I agree with Mackinnon that pornography shapes people's views of women and especially perpetuates negative views of them and behavior toward them. There is tons of scientific research delving into this. I also think that the porn industry is extremely harmful to many of the women who are apart of it. In my ideal world pornography (such as on a pornography website) would probably be banned. However, in reality, I don't think there is a way to do that without also censoring valuable forms of speech that overlap with it. Additionally, I keep thinking of what Strossen said in the hate speech panel. I think her sentiment about enforcement applies here too. Most likely, censorship of pornography would end up unfairly targeting those it is designed to protect because those in charge of enforcing the censorship often don't have minorities best interests in mind.
My answer starts from a disagreement with the "lower value" approach that hovers over this whole unit. I do not trust the government to rank the value of speech, because as the casebook itself points out, speech tends to get labeled less valuable exactly when it attacks majoritarian values most sharply. That is why I think Easterbrook was right to reject Indianapolis's low-value argument even while accepting that pornography causes real harm: once officials can grade speech by its worth or its viewpoint, the grading power will serve whoever already holds power. Strossen's Canada evidence makes the point concrete, since the new censorship authority landed first on lesbian bookstores and on Dworkin's own books. So my answer to the closing question is narrow: the law can restrict speech to protect participation only when the rule turns on conduct-like features (repetition, targeting, exclusionary effect, as in harassment law) and never on a judgment about the value or perspective of what was said. MacKinnon is right that silencing is a real harm; I just do not think a government valuation of speech is a remedy the least powerful can afford.
While I agree with MacKinnon’s assertion that speech depicting women in subordination tends to overshadow the fight against it, I think regulating pornography on the basis of content is a slippery slope into allowing the government to regulate anything perpetuating uncomfortable or harmful views. This gets into regulating content and thoughts, which is an inexcusable overreach into our freedom of speech rights. If we allow the government to start regulating based on morality then is there really a point to the First Amendment at all? I think MacKinnon’s marketplace of ideas argument is interesting as well, but like the court said in American Booksellers the marketplace of ideas concept does not require that the truth actually wins out. In other words, the marketplace of ideas just protects our freedom to express a lot of conflicting (and maybe even harmful) ideas in a way that allows society the ability to evaluate what is and isn’t acceptable.
Warning: I kind of went on a tangent with this one.
I respect the ideology behind Mackinnon's argument and protecting the target's ability to remain in the conversation, and that it shapes the idea of women. However, I do find myself pushing back against that argument, especially after reading Strossen’s critique this week. MacKinnon argues that pornography is social messaging that teaches inequality, and promotes the idea that women are objects to be used; not an expression of ideas. She argues that pornography threatens the dignity and free speech of women, which I think is an argument that is rooted in misogyny. The idea that women who participate in the creation of pornography have no dignity and can’t speak on their own behalf is extremely misogynistic. She argues that pornography works as a social institution and that by making pornography illegal, it gives the women who are harmed by it the right to sue and have a legal remedy.
This idea is assuming that even most women who participate in the creation of pornography feel as though they are harmed by it, when it is likely the opposite. Women can be pro-sex while maintaining their dignity and not being harmed. If they are harmed, there are many other legal avenues that can be used to seek remedy. Rape and any sort of sexual assault are crimes, and any act that is done without the explicit consent of a woman places the conduct in this category. The same is true for Child Sexually Abusive Material- there is a reason we don't call it child pornography anymore, and that is because it's an abuse of power concerning assault and consent, and is a punishable crime; not a form of artistic expression.
We learned that banning speech on the basis of viewpoint is a 'no no' when we were discussing hate speech last week, because censorship is going to do the exact opposite of what McKinnon and Dworkin are hoping for by censoring pornography. Giving the majority group the ability to enact and enforce these laws is only going to be used to silence the groups of people that they’re allegedly created to protect.
