If you order your essayfrom our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on 'Censorship and Pornography.'. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality 'Censorship and Pornography.' paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in 'Censorship and Pornography.', therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your 'Censorship and Pornography.' paper at affordable prices!
This essay will attempt to discuss the topic of censorship. It will look at the development of censorship in society throughout history. It will also use examples to show the problems in trying to define censorship and also the problems caused when people exercise their freedom of speech but at the same time cause harm to others. After discussing censorship in general the essay will then refer to the censorship of pornography with direct references to Britain. It will express the current laws on pornography and then attempt to show the problems caused by the distribution of pornography. The essay will also talk about the development of new forms of pornography distribution such as cable & satellite television and the Internet and how these new forms affect the distribution of pornography in Britain.
One of the most vehemently discussed examples of censorship in Britain is the case of the British National Party (BNP). The BNP are a political party, which strongly believe that the ever-increasing numbers of ethnic minorities are eroding British culture. The party has raised a very heated debate with both sides making valid claims that the party should or should not be banned depending on a particular viewpoint. The case study of the BNP is of key importance to the censorship battle in that it asks the question of whether harmful free speech should be banned and does harmful free speech transform into harmful actions?
On the one hand it can be argued that the BNP are a political party much like any other in that they have a recognised headquarters and distinct policies. However, it is these policies and what they allegedly invoke that are the cause of problems. People believe that their policies are wrong but in a free society it is hard to ban opinions. However, what is also said is that these opinions invoke racial hatred and as a result racial violence. If it can be proven that members of the BNP are violent towards ethnic minorities then -and only then- can they legitimately banned under Article 1.
After more than 50 years Germany does not seem to be able to get away from the memories of the worst world war in history. Many extreme right-wing groups have adopted old nazi traditions and proclaim that the Holocaust never happened. In an article written in the Independent on Sunday, Ronald Dworkin makes what many would feel a somewhat heartless point but if one looks past emotion then there is a large amount of logic in his opinions. Dworkin makes the point that it is tempting to say that Germanys situation is special, that the holocaust was off historys graph and calls for exceptions to everything including freedom of speech (Dworkin. 15). Joylon Jenkins agrees with this point stating; everybody is in favour of free speech, but everyone has their own special exception to enter (Jenkins, 10).
Both Jenkins and Dworkin refer to John Stuart Mills article On Liberty which talks about the non-censorship of speech we hate. Dworkin highlights Mills statement that we should tolerate even the speech we hate because truth is most likely to emerge in a free intellectual combat from which no idea has been excluded.
Jenkinss article ends with the statement that censorship doesnt work (Jenkins, 10). Jenkins reason for saying this stems from the contradiction he highlights in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. According to Jenkins the article states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression but it then goes on to state that this freedom may be subject to certain conditions, restrictions or penalties according to the law. Article 10 appears to advocate freedom of expression but when a sensitive example -such as the Holocaust appears- then the censorship of freedom of speech is invoked.
When Susan Mendus (18) discusses Mills Harm Principle she is adamant that harm -specifically harm to others- is the sole warrant for government interference in Mills opinion (Mendus, 18, P. 11). Mendus highlights problems with Mills Harm Principle believing that it is open to a multitude of interpretations, many of them inconsistent with one another (Mendus, 18, P. 11). She goes on to make the point that it is difficult to delineate any clear distinction between actions which cause harm and actions which merely provoke offence, disgust or disapproval. According to Mendus, an individuals right can only be over-ridden if it can be proven that as a direct result from their actions harm is occurring.
Arguments over censorship will continue to reign for as long as an individual feels that they are being oppressed. Ronald Dworkin does acknowledge that even though we have to protect the vulnerable people in society such as women and homosexuals, we cannot use the power to silence the perpetrators of hatred. To do so -according to Dworkin- would jeopardise political legitimacy and we would become the same as Klomeni when he put the nine-year death sentence on Rushdi for his Satanic Verses book.
Jolyon Jenkins believes that a democratic formation of free speech has nothing to do with the establishment of rights because the interests of powerful elites, usually governments, determine these rights (Jenkins, 11, P. 4). Jenkins believes that constraints of free speech are not a democratic factor because to silence one individual would be no different than silencing the whole of mankind. In this case the majority does not count.
