41.8 So how about the Dworkin/MacKinnon stuff already?
Description
This article is from the Sex Movies FAQ, by director@gti.net (The Director) with numerous contributions by others.
41.8 So how about the Dworkin/MacKinnon stuff already?
Saved it for last because I think it is the greatest threat to porn
(and civil liberty in general) we currently face. I won't expect
you to take my word for it; here is a description of the model
legislation in, quoted from Ms. Dworkin's book _Pornography_:
"The law itself is civil, not criminal. It allows people
who have been hurt by pornography to sue for sex
discrimination. Under this law, it is sex discrimination
to coerce, intimidate, or fraudulently induce anyone into
pornography; it is sex discrimination to force
pornography on a person in any place of employment,
education, home or any public place; it is sex
discrimination to assault, physically attack, or injure
any person in a way that is directly caused by a specific
piece of pornography - the pornographers share
responsibility for the assault; in the Bellingham
version, it is also sex discrimination to defame any
person through the unauthorized use in pornography of
their [sic] name, image, and/or recognizable personal
likeness; and it is sex discrimination to produce, sell,
exhibit, or distribute pornography - to traffic in the
exploitation of women, to traffic in material that
probably causes aggression against and lower civil status
for women in society.
The law's definition of pornography is concrete, not
abstract. Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually
explicit subordination of women in pictures and/or words
that also includes women presented dehumanized as sexual
objects, things, or commodities; or women presented as
sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or women
presented as sexual objects who experience sexual
pleasure in being raped; or women presented as sexual
objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or
physically hurt; or women presented in postures or
positions of sexual submission, servility or display; or
women's body parts - including but not limited to
vaginas, breasts, buttocks - exhibited such that the
women are reduced to those parts; or women presented as
whores by nature; or women presented being penetrated by
objects or animals; or women presented in scenarios of
degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or
inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that
makes these conditions sexual. If men, children or
transsexuals are used in any of the same ways, the
material also meets the definition of pornography."
Pornography, p xxxiii
Arguably, this is not censorship. No prior restraint is involved.
Practically, however, it is the greatest restriction on the
exchange of ideas ever proposed. The legal theory involved descends
from the notion of imminent harm, but warps it beyond recognition
until speech - an idea expressed - is legally assumed to be capable
of causing harm.
Not only that, but the harm it causes need not be identifiable or
measurable. Feeling uncomfortable is harm. If that weren't enough,
all parties involved in the expression are responsible for the
harm. You see what kind of power that places in the hands of civil
suit complainants?
I won't even dwell on the sexist nature of the document. Enough
time on this for the FAQ.
Continue to:
My Books
