Summary
The article "First Amendment Junkie" was written by New York Times writer, Susan Jacob to inform readers of feminists groups and their fight against pornography. Many feminist have the idea that the threat of pornography to women is equal to the threat of other exercises do to other groups of individuals. Nazi and Jews are one example to this. Jacoby makes a strong point in saying that American Nazi groups marching in a town that has extermination camp survivors living there is way worse and more offensive than pornography. The point of feminist group to stand up against porn is not even unanimous. Some women would consider porn a disgrace, while also saying a painting of a nude woman displays beauty. This group does not even seek to take action themselves, they reach out to the government to make their moves for them. The idea of child pornography also becomes a point of discussion for the feminist groups to use, but it just blows up in their face because child pornography is more along the lines of child abuse and parental neglect.
Response
I agree to the terms of the first amendment and would be someone who would definitely protect it. Pornography may be very graphic and demeaning to most of the population of women, but if you don't like it, or don't want your home exposed to that kind of stuff do something about it. It's not like these feminists are forced to deal with it. They have a right and the free will, just like everyone else, to not watch or look at what they would consider pornography.
Honestly, I see where the feminists are coming from. These women look at this as a disgrace to them, but have they ever put it to mind that these women chose this? It's not like the women that are involved in porn were forced into it, they have their rights as well, and willfully chose this for themselves. Does that not put these women in pornography under protection of the first amendment as well since it's their physical "freedom of speech"?
cool
ReplyDelete