Censorship or even just the threat of censorship is necessary so that an individuals freedom of speech can be limited in order to protect the rights of others. It has been argued that censorship should not be employed to curb the freedom of speech but if harm is being caused to others then surely there is justification? Problems arise when it is unclear whether harm is occurring or not or when people believe harm may occur if the individual(s) are not censored. Critics such as Jenkins and Dworkin have argued that governments are above the law when censoring controversial groups as the BNP. However, if groups such as these cause obvious harm to people, then that is justification enough to censor them.
The last few years have seen a large increase in the importation of hardcore pornography into Britain. Even though much of this material is legal in Europe, it is still illegal in Britain. For years British authorities have combated this illegal flow of harder material from Europe, America and Asia but in recent years the developments of new technologies and a growth in the demand for such material have made the job that much more difficult. This section of the essay will deal with the censorship of the case study of pornography. It will set out the legislation governing pornography in the United Kingdom. It will then go on to highlight the arguments for and against the legalisation of harder material while referring to work carried out by authors in the field. Finally, it will conclude with comments on any policy change that may be considered.
Different mediums of pornography are regulated by different Acts. Sex shops are regulated by the Local Government Act of 18. Under this Act all persons wishing to sell a significant degree of sex articles have to obtain a licence from their local authority. In Britain all films must pass through the Cinemas Act of 185 with virtually all authorities accepting the advice of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) which acts as a self-regulating body for the industry. The BBFC is also the censorship body of the Video Recordings Act of 184 and is responsible for the distribution of video certificates. The Act itself defines the criteria for video classification and penalties for offences, with the BBFC viewing all videos to look out for this criterion.
The Protection of Children Act of 178 and Criminal Justice Act of 188 attempts to stamp out the possession or distribution of any indecent photographs of children including images on a computer. It is this form of pornography which is deemed to be the most offensive, and as a result the penalties for prosecution are very much higher. The 184 Telecommunications Act prevents the illegal use of a public telephone for the communication of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. This also includes the transmission of pornography via a telephone within the UK. Finally, the Broadcasting Act of 10 contains provisions on the importance of standards of taste and decency on television and radio.
Even though they come under the general Obscene Publications Act of 15, books have no specific law and as a result the content of books is often more explicit than images. There are often acts portrayed in books, which would result in prosecution if they appeared in pictorial form. The Post Office Act of 15, which restricts the sending of indecent material, is rarely enforced as the Post Office has no staff dealing with and intercepting indecent material.
Robertsons article on censorship (1) may show why certain mediated forms of pornography are regulated differently. Taking the section dealing with the Target Audience from the Obscene Publications Act, Robertson refers to the fact that the Act focuses on the most likely readers/viewers of a source. According to Robertson this means that a work of literature is to be judged by its effect on serious minded-purchasers, a comic book by its effect on children, a sexually explicit magazine sold in an adults only bookstore by its effect on adult patrons of that particular shop (Robertson, 1, P. ). What this does not take into account is if an individual obtains something out with their perceived target area.
In his article Robertson also makes reference to the Aversion Defence whereby material is not deemed obscene because its effect will discourage readers from indulgence in the immorality so unseductively portrayed. Robertson is attempting to highlight the fact that there may be material deemed shocking and disgusting but because of its nature it would abhor rather than arouse. He goes on to highlight the ambiguous nature of pornography with the statement; pornography is like an elephant. You cannot define it but you know when you see it (Robertson, 1, P. 7). However, whilst acknowledging the difficulties in defining pornography Robertson does make clear that any material which combines violence with sexual explicitness is a candidate for prosecution (Robertson, 1, P. 8). Pornography may be difficult to legislate against but if scenes of violence occur then the need to prosecute can often become clear.
Even those who are against any forms of pornography cannot argue with the fact that modern day society is becoming more sex-friendly. Aids has meant that younger people have to be made more aware of safe sex at a younger age. The plethora of mens magazines such as Loaded, FHM, Maxim, etc. has made acceptable soft pornography. An individual now has access to soft pornography from any shelf of the local newsagent. Programmes such as Channel 5s Sex and Shopping and SKY 1s British Sex has brought pornography to a much larger audience and to a more acceptable level. In fact, according to Brian McNair some titles, such as the educational Lovers Guide are available in the high street chain stores such as Woolworths and Virgin, reflecting their increased acceptability by the mainstream audience (McNair, 16, P. 17).
