I just witnessed something disturbing in a porn, and it has got me thinking about why porn is tolerated at all in society. I feel like it breaks a number of laws already, but it is weirdly protected.
Within the porn (it was JAV), a woman was being gangbanged. At some point, she calls it quits, squirms, and crawls away. She says something in Japanese, and she's got her head down. The cameraman talks to her a bit, they give her a tissue to wipe her face, and she continues with the scene, but breaks down again. After a break, she is coerced into completing the scene.
javcherry.com
This video is being distributed online. This is not the only case of what is essentially rape being distributed online as porn. There is the famous case of Linda Lovelace who was made to do her scenes in Deep Throat at gunpoint.
In the USA, porn is protected under free speech. The pornography is protected as the artistic expression of the director. However, I would argue that under this definition, pornography is obviously hate speech. Hanging a noose in front of a black person’s lawn or burning a cross are all forms of free speech which convey ideas. So is sticking a ‘whites only’ sign in front of a store. However, these are regarded as prohibited forms of speech using a kind of rationale that isn’t extended to pornography, which often sends the message that women are to be subordinated.
MacKinnon argues that the free speech of pornography sends the message that women are to be subordinated. She writes “at stake in constructing pornography as "speech" is gaining constitutional protection for doing what pornography does: subordinating women through sex.” MacKinnon argues that pornography, if it is speech, is a kind of speech (much like racism) that is harmful to society. She writes “Social inequality is substantially created and enforced-that is, done-through words and images.” Thus, by displaying women in subordinated positions, pornography conveys the message in society that women are second-class citizens that exist for the sexual pleasure of men.
I have three questions regarding the above video.
Within the porn (it was JAV), a woman was being gangbanged. At some point, she calls it quits, squirms, and crawls away. She says something in Japanese, and she's got her head down. The cameraman talks to her a bit, they give her a tissue to wipe her face, and she continues with the scene, but breaks down again. After a break, she is coerced into completing the scene.
[n0739]Semen Storm
javcherry.com
This video is being distributed online. This is not the only case of what is essentially rape being distributed online as porn. There is the famous case of Linda Lovelace who was made to do her scenes in Deep Throat at gunpoint.
In the USA, porn is protected under free speech. The pornography is protected as the artistic expression of the director. However, I would argue that under this definition, pornography is obviously hate speech. Hanging a noose in front of a black person’s lawn or burning a cross are all forms of free speech which convey ideas. So is sticking a ‘whites only’ sign in front of a store. However, these are regarded as prohibited forms of speech using a kind of rationale that isn’t extended to pornography, which often sends the message that women are to be subordinated.
MacKinnon argues that the free speech of pornography sends the message that women are to be subordinated. She writes “at stake in constructing pornography as "speech" is gaining constitutional protection for doing what pornography does: subordinating women through sex.” MacKinnon argues that pornography, if it is speech, is a kind of speech (much like racism) that is harmful to society. She writes “Social inequality is substantially created and enforced-that is, done-through words and images.” Thus, by displaying women in subordinated positions, pornography conveys the message in society that women are second-class citizens that exist for the sexual pleasure of men.
I have three questions regarding the above video.
- Is pornography free speech
- Is the above video protected free speech, or should it be prohibited hate speech
- If so, why isn’t the same logic carried on to child pornography? In both cases, it requires harming someone to produce the "speech". However, the recording and distribution of one is considered a serious crime while the other is considered entertainment
