The Law is Reason but is it Free from Passion?

This essay will discuss the concept of pornography and the multiple definitions it produces. It will then go onto discuss whether or not all pornography amounts to violence towards women and, if this is the case, should it be censored. Radical feminist views will be highlighted and counterbalanced with the views of many anti-censorship groups including Feminists Against Censorship. A debate on how the country could censor pornography will then be seen and finally conclusions will be produced.

Wendy McElroy proclaims that ‘pornography and feminism have many things in common. They both focus on women as sexual beings. Pornography dwells on the physical act of sex itself; feminism examines the impact of sex upon women-historically, economically, politically, and culturally… Pornography is one of the windows through which women glimpse the sexual possibilities that are open to them. It is nothing more or less than freedom of speech applied to the sexual realm. Feminism is freedom of speech applied to women’s sexual rights… Both pornography and feminism rock the conventional view of sex. They snap the traditional ties between sex and marriage, sex and motherhood… In other words, pornography and feminism are fellow travellers. And natural allies.’ [1] However within the feminist movement the debate over pornography has caused a divide between women who once worked and marched together side by side[2].

The radical feminist view, which is anti-pornography, has been widely discussed throughout the United Kingdom over the years and can be seen as having the strongest representation in the media. However this view is only held by some feminists. Many have tried to define the dispute between anti-pornography and anti-censorship feminists as being anti-porn and pro-porn however it can be seen as being a much broader issue than that!

Pornography is not a self-defining concept.[3] The William’s Committee on Pornography and Obscenity described it as, ‘…a representation which combines two features: it has a certain function or intention, to arouse its audience sexually, and also a certain content, explicit representations of sexual material (organs, postures, activity etc.). A work had to have both this function and this content to be a piece of pornography.’[4] However the word originally comes from the Greek for ‘writing about whores’ and Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist, argues that “the word pornography does not mean ‘writing about sex’ or ‘sexual representations etc.’ it means the graphic depiction of women as vile whores.”[5]

Typically traditionalists define pornography as including all sexually explicit material. This definition highlights the fact that for them pornography is obscene and appeals to ‘prurient interests’[6]. However anti-pornography feminists do not always object to pornography’s sexually explicit content, they have a distinction within the class of sexually explicit materials. They have pornography and they have what they describe as ‘erotica’. ‘Erotica’ can be loosely defined as sexually explicit material premised on equality.[7] It shows women as equal consenting participants in the sexual activities or encounters shown. In contrast though, pornography can be seen as material which depicts women as being coerced or abused as well as hugely degraded in such a way as to endorse their subordination.[8] Most anti-pornography feminists therefore have little objection to material which is sexually explicit, the objection is to the material which dominates and subordinates women.

A more legal definition of what can constitute pornography can be seen in the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA)[9] it states that ‘an article will be deemed to be obscene if its effects or the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.’ The term ‘deprave or corrupt’ in the OPA is a highly debated issue as it relates to peoples morals. Many people have different morals and it is often argued that law and morality should be kept separate.

A more specific definition of pornography itself can be taken from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, ‘An image is pornographic if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.’ Debates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act provisions have centred on the possession of images of sexual violence and have raised the persistent question of where the boundaries of intervention should lie and whether harmful activities and practices enjoyed in private should receive protection from prosecution. The banning of the ownership of extreme pornography highlights ‘the problems within liberal political thought of identifying harm, distinguishing direct and indirect harms, the problem of consent to harm and whether a society has the right to enforce its morality in the absence of proven harm.’ [10]

According to many radical feminists, pornography is not harmless entertainment or fantasy. It is a form of male violence against women and Itzin believes it ‘contributes to a patriarchal and heteronormative ideology in which women are reduced to objects existing purely for a man’s sexual satisfaction.’[11]

Sociologist Diana Russell proclaims[12], "Pornography is vicious, anti-woman propaganda. It tells lies about us. It degrades women. Pornography is not made to educate but to sell, and for the most part, what sells is a bunch of lies about sex and women. Women are portrayed as enjoying being raped, spanked or beaten, tied up, mutilated, enslaved, or they accept it as their lot as women to be victims of such experiences. In the less sadistic films, women are portrayed as turned on and sexually satisfied by doing anything and everything men order them to do. What this involves is, for the most part, totally contrary to what we know about female sexuality: i.e. it is almost totally penis-oriented, often devoid of foreplay, tenderness, or caring, to say nothing of love and romance."The primary focus of radical feminist objection to pornography is on the central role that it plays in the exploitation and oppression of women. [13]

