- Get Free Essays and Term Papers

Two Contrasting Feminist Views on How to Address Pornography in Keeping with First Amendment Rights

Autor:   •  November 7, 2018  •  995 Words (4 Pages)  •  39 Views

Page 1 of 4


cannot argue that portrayals such as neo-Nazi marches and racist speeches are any less

harmful than pornographic material. Since these acts are not prohibited it does not seem

appropriate to place restrictions on pornographic material.

Jacoby addressed the issue with a very solid style of writing that utilized more of a

logos style of writing. Brownmiller on the other hand, uses arguments that are subjective

and not backed up by research. She makes the mistake of revealing too much of her own

personal disdain for pornographic material. Her style of writing contained too much of a

pathos style of writing without the logos to make it a credible argumentative piece.

The issue of pornography in regards to freedom of speech and expression is a

challenging one to be sure. It seems clear based upon the logic presented by Susan Jacoby

that pornographic material should not have restrictions placed on it. Prohibiting certain

pornographic material would seem to go against people’s First Amendment rights. If

someone feels that this material is “obscene” and should not be protected they need to

speak out against the issue in an attempt to persuade people to adopt their point of view.

This approach would be in keeping with the democratic process that our country stands on.

Works Cited

Barnet, Sylvan, et al. Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 11th ed., Boston:

Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2017. 56-70. Print.

Brownmiller, Susan. “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet.” Barnet, et al. 68-70

Jacoby, Susan. “ A First Amendment Junkie.” Barnet, et al. 56-58

“Centuries of Citizenship: A constitutional Timeline.” National Constitution Center,

2006, Accessed

12 June 2017.

First Amendment Obscenity, 68 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1977).

&context=jclc. Accessed 25 June 2017.

Sunstein, Cass. “Pornography and the First Amendment”. Duke Law Journal, 4

September 1986,


Accessed 25 June 2017.


Download:   txt (6.9 Kb)   pdf (50.6 Kb)   docx (15.7 Kb)  
Continue for 3 more pages »
Only available on