Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

94 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Helen Longino begins her essay by

-stating that there is a difference between erotica and pornography.
Erotica is sex in which

-both adult participants are considered equal and are portrayed in a dignified way.
Pornography is the

-degrading portrayal of the role and status of the human female as a mere sexual object to be exploited and manipulated sexually.
Longino says that erotica is

-morally permissable, but pornography is morally impermissable because it portrays females in a degrading way and does so in a fashion that encourages men to treat females in a degrading way.
Longino defines behavior that is degrading as

-behavior that includes physical harm or abuse, and physical or pyschological coericion.
Longino then declares that pornography causes

-harm and goes onto describe the ways in which it causes harm.
Longino says that in pornographic

-books, magazines, and films, women are represented as passive and slavishly dependent upon men.

-the role of the female characters is limited to the provision of sexual services to men.
Longino says such a portrayal of women is destructive because

-it encourages men to treat women in the same degrading and dehumanizing ways.
She also states that the purpose of pornography

-the arousal/sexual satisfaction of its mostly male consumers--might reinforce a view of such destructive behavior
Another way pornography promotes sexism is by

-portraying the women in pornography as lacking a basic identity and humanity.
Longino says that the anonymity of female characters

-in pornograpny makes each porn actress a symbol of all women, and thus suggests that all women are appropriate subjects for the enactment of the most bizzare and demeaning male sexual fantasies--and that the sexual gratification of men is the primary purpose of all females.
This view of women, according to Longino,

-is libelous and defamatory to all women.
Because it is simply being female, in the pornographic vision,

-that justifies them being violated, the lies of pornography are lies about all women.
Another way Longino says pornography is

-harmful is by saying that in a hierarchical society such as the United States, where men have a vested belief in their superiority to females, pornography will only reinforce mens' view of females as inferior
This, in turn, reinforces

-the oppression and exploitation of women in the United States
The last way that Longino says pornography causes harm

-is by saying that pornography, especially violent pornography, is implicated in the commiting of violent crimes against women.

-Longino says that recent scientific studies have noted a correlation between exposure to representations of violence and the committing of violent acts.
She also says that these studies have shown a correlation

-between exposure to pornographic materials and the committing of sexually abusive or violent acts towards women.
John Stewart Mills begins his essay by saying that society

-has the right to restrict individual liberty only if an action is harmful to others.
Mills says people in a society are happiest

-when they have the freedom to make their own decisions.
Mills greatly dislikes the argument that says

-"I cannot do this because you think it is offensive."

-Mills says that if a majority of people feel something is wrong, and the majority bans it, then the society is open to the tyranny of the majority.
Mills continues his essay by saying that self-defense

-can be a good reason to restrict individual liberty, becuase laws should protect individuals from the violent actions of others.
Mills also says that there must be a serious threat of injury

-to outlaw something.

-something minor like the threat of embarassment is not a good reason to outlaw something.
Therefore, all of these arguments can be used to

-prevent movies with sex scenes in them from being banned.
For, if movies with sex scenes in them are to be banned,

-Mills arguments ask who will decide if the movies should or should not be banned?
This question of who will decide what is

-and is not morally acceptable is known as the slippery slope problem.
Mills argument, when applied to a modern context,

-basically says that if you are offended by something, then ignore whatever it is that offended you, and find something else to do.

-His argumument also says that pornography should be outlawed only if it can be found to be harmful. Since Krecz doesn't feel it is, Mills argument goes against the censorship or pornography.
Wicclair begins his essay by defining pornography as

-sexually explicit material that is degrading to women.

-Wicclair says that all pornography is sexist and misoginistic.
Yet, Wicclair, like Helen Longino,

-acknowledges the existence of erotica--material that portrays both adults as equal and dignified

-Wicclair says is erotica is morally acceptable.
Wicclair opposes the censorship of pornography

-for the following reasons.

-The first thing he notes is that, in our society, the importance of freedom of speech--an anticensorship--principle is widely recognized
Wicclair says the ability to speak freely

-and express ideas and feelings without the threat of legal penalties or government control is an essential part of any free society.
Censorship, according to Wicclair,

-will bear many consequences that will greatly limit freedom.
Wicclair notes that once censorship of pornography is allowed

-there is a serious risk that a vast number of unrelated things will be censored, and America itself will no longer be a free society but a censored society.
Wicclair says this will happen because it is almost impossible

-to create unambiguous criteria for censorship

-this ambiguity can then create openings for the power to censor to be abused and misused by groups to advance their interests and silence the views of others.
Wicclair then tries to refute the harm principle

-created by John Stewart Mills that says individual liberties should be restricted only if the individuals actions cause harm to others.
Wicclari notes how some people claim that pornography,

-especially violent pornography, causes violence to women, and therefore causes enough harm to others to ban it.
Yet, Wicclair says it is difficult to make the

-connection between words and images on the one hand and violence on the ther.
He claims that pornography bears

-an indirect relationship to violence, and that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest there is a direct relationship between the viewing of pornography and the committing of acts of violence against women.
Wicclair also notes that there is an important difference between

-restricting words/images and restricting violence.

