Out of context rant for PSC-108 online discussion. but you get the gist.

The underlying problem in equal rights in our society, in terms of free speech, occurs when the population will glorify "our" "democratic" morals and rights.  Rhetorically, actively, Americans emphasize the these rights and liberties as important components of our democracy.  We're proud of these!  But another, even more dangerous glorification happens subversively within the civil religious practices of our daily lives, which helps "us" - more appropriately, helps "majorities" - justify the existence and justice of a particular status quo.

    Even acknowledging porn as having a valid status as speech or expression - giving it a fighting chance - reinforces (tacitly, of course, but it's still a symbolic action) the messages that 

(a) "speech" in any form is a right to which "we" are entitled and must be respected as such; and 

(b) women, in seeking ways to achieve equal citizenship - something that has been denied institutionally and socially for centuries - are obnoxious.

 (a) This sense of entitlement is validated everywhere.  We discussed in class the extent to which we commemorate the First Amendment.  No American can pretend that the consistent glorification of the US's dedication to freedom of speech and expression is not a symbolic action that reinforces what we're supposed to believe in, without questioning whether it is right to believe in these things or not.

   (b) Through the act of complaining, even if the Court does say to "Speak Up," women (or any opposing minority) are negatively stigmatized as anannoyance.  The association to complaint, campaigning against something that is so consistently reinforced as an important component of political life, as an ideal and right guaranteed to us democratically.  (The content of this speech or expression being defended is usually less important, or made irrelevant.)

    To be clear to anyone who has never been in any sort of disenfranchised minority before, "citizenship" does not just mean "the right to vote."  It entails everything within the tangible world.  Many of our theorists recognize that society is comprised of interactions.  This means that people must respond to each other.  I can't rely on my own perception of myself, my talents, or my abilities to determine my place in our society.  If I am working in an office and my colleagues believe on any level that I am less important or worthy than they, or that my ideas do not matter or aren't good enough, that not only stifles my own creativity unfairly, but will probably have detrimental effects on how I perceive myself.  This is what MacKinnon emphasizes and why her argument to ban certain types of porn - not even all types of porn! - is so striking.  

    At its core, this pornography issue is the same issue we tackle in free speech cases as well. This question of my right to say whatever I want to say, pitted against someone's right to enjoy equal citizenship, should not even exist.  For a second, I am grateful it does, because it brings dialogue and debate; but that is also this kind of thinking and affirming that reinforces the legitimacy of our political system at the expense of acknowledging its failures.  It is common and easy to pat ourselves on the back in order to ignore problems.

    There are many arguments for why weighing these two "rights" against each other is undemocratic.  

 In terms of theory we have studied this semester, this question defies the Harm Principle.  Mill's utilitarianism would - I hope - be offended by this question.  What truth-seeking occurs in lewd pornography, anyway?  I praise MacKinnon for using the language of pornography, since this issue is skirted around in the courtroom and in public discourse.  In the face of utilitarianism, an argument against MacKinnon's does not stand a chance.

   This question does not involve the Sarah Haters per se, since the "Sarah" in this situation is half of the American population.  In his post, Matthew Heck criticizes MacKinnon for leaving men out of the equation in her ban, however, men are those with power in this situation.  Heck also brings in the Sarah-Haters example.  There are quite a few problems with this interpretation.  As the only category of Americans that are "non-women," men's viewpoints and subsequent treatment of women in society are what shapes how women will see themselves.  If anything, the Sarah Haters question could go either way - men hating the "Sarah" of not having porn, or women hating the "Sarah" of the democratic equality of which pornography robs them.  This reflexive relationship in the Sarah Haters example also categorizes the argument into an "either-or" "solution" to this problem, when perhaps there is a "solution" that frames the debate differently, in which men may not perceive they are being stifled or at a loss, and women can still regain democratic egalitarian ground.

    I do not even understand why majority groups think they should fight these battles.  Women's opportunity to say, "Pornography is degrading to women!" is silenced when it is institutionally connected with complaint status.  Men's reluctance to engage in this kind of debate sends the same message as a white majority's reluctance to acknowledge the power of racism in their demands for free speech.  This silences the opposition, deepens the extent to which they resent the minority for opposing them, and exposes that they clearly have no respect for achieving equality.  It denies inequality exists.  This says that they do not understand - and will deny the existence and importance of - others' humanity and their ongoing battle against a society that refuses to acknowledge its institutionally-reinforced, civic religious inequalities and subsequent unfreedoms.  To override democratic equality with a freedom of speech argument, against a disenfranchised person, is a detriment to democratic ideals, and deflects the real problems by denying their existence at all.

    And I certainly don't buy the argument that these types of pornography ARE NOT democratically degrading to women.  This is another tactic to refuse conversation on this topic, to refuse to acknowledge that these inequalities are so pervasive.  Even my female colleagues in class ask the question, "What if the women chose to make the films?"  This misses the point of MacKinnon's well-articulated argument on so many levels.  This demonstrates the extent to which we are trained to censor our questions, challenges, and subvert our needs.

    I think the US took a step in the right direction with Brown v. Board by citing sociological and psychological evidence to begin flattening out inequalities that had been socially and institutionally reinforced for too long.  This is not the time to turn back!  "Speak Up" is not good enough because nobody is listening.  If the courts don't validate these concerns, where do we even start?