Laws should not be allowed to restrict one person’s speech in order to protect another persons ability to speak. I understand that she believes that the marketplace of ideas can’t be fair when the system is built to drown out the minorities, but censorship is not going to solve the issue and suddenly amplify the voices of women, but instead criminalize their expression. Women are silenced due to the deeply rooted misogyny in American systems. This misogyny is anchored into the systems and cultures in which boys and men are raised, so censorship of pornography to protect women would do nothing to solve this issue. Censorship would not only infantilize women, but it also places the “blame” for sexual assault on them; women are note responsible for the way men behave, and should not have to strip themselves of their sexual expression because men can’t control that behavior. Censorship would be the government's version “I thought she wanted it because her skirt was too short.”
I find this article interesting as it claims to focus on protecting speech by safeguarding the atmosphere to enable speech to take place by training and educating participants on the idea of respect in the marketplace of ideas. One example the article uses is to introducing pornography. It runs with the idea of equality and the freedom of speech can travel in tandem by protecting the rights of those engaged in expression in order for them to be able to safely and adequately express themselves. But I do not agree with MacKinnon's belief that pornography furthers the subjugation of women. It makes no reference to the positives of pornography for women in certain circumstances. There are those who view the creation of pornography as positive sexual expression where women are able to act out their desires, creativity, or even highlight their sexuality in the face of a political system that previously looked down on one's ability for free sexual expression in a safe and neutral enviornment. Though this is not always the case, the article ignores the opposing viewpoint that sees pornography as a tool of sexual liberation. It is true that pornography can be used to demean, exploit, or create a warped perception of the opposite sex, this is not always the case.
I sympathize and understand the argument proposed but I always find this quite analogous to the "violent videogames cause violence" arguments. I think both scenarios have the capability to be true, but I would rather fringe cases be legal than give the government reign to ban things based on paternal morality. I think back to what Strossen said and continue to believe that her approach is the correct on. As for drowning out voices, I think that social media has really leveled the playing field to give a microphone to those who otherwise may not have the means to reach a large audience.
I do think pornography itself is a tricky subject. I think it is conduct rather than traditional high value political speech and society would not be worse off if it was banned. But with the 1A cases we covered as well as the panel talks, I completely disagree with obscenity laws and the Miller test because it reflects paternalism. To oversimplify, the government is not my dad. If there is speech or conduct I do not like, I can simply walk away/close my browser or speak back. I think that is the better system compared to banning items society at some point has deemed to be low value.
A frequent response to any claim of censorship is that the claim is nothing more than a desire for paternalistic government regulation, where the government gets to decide what people can and can't see. The issue with the pornography regulations that MacKinnon and Dworkin call for is that it requires someone, like the government, a jury, a judge, whomever, to make a decision about what speech is high value and what speech is low value. One of the main goals of the First Amendment is ensuring that minority views, no matter how much in the minority they are, are not censored because they offend the moral sensibilities of the majority. In the pornography case, a lot of the porn that these laws would ban would be low value and highly offensive to the common person. However, the Constitution exists to protect the minority voices from being censored. Therefore, I don't see a way that these pornography bans are constitutional, despite any perceived harm that would come to women from their existence.
In response to “When Speech Silences,” I find myself in agreement with Professor MacKinnon. Specifically, the article frames MacKinnon’s question as follows: “What if some people can’t speak back? What if speech itself becomes a tool of power, shutting some people out of the conversation altogether.”
Instantly, I was sympathetic to the argument; for I have experienced it firsthand at the Michigan State University College of Law. Conservatives and religious individuals cannot speak back out of fear; for the speech of the masses shuts the minorities out of the conversation altogether. This is not just my experience but the experience of many others at Michigan State University and college campuses around the nation. More speech for conservatives and religious individuals only leads to fewer friendships, lower grades, humiliation, and even scorn.
In conclusion, I only hope that future generations understand, as one of my heroes Professor Cornel West says, that friendship and love transcend politics.
