Abstract

Freedom of the press, which the western world enjoys, raises the following questions: what is it morally permissible to publish ? In particular, is it morally permissible to publish pornography? that is the issue which I address. ;I examine the two main issues regarding pornography and censorship. The first is that pornography should be censored if it causes its viewers to harm other people. The second is that even if there is no harm caused by viewing pornography, then there are still moral objections to allowing depictions. ;I argue that the conservative and feminist objections against the depiction of sexual activity, whether the depiction contains scenes of either mutual care or violence, do not warrant censorship. I base this on the following principle: if an activity is morally permissible to do, for example, a particular sex act, then it is morally permissible to depict it. ;I do, however, adopt the view that if the material leads one to harm others, then there is a case for adopting censorship of that material. But a review of the psychological literature leads me to conclude that pornography does not cause its viewers to harm others. However, even if there is an increased risk from pornography, I argue that the risk to third parties is sometimes worth allowing pornography; I outline the principles to be applied in those circumstances. ;Given these main issues and arguments about pornography, I conclude that pornography should not be censored