-he says that in order for the government to censor words and images, they must present a clear and present danger to society.
Yelling fire in a crowded

-movie theater, when there actually was no fire, could cause mass panic and injury or death to those in the theater, and thus present a clear and present danger to society.
Such an act would be

-considered illegal.

-Yet Wicclair concludes that, based on current evidence pornography does not pose a "clear and present" danger to society, and should, therefore, not be censored.
Another reason not to censor pornography

-is that pornography has a cathartic effect, and that it actually produces a net decrease in harm to women.
The claim that pornography has a cathartic effect is based on two asssumptions:

-that men who are not already violence-prone are more likely to be "turned off" than "turned on" by depictions of rape or other violent forms of pornography, and that exposure to pornography can function as a substitute for actually causing harm.
The last few reasons for not censoring pornography involve

-the fact that although some pornography feature activies that are both immoral and illegal, many of the practices in porn are immoral but don't break the law.
He also says that if the government were to censor

-all materials that feature violence against women, then it would also make sense for the government to censor images of violence against men.

-this would effectively mean that a huge portion of US culture would be censored.
Charles Lawrence believes that face-to-face

-racial insults are unworth of First Amendment protection.
The first reason Lawrence gives is that

-racial insults typically silence the victim and makes them too scared to speak.

-since racial insults limit speech rather than encourage it, racial insults go against the freedom of speech the first amendment protects.
Lawrence says that when speech takes the form of

-face-to-face racial insults, then it falls within the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment.
He also notes that in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,

-words tend to inflict injury and tend to incite and immediate breach of peace.
Lawrence says the experience

-of being called "nigger" or "Jap" or other racist words is like a slap in the face.

-the injury caused by being called such a word leaves no room for reflection or response.
He says that such assaultive racist speech

-serves as a preemptive strike, and that the effects of such speech on a victim are suffered as a blow, not an outrageous idea
Thus, since the purpose of the person who uses racist speech

-is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim, then racist speech should not be protected by the 1st amendment.
Lawrence then discusses other ways that racist speech is

-destructive and contrary to the 1st Amendent.
Often, he notes, when women and minorities

-experience racist or sexist words, they are left speechless due to experiencing the feelings of rage, shock, fear, and flight all at once.

-this paralysis leaves the victim unable to speak, and is thus contrary to the freedom of speech.
Lawrence also notes that racist and sexist words have

-a preemptive nature--words by which to respond to such verbal attacks may never be forthcoming because speech is usually an inadequate response.
Lawrence says that when words claim

-a person is subhuman, there is little if anything that can be said to redress either the emotional or reputational injury.
The last claim that Lawrence makes is that victims of racism are often

-silenced by their powerless position in society.

-Lawrence says that when a minority is a victim of racis words, the status and power of the minority is rarely equal to that of the aggressor.
Lawrence says that when minorites face racism

-they face the possibility of being beaten or killed if they respond.

-So, racist speech silences the speech of others, and is therefore contrary to the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
Skokie V. National Socialist Party of America

-arose when the village of Skokie, a town with nearly 40,000 Jews, tried to prevent the National Socialist Party, also known as the Nazi Party of America, wanted to march through the village of Skokie.
The Nazi Party

planned on marching through the town wearing a Nazi uniform (1), displaying the Swastika (2), and distributing pamphlets that were designed to promote religous, ethnic, and racial hatred.
The Circuit Court of Cook County

-banned the Nazis from doing (1), (2), and (3).

-then, the Nazis appealed, and an appelate court overturned the circuit court's ruling and allowed the Nazi Party to wear their uniforms and distribute pamphlets, but not to display the swastika.
Eventually, the Nazi Party appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court

-and the court ruled that the Nazis can wear the uniform, distribute pamphlets, and display the Swastika.
The Illinois Supreme Court, when making their ruling,

-relied heavily upon the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
The first US Supreme Court case they rely upon

-is Cohen v. California, a case in which a boy was not allowed to wear a t-shirt that said "F*** the draft."

-in this case the US Supreme Court stated that "the pubic expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to their hearers.
The Supreme Court of Illinois
used this statement

-to claim that wearing certain clothing, including a Nazi uniform, can be symbolic of a thought or philosophy.