While I tend to agree with MacKinnon's general beliefs, I do disagree that the freedom of expression requires the power to be heard. Does the power to be heard insist that there is a right to be heard? Does that mean listeners need to be compelled? If that is the case, then I would definitely disagree. A person who speaks that no one listens to has still spoken, no one stopped them. People chose not to engage or to engage with something else. In the case of the student in MacKinnon's hypo, I would say that I think the law can restrict speech that threatens or targets somebody (the doxxing from the hypothetical), but it shouldn't restrict speech in an attempt to equalize participation. While I do have some worry about algorithms and the way they can impact our interactions with eachother, part of me thinks it doesn't change that much. If the owner of a bookstore puts a book in the back of their shop, we generally wouldn't say the author has been silenced. I think the scale of social media platforms makes it a bit different, but I still think the best ideas and the most valuable speech tend to make their way to the collective consciousness eventually.
Mackinnon presents an interesting dilemma when she points out that some speech can make it inherently more difficult for people to participate in the marketplace of ideas. It is viewed as sort of the ultimate evil of the first amendment to allow the government to restrict speech. But if what Mackinnon suggests is true, that speech can conceivably limit counter-speech itself, different considerations may be appropriate. The concern with allowing the government to limit speech that would inherently limit other speech is that it opens the window for government to engage in open viewpoint censorship.
To me, while Mackinnon presents an evil that should be acknowledged, I am fearful that allowing government to dictate speech to prevent the situations she is concerned with presents a greater area of concern. Speech that creates an environment where others are motivated to not speak is obviously problematic. But even still, those speakers could choose to speak. To me, that is a preferable alternative to government deciding a certain speaker may not speak out of fear of that scenario.
This definitely harkens back to the obscenity panel from last week. It is such an interesting concept that pornography could be framed as a civil rights violation. It obviously wasn't enacted, but the idea itself sparks discussion. Obscenity being one of the two limiting factors on pornography (alongside CHILD involvement) is a bizarre limitation to me. It is almost impossible to formulate an obscenity test that is the same person-to-person. Obviously, a nun and a stripper are going to each have very different ideas of what is acceptable (protected) and what is too obscene. I respect MacKinnon's work in enacting a broader framework that disallows the hateful use of speech to push people out of spaces. That in itself is a huge step. I struggle to see the bridge between that and pornography.
She believes that pornography is a form of social messaging. It shapes how people think about women, and that is wrong. However, that is a line that is so difficult to define. She thinks it shouldn't be protected due to the derogatory nature of its treatment towards women. It is difficult to regulate that, as where could it end? TV shows might have insulting things happen to women that don't have anything to do with gender as a whole. Should these be taken to be social messaging as well? It opens up a new discussion to me, mostly concerning where this could lead in the future.
The idea of speech, such as harassment, threats, or slurs, silencing speech is an interesting one. Speech can minimize other people which could devalue their speech or cause silence. The scenario posed, about a black student posting about racial bias on campus, is reminiscent of the heckler’s veto. Her post is censored because of the reaction to her speech, not the speech itself. However, her reaction to the backlash and censorship,
I do not think this example takes away from the marketplace of ideas. It is an unfortunate example, but it in itself is the marketplace at work. Someone expresses an idea, others counter that idea, unfortunately in a hateful way, but the byproduct of that could be that others see the backlash, see the prevalence of racism on their campus in action, exactly what she originally posted about. It also gives others the ability to defend the poster, and causes all of those interacting to think about what is happening and why. Beyond this, social media platforms are privately owned. Its decision to censor a post is not within the reach of the first amendment.
However, it is vital for people to have the ability to fight bad speech with speech. There will always be fears of participating in political speech, after all, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of your speech. But if we take an alternative example, someone posting something hateful, to an extreme reaction of the audience, it may silence the poster, or it may cause them to consider why the hateful speech caused such a reaction.
It is important to protect people's ability to participate in conversation, but the government limiting speech is not, in my opinion, the way to do that.