The anti-pornography campaign gained considerable support and strength within the feminist movement by the early 1980s. It had come to be represented, perhaps most prominently by Dworkin, MacKinnon and Russell in the United States and by Jeffreys and Itzin in the United Kingdom. MacKinnon and other radical feminists believe that pornography silences women. It is argued that it makes women, “lack credibility and authority and therefore helps to reinforce a hostile and expressionless social environment which makes women reluctant to speak at all.” [14] Consequently if women are raped, sexually harassed, or have been assaulted sexually in any way the crimes are often unreported by women. Although, even when women do speak out their opinions are frequently ignored if it contradicts the picture of women contained in pornography. In MacKinnon’s words, ‘pornography strips and devastates women of credibility, from our accounts of sexual assault to our everyday reality of sexual subordination. We are stripped of authority and reduced and devalidated and silenced.’[15]

MacKinnon also goes on to say that women who say ‘no’ in sexual contexts may not be believed or understood due to the reinforced general view that women do not intend to refuse a man’s sexual advances. For MacKinnon, then, a desire for pornography and sexual violence is not an ‘epiphenomenal symptom or side-effect of other material and social conditions that lie at the root of women's subordinate position in society, as some other feminists are inclined to think.’[16] Rather, it is a central cause of the subordinate position of women in society. So long as there is pornography, MacKinnon thinks, women will remain silenced and therefore harmed.

Many anti-pornography feminists are concerned that the ‘choice’ to participate in the making of pornography may not be a free one. Many participants in pornography often come from underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds and who have few substitute options for making a living. Under these circumstances, there may be an important sense in which the choice to perform in pornography is ‘coerced’, insofar as the women would not have selected to perform in pornography had other reasonable options been available to them. The pornography industry may take unfair advantage of underprivileged women, preying on their psychic and economic vulnerability[17], to procure profits at their expense. MacKinnon puts the point graphically, ‘pornography is a public institution of sexual slavery, trafficking in vulnerable women and children, and profiting from their suffering and subjugation.’[18]

A case which supports MacKinnon’s view with regards to a lack of choice is that of Linda Boreman. She appeared in a pornographic film called ‘Deep Throat’ as “Linda Lovelace” in 1980, and has stated that her ex-husband Chuck Traynor violently coerced her into taking part in this film and others like it. Mackinnon and members of ‘Women Against Pornography’ all offered statements in support of Boreman when she made her charges public. Here, MacKinnon and Dworkin highlighted civil rights litigations as a possible way to combat pornography.

The idea of pornography being a violation of women’s civil rights is a harm which most feminist, even liberals, would take very seriously. Liberals are not narrow minded in thinking that the ‘harm’ principle has to be merely that of physical harm[19]. Many would broaden the definition to include the behaviour which may ‘harm’ the rights of any individual or group of individuals. Following on from Linda Boreman’s case MacKinnon and Dworkin helped to draft an anti-pornography civil rights ordinance for the city of Minneapolis which defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women, and allowed women who were harmed by pornography to sue the producers in civil court. The law was passed by the city council but vetoed by the mayor and it was eventually ruled unconstitutional. This, though, did not stop MacKinnon and Dworkin. Both continued to support anti-pornography legislation. MacKinnon argued, ‘And as you think about the assumption of consent that follows women into pornography, look closely some time for the skinned knees, the bruises, the welts from whippings….Many of them are not simulated.’[20]

Some of the women who perform in pornography would strongly reject the claim that they are exploited and did not have a choice to do it. Anna Span, a feminist and female porn director, would argue that the men and women in her films all have a choice to be there. She does not see the issue with pornography as a whole and makes films which are directed more for a women audience. She feels that women should express their sexuality. Women who are involved in pornography often maintain that the decision to become a porn star was a genuinely self-directed one.[21]They regard the claim that they are victims of exploitation as offensively patronizing and paternalistic, implying that pornography is not a worthwhile or valid career choice. In reality, female porn actors may be fully autonomous and intelligent citizens pursuing a perfectly valid and rewarding career of their own choosing.[22] Banning pornography, they argue, would constitute unjustified interference with their right to pursue their career of choice. Of course, that the decision to pursue a career in pornography is a free and fulfilling one for some women does not go to show that it is necessarily a free and fulfilling choice for all or even most of the women who perform in pornography.