-Since clothing can communicate thoughts and philosophy, the Illinois Suprme Court ruled that the Nazis have the right to wear Nazi uniforms because the right to wear certain types of clothing falls into the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment.
The Court also notes that there is no

-universal interpretation as to what is and is not morally acceptabl

-such a vague definition of morality is a threat to any free society.
The Illinois Supreme Court also notes

-how the ability of the government to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is dependent upon showing that substantial privacy interests are being violated in a substantial manner.
Any broader interpretation of this authority would

-empower a majority to silence the views and opinions of the minority, and thus open society up to the tyranny of the majority.
The Next case the Illinois Supreme Court uses is the

-case of Chaplinski v. New Hampshire, which established the "fighting words" doctrine.
The fighting words doctrine was designed to

-permit punishment of extremely hostile communication that could cause an immediate physical response.

-Skokie claimed that displaying the swastika is tantamount to using fighting words, and that the display of the swastika, should, therefore, be banned.
Skokie also used the "fighting words" argument

-to prevent the Nazis from speaking altogether.

-the court, however, disagreed, and said that the swastika is symbolic political speech intended to convey the beliefs of those who display it.

-as such, the swastika is entitled to the free speech protections of the first amendment.
The next case reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court is

-the case of Rockwell v. Morris, a case in which George Rockwell challenged a bar to his use of a New York City park to hold a public demonstration where anti-semitic speeches would be made.
The US Supreme Court noted that if the speaker

-incites others to immediate unlawful action he may be punished and stopped when disorder actually impends.

-yet, they also say this is not to be confused with unlawful actions of others who seek to unlawfully suppress or punish the speaker
If this were not the case,

the court notes that anyone who preaches a strange doctrine could be stopped.

-the court, therefore, says that the threat of violence to speakers, such as the people of Skokie threatening to violently react to Nazi marches, is not enough to prevent the Nazis from speaking.
The court also notes that since the Nazis

-have forewarned the people of Skokie that they will march, the people of Skokie, if offended by it, can simply avoid it.
The first problem Professor Krecz discusses in regard to Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America

-is the need to apply the facts to every court decision.

-if you apply the facts to Skokie, it would be very difficult to say that the fighting words doctrine does not apply to Skokie
He says that since many of the people of Skokie

-were formerly in concentration camps, the fighting words doctrine would defintely seem to apply to this case.
Krecz also says, however, that the Nazis

-should have the right to say what they say and wear what they wear, they just should not be able to do so in Skokie.
The Majority Opinion in Reno v. ACLU starts off by

-reviewing two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 called "indecent" and "patently offensive" material.
The court eventually struck down these statutes saying they

-violate the 1st Amendment right to free speech and that the definitions for "indecent" and "patently offensive" are too vague.
The Majority Opinion then defines what they consider Sexually Explicit Material

-by saying it is material that includes text, pictures, and text that ranges from the relatively modest to what the court calls "the hardest core."
The court notes, however that, internet pornography is much

-more difficult to access then pornography on Television or radio.

-Sometimes, you need only touch a button to access pornography on the TV or Radio
Yet, with the Internet, you must

-go through several steps to access pornography.
Though the court acknowledges that it is possible to

-accidentally access pornography on the Internet, the instances of this are pretty rare.
The Majority Opinion goes on to say that

-special computer programs have been developed to specifically censor pornographic words and emails from the internet, and that parents have the option of using this software to protect their children.
One of the most difficult problems the court addresses is the problem of

-age verification.

-according to Federal Law, a person must be 18 to access pornographic websites.

-yet, how to make sure the people viewing a pornographic website were 18 was a huge problem.
The Government argued that because there was no way for

-pornographic websites to accurately determine the age of their viewers, pornographic websites should be banned from the internet.
The Majority Opinion,

-disagreed, saying that some websites have material that is mostly acceptable, yet has a few references that might be considered indecent.

-Yet, with the Government's argument, even material such as this would have to be banned.

-the Majority Opinion says this is unacceptable.
The Majority Opinion then discusses ways to obtain the age of viewers by

-requiring them to have passwords or credit card numbers.

-the majority opinion, though, says that if pornographic websites are required to have this sort of technology, then so will all websites.
The Court concludes that it would

-be too expenisve for all websites to have this technology, and that this technology might discourage people from accessing webites with decent material.
The Majority also dislikes the fact that "indecent" and "patently offensive" are

-so vaguely defined.

-such a vague definition is open to a variety of opinions, and this could greatly jeopardize the freedoms of the country.
For instance, the court notes how discussions of

-rape, birth control, or homosexuality might be considered indecent and patently offensive, and therefore subject those discussing them to prosecution.
The Court also dislikes these measures because

-it would require anyone caught displaying indecent or patently offensive material on the internet to face up to two years in prison. This would greatly limit free speech.
The Last thing the majority says is that

-adults, as part of their right to free speech have the right to express themselves sexually in way that is indecent but not obscene.

And, to conclude, the court says that the fact society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
-the swastika cannot be fighting words nor can anticipation of a hostile audience justify prior restraint.