I agree with Mackinnon that pornography shapes people's views of women and especially perpetuates negative views of them and behavior toward them. There is tons of scientific research delving into this. I also think that the porn industry is extremely harmful to many of the women who are apart of it. In my ideal world pornography (such as on a pornography website) would probably be banned. However, in reality, I don't think there is a way to do that without also censoring valuable forms of speech that overlap with it. Additionally, I keep thinking of what Strossen said in the hate speech panel. I think her sentiment about enforcement applies here too. Most likely, censorship of pornography would end up unfairly targeting those it is designed to protect because those in charge of enforcing the censorship often don't have minorities best interests in mind.
My answer starts from a disagreement with the "lower value" approach that hovers over this whole unit. I do not trust the government to rank the value of speech, because as the casebook itself points out, speech tends to get labeled less valuable exactly when it attacks majoritarian values most sharply. That is why I think Easterbrook was right to reject Indianapolis's low-value argument even while accepting that pornography causes real harm: once officials can grade speech by its worth or its viewpoint, the grading power will serve whoever already holds power. Strossen's Canada evidence makes the point concrete, since the new censorship authority landed first on lesbian bookstores and on Dworkin's own books. So my answer to the closing question is narrow: the law can restrict speech to protect participation only when the rule turns on conduct-like features (repetition, targeting, exclusionary effect, as in harassment law) and never on a judgment about the value or perspective of what was said. MacKinnon is right that silencing is a real harm; I just do not think a government valuation of speech is a remedy the least powerful can afford.
While I agree with MacKinnon’s assertion that speech depicting women in subordination tends to overshadow the fight against it, I think regulating pornography on the basis of content is a slippery slope into allowing the government to regulate anything perpetuating uncomfortable or harmful views. This gets into regulating content and thoughts, which is an inexcusable overreach into our freedom of speech rights. If we allow the government to start regulating based on morality then is there really a point to the First Amendment at all? I think MacKinnon’s marketplace of ideas argument is interesting as well, but like the court said in American Booksellers the marketplace of ideas concept does not require that the truth actually wins out. In other words, the marketplace of ideas just protects our freedom to express a lot of conflicting (and maybe even harmful) ideas in a way that allows society the ability to evaluate what is and isn’t acceptable.
Warning: I kind of went on a tangent with this one.
I respect the ideology behind Mackinnon's argument and protecting the target's ability to remain in the conversation, and that it shapes the idea of women. However, I do find myself pushing back against that argument, especially after reading Strossen’s critique this week. MacKinnon argues that pornography is social messaging that teaches inequality, and promotes the idea that women are objects to be used; not an expression of ideas. She argues that pornography threatens the dignity and free speech of women, which I think is an argument that is rooted in misogyny. The idea that women who participate in the creation of pornography have no dignity and can’t speak on their own behalf is extremely misogynistic. She argues that pornography works as a social institution and that by making pornography illegal, it gives the women who are harmed by it the right to sue and have a legal remedy.
This idea is assuming that even most women who participate in the creation of pornography feel as though they are harmed by it, when it is likely the opposite. Women can be pro-sex while maintaining their dignity and not being harmed. If they are harmed, there are many other legal avenues that can be used to seek remedy. Rape and any sort of sexual assault are crimes, and any act that is done without the explicit consent of a woman places the conduct in this category. The same is true for Child Sexually Abusive Material- there is a reason we don't call it child pornography anymore, and that is because it's an abuse of power concerning assault and consent, and is a punishable crime; not a form of artistic expression.
We learned that banning speech on the basis of viewpoint is a 'no no' when we were discussing hate speech last week, because censorship is going to do the exact opposite of what McKinnon and Dworkin are hoping for by censoring pornography. Giving the majority group the ability to enact and enforce these laws is only going to be used to silence the groups of people that they’re allegedly created to protect.
Laws should not be allowed to restrict one person’s speech in order to protect another persons ability to speak. I understand that she believes that the marketplace of ideas can’t be fair when the system is built to drown out the minorities, but censorship is not going to solve the issue and suddenly amplify the voices of women, but instead criminalize their expression. Women are silenced due to the deeply rooted misogyny in American systems. This misogyny is anchored into the systems and cultures in which boys and men are raised, so censorship of pornography to protect women would do nothing to solve this issue. Censorship would not only infantilize women, but it also places the “blame” for sexual assault on them; women are note responsible for the way men behave, and should not have to strip themselves of their sexual expression because men can’t control that behavior. Censorship would be the government's version “I thought she wanted it because her skirt was too short.”
I find this article interesting as it claims to focus on protecting speech by safeguarding the atmosphere to enable speech to take place by training and educating participants on the idea of respect in the marketplace of ideas. One example the article uses is to introducing pornography. It runs with the idea of equality and the freedom of speech can travel in tandem by protecting the rights of those engaged in expression in order for them to be able to safely and adequately express themselves. But I do not agree with MacKinnon's belief that pornography furthers the subjugation of women. It makes no reference to the positives of pornography for women in certain circumstances. There are those who view the creation of pornography as positive sexual expression where women are able to act out their desires, creativity, or even highlight their sexuality in the face of a political system that previously looked down on one's ability for free sexual expression in a safe and neutral enviornment. Though this is not always the case, the article ignores the opposing viewpoint that sees pornography as a tool of sexual liberation. It is true that pornography can be used to demean, exploit, or create a warped perception of the opposite sex, this is not always the case.
I sympathize and understand the argument proposed but I always find this quite analogous to the "violent videogames cause violence" arguments. I think both scenarios have the capability to be true, but I would rather fringe cases be legal than give the government reign to ban things based on paternal morality. I think back to what Strossen said and continue to believe that her approach is the correct on. As for drowning out voices, I think that social media has really leveled the playing field to give a microphone to those who otherwise may not have the means to reach a large audience.
I do think pornography itself is a tricky subject. I think it is conduct rather than traditional high value political speech and society would not be worse off if it was banned. But with the 1A cases we covered as well as the panel talks, I completely disagree with obscenity laws and the Miller test because it reflects paternalism. To oversimplify, the government is not my dad. If there is speech or conduct I do not like, I can simply walk away/close my browser or speak back. I think that is the better system compared to banning items society at some point has deemed to be low value.
A frequent response to any claim of censorship is that the claim is nothing more than a desire for paternalistic government regulation, where the government gets to decide what people can and can't see. The issue with the pornography regulations that MacKinnon and Dworkin call for is that it requires someone, like the government, a jury, a judge, whomever, to make a decision about what speech is high value and what speech is low value. One of the main goals of the First Amendment is ensuring that minority views, no matter how much in the minority they are, are not censored because they offend the moral sensibilities of the majority. In the pornography case, a lot of the porn that these laws would ban would be low value and highly offensive to the common person. However, the Constitution exists to protect the minority voices from being censored. Therefore, I don't see a way that these pornography bans are constitutional, despite any perceived harm that would come to women from their existence.
In response to “When Speech Silences,” I find myself in agreement with Professor MacKinnon. Specifically, the article frames MacKinnon’s question as follows: “What if some people can’t speak back? What if speech itself becomes a tool of power, shutting some people out of the conversation altogether.”
Instantly, I was sympathetic to the argument; for I have experienced it firsthand at the Michigan State University College of Law. Conservatives and religious individuals cannot speak back out of fear; for the speech of the masses shuts the minorities out of the conversation altogether. This is not just my experience but the experience of many others at Michigan State University and college campuses around the nation. More speech for conservatives and religious individuals only leads to fewer friendships, lower grades, humiliation, and even scorn.
In conclusion, I only hope that future generations understand, as one of my heroes Professor Cornel West says, that friendship and love transcend politics.
