Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T17:56:30.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH: PORNOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2007

Ishani Maitra  and
Mary Kate McGowan
Ishani Maitra
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Mary Kate McGowan
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many liberal societies are deeply committed to freedom of speech. This commitment is so entrenched that when it seems to come into conflict with other commitments (e.g., gender equality), it is often argued that the commitment to speech must trump the other commitments. In this paper, we argue that a proper understanding of our commitment to free speech requires being clear about what should count as speech for these purposes. On the approach we defend, “speech” should get a special, technical sense, different from its ordinary sense. We offer a partial characterization of this technical sense. Finally, we argue that if certain theorists (e.g., MacKinnon) are right about what (some) pornography does, then it should fall outside the scope of the free-speech principle. If so, then contrary to first appearances, pornography may not be a case in which our commitments to freedom and gender equality come into conflict.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 41 - 68
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank Fred Schauer, