tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111491755623162668..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Pornography and CensorshipRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1126533357909406322005-09-12T09:55:00.000-04:002005-09-12T09:55:00.000-04:00Hi, thanks for replying...You see, that's my probl...Hi, thanks for replying...<BR/><BR/>You see, that's my problem with pornography. It is much too often thought to be totally harmless. While I haven't come across any conclusive studies on the matter that would actually prove that pornography directly causes harm to women, there is no doubt to me that it is linked to some serious damage. That said, we'll have to agree that it is not justified to prohibit porn, or even to censor it.<BR/><BR/>Now does the correlation between porn and harm allow us to act on the question (given that we agree on the correlation between porn and harm)? I think so, though it obviously cannot be through coercive action that would curtail people's right and liberty to watch porn. The best solution I have come up with is along the line of some sort of sexual education and/or courses on the idea of representation (obviously a bit unpractical for adults, but anyway I do believe the issues should be tackled at a young stage). This would exclusively be in the intention of giving people the tools that will enable them to see that porn is situated in discourse and that it doesn't depict reality (it is truly surprising that quite a large number of people believe that porn is a depiction of raw reality). Since I have come to the conclusion that this distortion of reality in porn is the most objectionable (because linked to harm), such a solution would benefit everyone. Obviously it is a long-term solution rather than a short-term one.<BR/><BR/>I definitely have strong doubts about immorality being a strong enough justification on its own to prohibit/censor anything. I'm not even sure I would qualify porn as immoral. It all depends on your definition of immorality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1126501874372057952005-09-12T01:11:00.000-04:002005-09-12T01:11:00.000-04:00Hi Alexandra, I don't think my views have substant...Hi Alexandra, I don't think my views have substantially changed, though I might make some slight modifications to the arguments made in this two year old essay.<BR/><BR/>The core issue is the empirical question whether pornography causes real harm (e.g. through promoting pernicious attitudes towards women, or triggering rapists, etc.). I'm not aware of any conclusive evidence that supports such a claim. I would guess that <I>religion</I> does more harm than pornography.<BR/><BR/>But if we could show that there was significant harm done, then the issue would certainly warrant more careful examination. In particular, we would need to judge whether the benefits of censorship are worth the breach of autonomy that it entails. That's not something we can answer without getting into the finer details. (Much like the question of whether hate speech ought to be criminalized. Incitement to violence obviously should, but for more mild forms of immoral suggestion? I'm not so sure about that.)<BR/><BR/>So, yes, I agree with you that there's a "balance process" involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1126489069427814172005-09-11T21:37:00.000-04:002005-09-11T21:37:00.000-04:00Hey... I came across this post and couldn't resist...Hey... I came across this post and couldn't resist saying a few things. Though I'm not even sure whether you'll see this, as it's not a very recent post. But nonetheless...<BR/><BR/>1)You're basing your argument on the claim that pornography is speech, and as such, that it should be protected. Now you could wonder whether or not it's actually justified to base your defence of pornography on such a claim. This is mainly due to the following reason: is porn truly speech, or could it qualify as action? You hinted at that point when you talked about pornography as being an act of subordination. As soon as you can qualify porn as an act, then it can't be defended as speech.<BR/><BR/>2) Now, you dismiss porn as being an act of subordination of women because you think that feminists are not being consistent, since they should also consider gay porn as being an act of subordination, due to the fact that "both types are of identical moral character". This argument doesn't hold if you consider that feminists don't oppose porn on moral grounds, but exclusively because it may harm women. As such, male gay porn doesn't come in the equation (though lesbian porn does, since as the argument goes, it's mainly produced for men, and as such, may lead to some harm).<BR/><BR/>3) Also... you used the principle of autonomy to justify access to porn. But again, it doesn't quite work. You say people should be free to decide whether or not statements are true (ok, let's suppose porn is speech). I'm inclined to agree, though there are exceptions. What about hate speech, such as racist speech? Should such statements that can potentially heighten racist discrimination be allowed? Wouldn't such statements diminish the autonomy of black people for instance? Now obviously, it is not proven that pornography amounts to hate speech, but the opposite -ie that porn is similar to hate speech- is nonetheless at the heart of a fierce debate that cannot be so easily dismissed (eg: porn shows a distorted image of women's sexuality, objectifies women, etc. Studies have also shown that rape myths -such as the belief that women actually enjoy being raped (!)- are more easily believed by people having been exposed to even short viewing of porn). The principle of autonomy has to be used carefully; there's clearly a balance process that has to take place here...<BR/><BR/>I understand you wrote this a while ago, but i'd be curious to know what your views on the subject are now and if they have changed. It sometimes seems that you had pretty clear-cut views (ie: that porn should be legal) before you even looked at the debate, and tried to shape your argument accordingly... Now, I might be wrong. But I was just thinking you might have, because that's the state of mind I was in when I started my own essay on porn... until I realised that it wasn't going to work. I do believe that censorship cannot be justified on the ground that some people claim that their "moral beliefs or aesthetic preferences" are better than others'. However, once this is established, there's still the crucial need to see whether or not certain kinds of porn have consequences on other people... I'm clearly interested in women's rights here. It just seems like you dismiss this side rather too easily. This is especially true if you base your defence of porn on the right to free speech.<BR/><BR/>Now as I said, I'm really curious about what you think, and whether or not your views have changed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com