It could be argued that even if the pornography industry does exploit some of the women who perform in it, it still begs the question of whether it should be censored completely. Many liberal feminists have noted in reply to pro-censorship supporters that other industries such as supermarkets or fast food chains may likewise take advantage of workers with few alternative opportunities. Should these too be banned on grounds of exploitation?[23] The best solution to such mistreatment is arguably not to ban these things because this would only further deny those already deprived of one more option, and one that they might prefer over others of the limited range available to them.

A main argument for anti-pornography and pro-censorship feminists is that of pornography causing harm to women. They would agree with the statement that ‘all pornography amounts to violence against women and on this basis it should be censored.’ Some feminists in the UK desire anti-pornography legislation because of pornography’s role as a cause of violent sexual crime. These radical feminists would argue that we currently have ‘laws preventing racial incitement: pornography is speech that incites sexual violence’ and also it can be said that ‘prohibition of such speech as incites sexual violence is justified for the same reason as prohibitions against racially incendiary speech, namely, to protect the physical security and bodily integrity of individuals.’[24]

R. v. Butler[25] is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on pornography and state censorship in which the Court had to balance the right to freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[26] with women's rights. The outcome can be seen as a victory for anti-pornography feminists.[27] The case went on to state that pornography causes harm, harmful effects and can create anti-social behaviour. A community standards test was created to access harm. It split pornography into three categories: explicit sex with violence, explicit sex without violence but which subjects people to degrading or dehumanising treatment and explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanising.

There is substantial disagreement, among researchers as well as liberal and radical feminist philosophers, about whether pornography is a cause of violent sexual crime. Liberal defenders of pornography willingly admit that, if there were 100% reliable evidence to show that consumption of pornography significantly increases the probability of violent sexual crime, there would be a very strong liberal case for prohibiting it[28]. Ronald Dworkin, for example, writes "…in spite of MacKinnon's fervent declarations, no reputable study has concluded that pornography is a significant cause of sexual crime: many of them conclude, on the contrary, that the causes of violent personality lie mainly in childhood, before exposure to pornography can have had any effect, and that desire for pornography is a symptom rather than a cause of deviance"[29] Both the final report of the Commission of Obscenity and Pornography in the U.S. in 1970 and the Williams Committee Report into Obscenity and Film Censorship in the U.K.[30] surveyed the data from clinical and experimental trials then available and found no evidence of a causal connection between pornography and rape[31]. In 2005, the Home Office also stated: 'We do not yet have sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material on individuals generally, or on those who may already be predisposed to violent or aberrant sexual behaviour.'[32]

However, the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography in the U.S., also known as the Meese Report[33], found that, ‘exposure to violent pornography can significantly enhance a subject's arousal in response to the portrayal of rape, that exposure to films that depict sexual violence against women can act as a stimulus for aggressive acts against women, and that prolonged exposure to degrading pornography, of a violent or non-violent sort, leads to increased callousness towards victims of sexual violence, a greater acceptance of ‘rape-myths'.”[34]; and that “the available evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that substantial exposure to sexually violent materials…bears a causal relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and, for some subgroups, possibly to unlawful acts of sexual violence" [35] This could highlight the view that pornography leads to harm towards women and should therefore be censored. However many anti-censorship liberals would argue that the Meese Report was highly criticised as being biased and inaccurate.[36]

One relatively soft core pornography model said, "I knew the pose was right when it hurt."[37] Pornography becomes a motive for murder sometimes when audiences want scenes or events to be real, as in "snuff" films in which someone is tortured to death to make a sexually appealing film. However there has been inconclusive evidence that these occur so it is argued that this is not a valid reason to censor all pornography.

Indication that pornography can cause violence against women can be seen via evidence from murder trials. ‘Necrobabes’ was a website which contained images of women pretending to be dead to arouse viewers. Membership to this site has been previously used as evidence in the murder trial of Diane Holik. Patrick Anthony Russo was found guilty of the murder of Diane Holik in 2001 and during the trial the police found evidence that he was a paying subscriber to this website. Another case in which pornography may have played a role in the death of a woman is in the case of Jane Longhurst. Jane was killed in 2003 by Graham Coutts[38]. Evidence showed that just hours before the murder of Jane, Coutts had visited violent pornographic websites, which depicted women being strangled and raped[39].

