Issue of Regulation or Censorship of Internet Porn

The internet traffic for pornography has been reported to take up to 30% of the internet bandwidth (Kleinman Par. 1). This means that a lot of people are watching porn, which has even further divided the debate over the censorship of internet porn. The debate of internet pornography is a fascinating one considering moral or ethical and legal issues surrounding it. At the heart of the debate is the issue of regulation or censorship that has divided opinion into two separate camps.

On one hand, there are supporters of internet porn regulation such as Judith M.

Hill who argue for the restriction of internet porn because it degrades and therefore defames women.

On the other hand, there are those such as John Feinberg who argue against restriction, criticizing the argument by proponents such as Hill by stating that such argument does not provide a reasonable case for the prohibition of pornography.

Either way, the debate regarding the regulation of internet porn continues to trigger a variety of responses, particularly regarding the freedom of speech as enshrined in the first amendment. As such, although the first amendment guarantees freedom of expression, the government has the right to regulate the internet porn industry because it is degrading and demeaning to women because the prevalence of internet porn effectively suggests that the society condones such ignorant and hateful views towards women. To protect women from degradation, it is necessary to implement laws, that will regulate porn.

The ease of availability of internet porn continues to adversely affect the attitudes and or perceptions of the society towards women. This is because porn is material that promotes sexism by way of mediated domination and exploitation of women that exacerbates the oppression of women (Cawston 3).

In essence, the degradation of women occurs in several ways as portrayed in internet pornagraphy in the form of selling violence against women as a form of fantasy, it harms women who have to endure submissive storylines for the fantasy of mostly men; pornagraphy promotes women as sex objects, and also affects the realistic self-image of women by using unrealistic standards. Degradation can also be referred to as humiliation. In essence, from a sexual standpoint, degradation can be defined as the consensual technique that is practiced towards women and used to embarrass, demean, and or humiliate them by portraying women’s sexuality as vulnerable, passive, incompetence, softness, narcissism, and masochism (Benjamin and Tlsuten 601). In essence, Hill builds the case for the prohibition of pornography on the basis that it degrades women in the following manner.

First, the degrading and defamation of women from Hill’s premise shapes negative attitudes and or perceptions towards women. Porn has been noted to promote and reinforce sexist attitudes, which are expressed in a variety of behaviors that contribute to gender inequality (Cawston 10). Such a negative outcome is persistent despite the struggles that women have endured and continue to undergo towards attaining true equality.

Secondly, Hill’s conception of degradation and defamation of women surmises a negative trend in society that promotes viewing women as sexual objects. This is because porn is used to subjugate and objectify women (Orlowski 61). As such, the regulation or internet porn is necessary to avoid such eventualities of degradation and defamation as conceptualized by Hill. Further, Hill’s argument is different from the kind of argument advanced by MacKinnon and Dworkin in the following manner. The overarching difference is that while Hill argues against the proliferation of pornography, MacKinnon and Dworkin did not argue for the criminalization of porn. MacKinnon and Dworkin argued for civil remedies on any sought of harm that would come to women during the making or as a result of its consumption (Papadaki 1).

As such, while Hill sought for legislation to curb the increase of porn, MacKinnon and Dworkin sought to protect women from the harmful ramifications that might occur because of porn. In addition, Fienberg argues that Hill’s argument does not provide a reasonable basis for the reasonable prohibition of porn. Feinberg gives two primary reasons for his assertions by rejecting assertions that porn is defamatory by: first, stating that such assertions spread the image that women are mindless ‘playthings’ or objects who are inferior to only be used by men and secondly, that if porn counts as propaganda, then it is protected by the first amendment on freedom of expression. These arguments are against conceptualizations of degradation and defamation of women in porn as claimed by Hill, which according to Feinberg have no legal justification. 

Did you like this example?

1266

67