The 0s have also seen the growth of the Internet. In the past it was very difficult for children to obtain any form of pornography as most could not reach the top shelf let alone be allowed to buy the product if they did. Now however, children can gain access to pornography in the comfort and ease of their own homes. On the Internet an individual has access to literally millions of softcore sites and images and even though there are security precautions surrounding the hardcore sites, all the individual needs is a credit card number to confirm their age. Even if children do not have the guile or courage to use a parents credit card many of the sites still have several sample images to entice would-be subscribers. Though much of this material is illegal in Britain there is no way for the authorities or government to stop people having access to it. At present there are only two full-time workers, searching the Internet for illegal sites.
Arguments against hardcore pornography have centred mainly on the issue of pornography causing harm. Feminists and many victims of male violence have tried to argue that pornography not only adds to the universal subornation of women but its content also causes men to act violently towards them. As long as pornography exists then so does womens position of being altogether lesser than their male counterparts.
On the one side of the debate there are feminist writers such as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin who believe that all forms of pornography should be banned. Then there are writers such as Gayle Rubin and Lynne Segal who believe that feminists such as Dworkin & MacKinnon are too focused on pornography and as a result the other areas in which women are subordinated are being largely ignored. The next section of the essay will deal with this ongoing debate.
Dworkin & MacKinnon were questioned in an article in which they attack all forms of pornography, even the material deemed least offensive. They go as far as to claim that Playboy magazine has made a speciality of targeting women for sexual harassment (Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1, P. 7). They go on to state that Playboy, in both text and pictures, promotes rape (Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1, P.7). Dworkin and MacKinnon attempt to back this statement up by citing research that shows the public opinion on pornography versus violence. In a survey carried out in Womans Day magazine in January 186, 0% of the 6,100 respondents claimed that pornography encourages violence against women. 80% of these respondents stated that they wanted all pornography outlawed.
However, these surveys show us what the public believe and think, not actual factual statistics on the cause of violence towards women. Actually trying to prove a male due to his use of pornography abused a woman is ambiguous to say the least. Even if convicted males do cite pornography as the reason, they may be doing so as a way to excuse their behaviour. Dworkin and MacKinnons have been described as rather extreme and as a result many believe that their views are exaggerated. As a result, they have been interpreted as extremists who dislike all forms of consenting sex.
Gayle Rubin believes that women who focus too intently on pornography are guilty of trivialising the actual causes of violence towards women. Rubin goes on to state that porn is a sexier topic than the more intractable problems of unequal pay, job discrimination, sexual violence and harassment, the unequal burdens of child-care and housework (Rubin, 1, P. 8). What Rubin is saying is that pornography is not the overwhelming evil and cause of all subordination of women and it is certainly not the proven cause of violence towards women. She highlights this point by referring to the fact that women are quite dramatically oppressed in societies that have neither (referring to pornography & prostitution) (Rubin, 1, P. 5).
Gayle Rubin attacks the views of Andrea Dworkin & Catherine MacKinnon and at the end of her article she offers an alternative line of attack that they and other feminist activists should adopt. Instead of striving for the strictest of censorship laws and instead of fighting porn, feminism should oppose censorship, support the decriminalisation of prostitution, call for the abolition of all obscenity laws, support the rights of sex workers, support women in management positions in the sex industry, support the availability of sexually explicit materials, support sex education of the young, affirm the rights of sexual minorities and affirm the legitimacy of human sexual diversity (Rubin, 1, P. 40).
Segal also believes that anti-porn feminists should abandon the fight to ban pornography. She makes reference to the fact that some experiments have suggested that exposure to non-violent pornography can lower aggression levels and increase a subjects sociability. Segal also believes that concentrating too intently on the issue of male violence caused by pornography often excuses those men who are sexually coercive and violent without its influence.
