Only WordsConstitutionally protected speech that is Clearly sexual abuse is discriminatingand unconstitutional, therefore, must be restricted speech. Catherine A. MacKinnon, in her book “Only Words” gives persuading evidence thatpornography subordinates women as a group through sexual abuse. She says”Protecting pornography means protecting sexual abuse as speech, at the sametime that both pornography and it’s protection have deprived women of speech,especially speech against pornography (MacKinnon, 9). MacKinnon argues this byeexplaining defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, andequality and speech.
Women are sexually abused for the making of pornography. Torture, rape, hot wax dripping over nipples, and murdering women are the toolsto produce a product of evil. Literature is the description of these crimesagainst humanity (emphasized) and cameras are proof of these crimes. On theassumption that words have only a referential relation to reality, pornographyis defended as only words-even when it is pictures women had to directly used tomake, even when the means of writing are women’s bodies, even when a women isdestroyed in order to say it or show it or because it was said or shown.
(MacKinnon,12) However, assuming words are only a partial relation to reality would mean wewould have to reconsider what reality is. Our wedding vows such as “I do”would be meaningless and a jury could never return a verdict that is onlypartial to reality. These words are “treated as the institutions and practicesthey constitute, rather than as expressions of the idea they embody” (Mackinnon,13) Therefore, if these words of pornography are only words, don’t theyinstitutionalize rape’since pornography is rape on women. Pornography isprotected by the First Amendment as free speech, but why? Because thepornographic materials are construed as ideas, and the First Amendment protectsideas.
Pornography is commonly brushed of as some product of fantasy for thosewho buy it. But what about the women who were tortured to make it. Also it isbrushed off as simulated. This means that the pain and hurt the women arefeeling is just acting.
Put a little music and a smile here and there to coverup the pain, and you are portraying to and giving pure pleasure for those whobuy the product. Just like fantasizing a death, how do you simulate a death? Butdiscarding pornography as a representation is the most frequent excuse. But howcan a murder be justified on terms of representation? (MacKinnon, 27,28) . Whenone fantasizes about murdering another person, this is premeditation of murder.
If he were to express this idea, he would be heard as expressing a threat andpenalized. For the obvious reason, publications that are “how to” guides onmurdering people are not protected speech. I believe Pornography is the catalystfor premeditation of rape. Pornography flicks are “how to” guides for rape. So why are they legal? His idea is protected, and further more is his threat of”I’m gonna *censored* her”, because both are seen as fantasy, but whyisn’t murder seen as fantasy? Murder is the loss of ones life, but so ispornography when women have been killed to produce it. Pornography is proven tobe addicted.
When somebody is addicted to premeditating rape, it’s only amatter of time before his addiction of premeditation becomes a solid plan. Sexual or racial harassment has been suggested to only be made illegal if onlydirected at an individual and not a group. “The idea seems to be that injuryto one person is legally actionalble, but the same injury to thousands of peopleis protected speech”. (MacKinnon, 51) This would be disparate impact whichinvolves “employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment ofdifferent groups, but that, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than anotherand cannot be justified by business necessity. ” (Lindgren ; Taub,167)Pornography is disparate impact on women, because of the sexual abuse, andironically the disparate impact seems to be the business necessity.
Under TitleSeven’s disparate impact treatment concept, pornography is illegal. ( I justhave to prove it now) Also, is there not reasonable “harm” (Wolgast, 432,Fem Juris) for a women to visit a place where men are watching a porno andpremeditating her rape? Is she not infringed on her First Amendment right tocongregate with equal respect. The idea of pornography (pre meditated rape) doesnot allow her respect. It does not allow respect for women as a whole, livingamong men as a whole, who have the idea in their mind. Two groups, men andwomen, one who is premeditating rape against the other because of a purchasedproduct, pornography, the catalyst to rape. Pornography clearly resembles thetheory of Dominance.
The important difference between men and women is thatwomen get *censored*ed and men “*censored* women” (MacKinnon, 499. Fem Juris)socially and constitutionally. This in turn renders them incapable of anindividual self. When protected dehumanizing speech (pornography) is ramped inthe market, subordination of women occurs. The more violent speech gets, itseems that more protected it becomes.
The more pornography expands, the moreprotected it becomes. Therefore, the more pornography is produced, the moreunequal women become, and there speech is less heard and reduced to “Onlywords”. (MacKinnon) Women are then left to remain silent. If true equalitybetween male and female persons is to be achieved, we cannot ignore the threatto equality resulting from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent anddegrading material.