Ted Bundy, an infamous serial killer responsible for the murder of as many as 36 to 50 young women and girls, allowed an interview with Dr James Dobson on January 24, 1988, the day before he was executed[40]. Ted Bundy stated in this interview, "In the beginning, it [pornography] fuels this kind of thought process ... Like an addiction; you keep craving something that is harder, harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping-off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it.[41]" He also went on to say, “I've lived in prison for a long time now, and I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography - deeply consumed by the addiction.” This shows that pornography really can be very harmful and using this evidence many feminists and other anti-pornography campaigners can be said to have an excellent case for censorship to be introduced.

Although this can be seen as a reason to support censorship, it also has to be taken into consideration that in all three cases above there were various other factors which played a role in these murders. It can be disputed that it is one thing to say that “a deeply disturbed and dangerous person may seek out violent pornography to fulfil their deviant fantasies however it is an entirely different matter to say that normal, well-adjusted people will be inspired to commit violent crimes if they watch such images.”[42] In addition, Ted Bundy also acknowledged, “I'm not blaming pornography. I'm not saying it caused me to go out and do certain things. I take full responsibility for all the things that I've done. That's not the question here. The issue is how this kind of literature contributed and helped mould and shape the kinds of violent behaviour.” Therefore it can be contended that pornography cannot accept the full blame for the horrific murders and rapes seen in many cases.

Some liberals though have accepted that pornography may contribute to women’s subordination. They believe that it does often add to the discrimination against women however this harm is not sufficient enough to justify interfering with the rights to freedom of speech. Censorship has been criticised as being likely to breach Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights[43]. Pornography is an aspect of free speech and in the absence of any clear evidence of ‘harm’, pornography can not and should not be restricted. [44]Censorship may well cause more harm than it removes. They would recommend instead protests and public debates rather than censorship or other legal forms of regulation. These feminists can be seen as anti-pornography, as they believe it does cause some harm to women, but they are also anti-censorship.

The Speech Act Theory is associated with the Oxford Philosopher J.L Austin and focuses on ways in which language can be used to portray or preform actions. The contemporary use of the term goes back to Austin’s doctrine of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts[45]. It maintains that the words people say can not only communicate but also have real and visible effects to the surroundings. The anti-pornography feminists state that pornography has wider lasting effects on society as a whole. Due to these effects and the freedom of expression in this country objectification can not only be seen with the women involved in pornography but to all women. Feminists argue that the objectification has the ability to fester and grow into dehumanisation. As many feminists would say, ‘The Personal is the Political[46]’ and every way in which women express themselves through their personal decisions has political implications and affects a spectrum of people. This theory then creates an argument, for radical feminists, against the freedom of speech in this situation. Liberals would contend that by calling pornography illocutionary gives it too much power and that it is not that influential and therefore should not be censored.

“Feminists Against Censorship was formed in 1989 by a group of long-time feminist academics and campaigners who wished to fight censorship from a feminist perspective.”[47] They believe that by saying that women are often brainwashed by men or paid off by the pornography industry to oppose censorship of sexual materials is one of the most sexist declarations because it states that women cannot think for themselves.[48] Anti-censorship campaigners believe that the movement for sexual censorship poses a clear and present danger to women on four primary points. Firstly it gives enormous and dangerous powers to the state. It also promotes the very repression that is implicated in causing sexual violence and thirdly it derails honest and open feminist discussion of sexuality and related vital issues. Finally it further stigmatizes and disempowers women in the sex industry as well as other sexually active women.[49]

Women certainly have reason to fear a society in which sexual violence is promoted and accepted. The question is, why should what has historically been widely acceptable view, women as the sexual property of men, be blamed on a marginal genre like pornography, when respectable institutions like the church and the state have promoted those same values for thousands of years. If religious scholars and judges have traditionally upheld the view that women must submit to their husbands, why pretend that such attitudes come from pornography[50]? Research produced on sexual offenders has established that repressive religious background and family abuse in childhood are the principal causes of sexual violence later in life against women, children and even some men. Serial rapists and murderers, almost consistently turn out to be people who have accepted strict conservative sexual values. [51]Clearly campaigns against porn are more acceptable than campaigns against the Bible. Religion is not censored, so why should the government censor porn?

