In light of religious terrorist attacks in Paris, please see Category:blasphemy!

censoring the anti-censorship side of pornography debate

From Freedom Porn
Jump to: navigation, search

The protectionist side of the debate around pornography often argues that it is incorrect to reference either position from the perspective of freedom of speech or censorship. While at times their words may sound logical, their actions point to the fact that truly their goal has much to do with supressing the expression of those who disagree with them.

Examples

  • 1970 findings of Federal Commission on Pornography and Obscenity (USA) has presented the findings which were uncomfortable for the anti-pornography activists, the commission had the nerve to find that there is no link between violence and pornography. So in May 1984 US President Ronald Reagan has decided to reenact a scene from the book titled by that year by setting up an eleven person board that would correct those results in Meese Commission Report. [1]
  • 1983 study by Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Voilence Against Women was originally headed by Thelma McCormick; however, after finding no connection between pornography and sex crimes her findings were supressed. A different (pro-censorship) person was quickly found to replace her, who quickly produced the “correct” results. [2]
  • Berl Kutchinsky has found that in Denmark the increase of availability of pornography has decreased the "sex offences" committed there. Many other researchers find similar patterns in other countries. The anti-pornography side of the debate choses to believe that pornography causes rape by using all fallacies available to a researcher rather than acknowledging that already existing studies show the opposite. [3]
  • In 1992 during the conference on prostitution at the University of Michigan School of Law when the students have set up an exhibit showing the wide range of views on prostitution they were forced to take it down. The conference was claimed to be ‘unbiased’, and yet only anti-prostitution advacates have been allowed on the panel. [4]
  • ACLU is often accused by anti-pornography activists of somehow censoring the anti-porn views. Anti-pornographers chose to forget the facts when it suits them. Namely, when Feminists Fighting Pornography in New York City were ordered to remove their stand which the government deemed to be pornographic itself, ACLU has successfully defended the anti-porn feminists' right to free speech. [5]