Pornography Should be Free From Government Interference
Whether one feels strongly about the viewing, making and distribution of pornography by consenting adults, one cannot argue that sex isn’t everywhere. Evident in videos, movies, pictures, and advertisements, it’s a fact that sex sells. Who is to say that because pornography can be viewed easily in many ways, that it’s not a bad thing? Yet in the discourse of pornography as a whole, where does morality and money come into play? To whatever extent pornography is considered immoral; everyone should be entitled their own intellectual freedom.
The government has made some steps in order to limit the spread of pornography, yet it is apparent that little can be done to ultimately affect it. In 1968, the Supreme Court case of Ginsberg v. New York held that the government can legally prohibit children from accessing certain types of sexually explicit material, the same material that can’t be banned for adults. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that a minor does not have the constitutional right to the same content as an adult, the task of restricting content on the internet is shaky, due to the difficulty of distinguishing adults from children. In 1973, a following Supreme Court case, Miller v. California, established the phenomenon of “variable tolerance”. Leaving a variable tolerance existing for explicit material, the Supreme Court allowed communities to decide what was indecent or obscene.
Different levels of tolerance of pornography from community to community could be a successful system if in fact, pornography distribution can be limited community by community. Because people are mobile and the internet is boundary-free, the government cannot effectively restrict its availability to everyone (and possibly to anyone). Another notable court case involved with pornography was the 1982 case, Ferber v. New York. This case basically addressed all material showing a ‘sexual...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document