Liberals also have concerns about how censorship laws might work in exercise. Many liberal and feminist objections to censorship of pornography point to the costs and dangers of censorship. They argue that even if pornography does cause some harm to others, the risks involved in censoring are not worth the risk. A main difficulty within censorship would be in establishing a legal definition of ‘pornography’. It is hard to censor something which you cannot fully define. “One person's erotica is another person's pornography”[52]

Some would argue that censorship is already starting to tiptoe its way into our society even if public opinions do not request it. In October 2011, the current UK Government backed a report in which the Advertising Standards Authority banned ‘indecent’ advertising billboards. Indecent in the UK now apparently means any image of a female in a sexually suggestive pose. Advertisers can still dare to show a woman in a bikini however if she is in an ‘indecent pose’ which may, for example, include her having her hands on her hips then the advert will be deemed illegal and a threat to the sexual innocence of children.[53] Some feminists would agree with this move by the government stating that it will stop men from viewing women in a degrading way and help to desexualise society. However many liberals will feel that women should be allowed to express themselves if they wish and showing the female body in a bikini should not be deemed illegal.

Considerable public concern about the availability of extreme pornography material can be seen in this country. This kind of material has been available in the past but never so easily accessible and in such quantities it is now due to the rapid growth of the internet. The use of internet has rapidly grown over the last few years. According to a major research study published in April 2005 75% of 9-19 year olds surveyed had accessed the Internet from a computer at home and 57% of all 9-19 year olds surveyed who use the Internet at least once a week had come into contact with pornography online[54].The UK Government tried recently to combat children accessing pornography by forcing Internet Service Providers to offer a parental control feature when people enter a new contract with them. However this move, by David Cameron has been criticized, as according to reports by uSwitch, there are only about 5% of existing customers that change their contracts in any given quarter[55]. With these numbers it is evident, too many, that this new policy would make no substantial difference.

Pornography is an issue which has, both historically and in the present day, been the scene of hostile disputes within feminism .Despite the efforts of anti-pornography feminists, many traditional liberal defenders of pornography remain unconvinced that censorship is the way forward. They typically continue to maintain either that pornography does not cause enough harm to women which is sufficient enough to counterbalance the dangerous characteristics of censorship. Also Dworkin has been heavily criticised for focussing on the very worst and most extreme examples while largely ignoring the types of pornography most commonly viewed or purchased. Just because a small minority of people want to place the blame of violence against women onto pornography does not mean that this is the case. A minority of people should not be the reason to censor something, "Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"[56]

[1] Wendy McElroy, ‘A Woman’s Right to Pornography’, [St Martin’s Press; New York; 1995]

[2] Avedon Carol, ‘nudes, prudes and attitudes: pornography and censorship’, [New Clarion Press; Cheltenham; 1995]

[3] Jackson E, ‘The Problem With Pornography: A critical survey of the current debate’, Feminist Legal Studies, 1995, p. 50

[4] The William’s Committee on Pornography and Obscenity, Cmnd 7772, London: HMSO, 1979

[5] Dworkin, ‘A Pornography: Men Possessing Women ‘, The Women’s Press, 1981

[6]

[7] Steinem G, ‘Erotica and pornography: A clear and present difference’, [William Morrow & Co; New York; 1980]

[8] Easton, ‘The Problem of Pornography: Regulation and the right to free speech,’ [Routledge; London; 1994]

[9] Section 1(1)

[10] Susan Easton, ‘Criminalising the Possession of Extreme Pornography: Sword or Sheild?’, Journal of Criminal Law, JLC 75 (391), October 2011

[11] Itzin, ‘Pornography: Women, Violence and Civil Liberties’, [Oxford University Press; Oxford; 1992]

[12]Diana Russell, ‘Pornography: A Feminist Perspective’, Berkeley, 1977

[13] MacKinnon, ‘Only Words’, [Harper Collins; London; 1995]

[14] MacKinnon, "Not a Moral Issue" and "Francis Biddle's Sister: Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech", in Feminism Unmodified, Harvard University Press, 1987

[15] IBID

[16] Brownmiller, "Against Our Will: Women, and Rape," [Simon Schuster; New York; 1975]

[17] Clark L, Lewis D, "Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality," Toronto, Canada: The

Women's Press, 1977

[18] Coward, ‘Female Desire’, [Paladin; London; 1984], pp 142

[19] P. Johnson, 'Law, Morality and Disgust: The Relation of “Extreme Pornography” in England and Wales' (2010) 19(2) Social and Legal Studies 147

[20] MacKinnon, ‘Harvard Civil Rights’, Civil Liberties Law Review, 1985

[21] Lori Gruen & George Panichas, ‘Sex, Morality, and the Law’, [Routlegde; London; 1997]

[22] Gram Ponate, ‘PORN How to Think with Kink’, [Blackwell’s publishing; West Sussex; 2010] pp67

[23] Wendell, ‘Pornography and Freedom of Expression’, [Prometheus; Buffalo; 1983]