What is interesting to note is that Gayle Rubin and Catherine MacKinnon & Andrea Dworkin all want the same thing; the restoration of feminism to a position of equality and credibility. However, each side believes this can only be achieved by the exact opposite means. Where as Rubin suggests a total opposition to censorship is needed, Dworkin & McKinnon believe that a strict tightening of the censorship laws would begin to resolve the problem.
Another argument that has been put forward is that pornography is disproportionately controlled and consumed by men with the result being that there is little or no place in the market for women. Attempts have been made to attract females to pornography in the shape of magazines such as Playgirl, Bite and For Women but in these titles erect penises are not permitted to be shown. This has been met with the belief that the content of most pornography for women is too conservative and tame to be of much interest to many of them. This perceived parade of limp dicks is not what women really want in terms of mediated sex and as a result magazines for women usually become the source of laughter and women are increasingly seeking out male gay porn to satisfy their needs.
Many opponents to pornography were undermined when Britains chief censor, James Ferman spoke out on the subject of pornography earlier this year. Many would believe that a stalwart of censorship such as Ferman would automatically support the abolition and censorship of pornography but Ferman believes that Britains pornography laws are too strict and as a result a flourishing black market in violent pornography now exists in the UK. Mr Ferman wants the licensing of sex shops to be tightened, while allowing them to sell more explicit material. He also believes that this would create a fall in the demand for hardcore material. Many anti-pornography feminists have tried to argue against the credibility of those who defend pornography but there are not too many more credible spokespersons than the head of the British Board of Film Classification for the lastyears.
There is literally tons of pornography arriving in Britain everyday that has to be checked before it can be distributed for sale. Much of this material is of a soft nature, some of it is classed as hard but for every collection of pornography there is usually a minute percentage of what can be only described as violent or harmful towards the female protagonist(s). It is this pornography that must be banned wherever it appears and those caught in possession -whether it be for personal consumption or for sale- should be severely prosecuted. This point is backed up by Segal who states that we should worry more about material which is not pornographic at all but which contains images of violence against women (Segal, 1, P. 1).
At the moment in Britain -and indeed the rest of the world- pornography featuring images of children is totally banned. It is these kinds of laws that should be introduced to tackle the problem of violent & harmful pornography. An image of a woman being raped is made no more acceptable if she is portrayed as enjoying it. Pornography is designed to stimulate and arouse and there is more than enough of this material without the inclusion of the one type of pornography that is most likely to cause harm towards women.
As we have seen authors such as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon have argued that hardcore pornography causes harm to women. This is an argument that is difficult to substantiate but surely we are not doing all we can to protect women by allowing them to be portrayed as victims of violence. It is this violent pornography that should be totally banned not just because there is a chance it may cause harm to women but because it is simply unnecessary. There is more than enough other material designed to titillate without portraying women as victims who have to endure pain.
From the arguments highlighted above it is clear that opinions on pornography are incredibly diverse and as a result the debate will undoubtedly continue for years to come. However, analysis of debates may present some key factors determining the future of pornography in Britain. It is obvious even to those who may wish to deny it that the acceptance of sex has become more prominent during the last decade. There was a time when sex was a more circumspect subject but nowadays it forms the basis of many public debates and television programmes. There are a great deal of people such as Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin who believe that this is a bad thing but it can be used to societys advantage.
The Government should embrace this new public acceptance of sex and use it for beneficial means. Firstly, having sex in the public forum will make people more aware of sexually transmitted diseases such as Aids. It provides an opportunity for the pornography industry to become more acceptable and to shake off its sleazy image. If pornography were treated similarly as other industries then many of the taboos surrounding it would be sure to dissipate.
The conclusion to both sections of the essay seems to point to a similar viewpoint. For censorship in general, freedom of speech has to be maintained no matter how enduring the circumstances may be. Censorship should only be invoked if actual harm is being inflicted upon an individual. The censorship of pornography should be abandoned and the fight should centre in on the rights of female workers in the sex industry. However, like other forms of censorship, the censorship of pornography should centre in on banning pornography that portrays violent or degrading acts towards women. As has been pointed out, it is this pornography that contributes to the subordination of women and with such a plethora of other material it is surely unnecessary.
Please note that this sample paper on 'Censorship and Pornography.' is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on 'Censorship and Pornography.', we are here to assist you.Your persuasive essayon 'Censorship and Pornography.' will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignmentand you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