While I tend to agree with MacKinnon's general beliefs, I do disagree that the freedom of expression requires the power to be heard. Does the power to be heard insist that there is a right to be heard? Does that mean listeners need to be compelled? If that is the case, then I would definitely disagree. A person who speaks that no one listens to has still spoken, no one stopped them. People chose not to engage or to engage with something else. In the case of the student in MacKinnon's hypo, I would say that I think the law can restrict speech that threatens or targets somebody (the doxxing from the hypothetical), but it shouldn't restrict speech in an attempt to equalize participation. While I do have some worry about algorithms and the way they can impact our interactions with eachother, part of me thinks it doesn't change that much. If the owner of a bookstore puts a book in the back of their shop, we generally wouldn't say the author has been silenced. I think the scale of social media platforms makes it a bit different, but I still think the best ideas and the most valuable speech tend to make their way to the collective consciousness eventually.
Mackinnon presents an interesting dilemma when she points out that some speech can make it inherently more difficult for people to participate in the marketplace of ideas. It is viewed as sort of the ultimate evil of the first amendment to allow the government to restrict speech. But if what Mackinnon suggests is true, that speech can conceivably limit counter-speech itself, different considerations may be appropriate. The concern with allowing the government to limit speech that would inherently limit other speech is that it opens the window for government to engage in open viewpoint censorship.
To me, while Mackinnon presents an evil that should be acknowledged, I am fearful that allowing government to dictate speech to prevent the situations she is concerned with presents a greater area of concern. Speech that creates an environment where others are motivated to not speak is obviously problematic. But even still, those speakers could choose to speak. To me, that is a preferable alternative to government deciding a certain speaker may not speak out of fear of that scenario.
This definitely harkens back to the obscenity panel from last week. It is such an interesting concept that pornography could be framed as a civil rights violation. It obviously wasn't enacted, but the idea itself sparks discussion. Obscenity being one of the two limiting factors on pornography (alongside CHILD involvement) is a bizarre limitation to me. It is almost impossible to formulate an obscenity test that is the same person-to-person. Obviously, a nun and a stripper are going to each have very different ideas of what is acceptable (protected) and what is too obscene. I respect MacKinnon's work in enacting a broader framework that disallows the hateful use of speech to push people out of spaces. That in itself is a huge step. I struggle to see the bridge between that and pornography.
She believes that pornography is a form of social messaging. It shapes how people think about women, and that is wrong. However, that is a line that is so difficult to define. She thinks it shouldn't be protected due to the derogatory nature of its treatment towards women. It is difficult to regulate that, as where could it end? TV shows might have insulting things happen to women that don't have anything to do with gender as a whole. Should these be taken to be social messaging as well? It opens up a new discussion to me, mostly concerning where this could lead in the future.
The idea of speech, such as harassment, threats, or slurs, silencing speech is an interesting one. Speech can minimize other people which could devalue their speech or cause silence. The scenario posed, about a black student posting about racial bias on campus, is reminiscent of the heckler’s veto. Her post is censored because of the reaction to her speech, not the speech itself. However, her reaction to the backlash and censorship,
I do not think this example takes away from the marketplace of ideas. It is an unfortunate example, but it in itself is the marketplace at work. Someone expresses an idea, others counter that idea, unfortunately in a hateful way, but the byproduct of that could be that others see the backlash, see the prevalence of racism on their campus in action, exactly what she originally posted about. It also gives others the ability to defend the poster, and causes all of those interacting to think about what is happening and why. Beyond this, social media platforms are privately owned. Its decision to censor a post is not within the reach of the first amendment.
However, it is vital for people to have the ability to fight bad speech with speech. There will always be fears of participating in political speech, after all, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of your speech. But if we take an alternative example, someone posting something hateful, to an extreme reaction of the audience, it may silence the poster, or it may cause them to consider why the hateful speech caused such a reaction.
It is important to protect people's ability to participate in conversation, but the government limiting speech is not, in my opinion, the way to do that.