[24] Itzin, ‘Pornography: Women, Violence and Civil Liberties’, [Oxford University Press; Oxford; 1992] pp 98

[25] [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452

[26] 1982

[27] Lorraine Johnson, "Sideways Glances: Looking at Porn, Looking at Art," in Suggestive Poses: Artists and Critics Respond to Censorship, ed. Lorraine Johnson Toronto: Toronto Photographers Workshop and The Riverbank Press, 1997

[28] Skipper, R., "Mill and Pornography", Ethics, 103(4): 726-730., 1973

[29] Dworkin, R., "Do We Have a Right to Pornography?" in A Matter of Principle, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1985

[30] Williams Committee Report into Obscenity and Film Censorship in the U.K. 1979. The committee reported that: "Given the amount of explicit sexual material in circulation and the allegations often made about its effects, it is striking that one can find case after case of sex crimes and murder without any hint at all that pornography was present in the background."

[31] Jeffreys, ‘Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution’, The Women’s Press Ltd: London, 1990

[32] Home Office, Consultation: on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material (Home Office/NOMS/Scottish Executive: London, August 2005).

[33] Submitted its final report in 1986

[34] Victor B Cline, ‘Pornography’s Effects on Adult and Child’, Morality in Media, New York, 1992 assessed via http://www.mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/porn/pornlds/pornldsauthor/links/victorcline/porneffect.htm Last visited 16/12/11

[35] Lynn, Barry W. "Civil Rights Ordinances and the Attorney General's Commission: New Developments in Pornography Regulation" Harvard C.R.-C.L. L.R. 1986

[36] Wilcox, Brian L. "Pornography, Social Science, and Politics: When Research and Ideology Collide." American Psychologist. 42, October 1987

[37] Catharine A. MacKinnon, ‘Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech’, Harvard Journals, 130 Cong. Rec, 1985. Also refer to 'Slain Teens Needed Jobs, Tried Porn"' and "Two Accused of Murder in 'Snuff' Films", Oakland Tribune, Aug. 6, 1983 (on file with Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review) 1975

[38] R. v Coutts [2005] EWCA Crim 52

[39] Susan Easton, ‘Criminalising the Possession of Extreme Pornography: Sword or Sheild?’, Journal of Criminal Law, JLC 75 (391), October 2011

[40] Stephen G Michaud, ‘Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer’, [Authorlink; Texas; 2000] pp78

[41] J. F. Cogan, ‘Interview with Ted Bundy with Dr James Dobson’, DiskBooks, assessed via http://diskbooks.org/tb.html

[42] West, ‘The Free Speech Argument Against Pornography’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 33, 391-422, 2003 assessed via http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/#4.1

[43] Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 provides the right to a freedom of expression.

[44] Barnett H, ‘Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence,’ [Cavendish; London; 1998] pp 291

[45] Austin, J. L., ‘How to Do Things with Words’, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962

[46] Maggie Humm, ‘The dictionary or Feminist Theory’, Columbus, Ohio University Press, 1995

[47] Feminist Against Censorship Website assessed via http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/facfaq.htm last visited 17/12/11

[48] Adrian Turner, ‘Pornography and Social Abhorrence’, The Journal Dedicated to Magisterial and Local Government Law, 170 JPN 685, September 2006

[49] Adrian Turner, September 2006

[50] Avedon Carol, ‘nudes, prudes and attitudes: pornography and censorship’, [New Clarion Press; Cheltenham; 1995]

[51] Mary Pellauer, ‘Pornography: An Agenda for the Churches’, Christian Century, 1987, p.651 assessed via http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1055 last visited 11/12/11

[52] Potter Stewart, Judge of the Unite States Supreme Courts

[53] Jim Edwards, ‘The UK Bands Sexy Billboards With New Rules Governing “Knickers, Whips and Chains.”’ October 10 2011, assessed via http://www.cbsnews.com last visisted 17/12/11

[54]Sonia Livingstone, ‘UK Children Go Online’, End of Award Report, London School of Economics, 2007

[55] As seen at http://www.itproportal.com/2011/10/11/uk-isps-claim-camerons-porn-filter-wont-make-difference/

[56] Deborah Hyde, Member of Backlash an anti-censorship and alternative sexuality pressure group

The Law is Reason but is it Free from Passion?

About Me

Tuesday 21 February 2012

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility....

Monday 20 February 2012

"All pornography amounts to violence against women and should therefore be censored" With reference to radical feminist theories provide a critical analysis of this statement.

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews