Only Words Essay, Research Paper

Constitutionally protected speech that is Clearly sexual abuse is discriminating

and unconstitutional, therefore, must be restricted speech. Catherine A.

MacKinnon, in her book ?Only Words? gives persuading evidence that

pornography subordinates women as a group through sexual abuse. She says

?Protecting pornography means protecting sexual abuse as speech, at the same

time that both pornography and it?s protection have deprived women of speech,

especially speech against pornography (MacKinnon, 9). MacKinnon argues this bye

explaining defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and

equality and speech. Women are sexually abused for the making of pornography.

Torture, rape, hot wax dripping over nipples, and murdering women are the tools

to produce a product of evil. Literature is the description of these crimes

against humanity (emphasized) and cameras are proof of these crimes. On the

assumption that words have only a referential relation to reality, pornography

is defended as only words-even when it is pictures women had to directly used to

make, even when the means of writing are women?s bodies, even when a women is

destroyed in order to say it or show it or because it was said or shown. (MacKinnon,

12) However, assuming words are only a partial relation to reality would mean we

would have to reconsider what reality is. Our wedding vows such as ?I do?

would be meaningless and a jury could never return a verdict that is only

partial to reality. These words are ?treated as the institutions and practices

they constitute, rather than as expressions of the idea they embody? (Mackinnon,

13) Therefore, if these words of pornography are only words, don?t they

institutionalize rape? Since pornography is rape on women. Pornography is

protected by the First Amendment as free speech, but why? Because the

pornographic materials are construed as ideas, and the First Amendment protects

ideas. Pornography is commonly brushed of as some product of fantasy for those

who buy it. But what about the women who were tortured to make it. Also it is

brushed off as simulated. This means that the pain and hurt the women are

feeling is just acting. Put a little music and a smile here and there to cover

up the pain, and you are portraying to and giving pure pleasure for those who

buy the product. Just like fantasizing a death, how do you simulate a death? But

discarding pornography as a representation is the most frequent excuse. But how

can a murder be justified on terms of representation? (MacKinnon, 27,28) . When

one fantasizes about murdering another person, this is premeditation of murder.

If he were to express this idea, he would be heard as expressing a threat and

penalized. For the obvious reason, publications that are ?how to? guides on

murdering people are not protected speech. I believe Pornography is the catalyst

for premeditation of rape. Pornography flicks are ?how to? guides for rape.

So why are they legal? His idea is protected, and further more is his threat of

?I?m gonna *censored* her?, because both are seen as fantasy, but why

isn?t murder seen as fantasy? Murder is the loss of ones life, but so is

pornography when women have been killed to produce it. Pornography is proven to

be addicted. When somebody is addicted to premeditating rape, it?s only a

matter of time before his addiction of premeditation becomes a solid plan.

Sexual or racial harassment has been suggested to only be made illegal if only

directed at an individual and not a group. ?The idea seems to be that injury

to one person is legally actionalble, but the same injury to thousands of people

is protected speech?. (MacKinnon, 51) This would be disparate impact which

involves ?employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of

different groups, but that, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than another

and cannot be justified by business necessity.? (Lindgren & Taub,167)

Pornography is disparate impact on women, because of the sexual abuse, and

ironically the disparate impact seems to be the business necessity. Under Title

Seven?s disparate impact treatment concept, pornography is illegal. ( I just

have to prove it now) Also, is there not reasonable ?harm? (Wolgast, 432,

Fem Juris) for a women to visit a place where men are watching a porno and

premeditating her rape? Is she not infringed on her First Amendment right to

congregate with equal respect. The idea of pornography (pre meditated rape) does

not allow her respect. It does not allow respect for women as a whole, living

among men as a whole, who have the idea in their mind. Two groups, men and

women, one who is premeditating rape against the other because of a purchased

product, pornography, the catalyst to rape. Pornography clearly resembles the

theory of Dominance. The important difference between men and women is that

women get *censored*ed and men ?*censored* women? (MacKinnon, 499. Fem Juris)

socially and constitutionally. This in turn renders them incapable of an

individual self. When protected dehumanizing speech (pornography) is ramped in

the market, subordination of women occurs. The more violent speech gets, it

seems that more protected it becomes. The more pornography expands, the more

protected it becomes. Therefore, the more pornography is produced, the more

unequal women become, and there speech is less heard and reduced to ?Only

words?. (MacKinnon) Women are then left to remain silent. If true equality

between male and female persons is to be achieved, we cannot ignore the threat

to equality resulting from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent and

degrading material.

31c