Is pornography “speech”?

Legal Theory 14 (1):71-89 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Is pornography within the coverage of the First Amendment? A familiar argument claims that it is not. This argument reasons that the free speech principle protects the communication of ideas, which appeal to the reason ; pornography communicates no ideas and appeals to the passions rather than the reason ; therefore pornography is not protected by the free speech principle. This argument has been specified in different ways by different writers. The most prominent and careful of these are Frederick Schauer and John Finnis. Both founder on the attempt to distinguish pornography from art, which both would protect. If art, film, and literature should be protected, then this protection should extend to the pornographic subsets of these genres.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Pornography.Lori Watson - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (7):535-550.
Linguistic authority and convention in a speech act analysis of pornography.Nellie Wieland - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):435 – 456.
Silencing speech.Ishani Maitra - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):pp. 309-338.
Pornography, speech acts and context.Jennifer Saul - 2006 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2):227–246.
Failing to do things with words.Nicole Wyatt - 2009 - Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):135-142.
How to Silence Content with Porn, Context and Loaded Questions.Alex Davies - 2016 - European Journal of Philosophy 24 (2):498-522.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-20

Downloads
36 (#432,773)

6 months
5 (#629,136)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references