 42-51, Langton 1990, Okin 1987, West 2003.) These theorists do not normally reject the harm principle, broadly understood: They generally agree that the crucial question in determining whether censorship of pornography is justified is whether there is reliable evidence to show that the publication or viewing of pornography by consenting adults causes sufficiently great harm to the significant interests of others.…”

“…Pornography may thus prevent women from communicating their ideas to others, not by preventing them from producing or distributing sounds and scrawls, but by preventing those sounds and scrawls from being understood by hearers as expressing the idea they were intended to express. (See Langton 1993, Hornsby 1995, Hornsby and Langton 1998, West 2003. For replies to Hornsby and Langton see Jacobsen 2001, Bird 2002.…”

“…It also requires at least that would-be hearers are not prevented from comprehending the intended meaning of those sounds and scrawls-otherwise there is not free speech, merely the freedom to produce and distribute wordlike sounds and scrawls. (See e.g., Hornsby and Langton 1998, West 2003. For replies see Jacobson 2001, Green 1998 In different ways, these commentators argue that the traditional liberal conception of free speech, and of the right to free speech, fails to pay sufficient attention to the way language works; and, in particular, to the way in which what words mean-and so what it is possible for speakers to say or communicate-depends on social context, a context that pornography may help to shape and perpetuate.…”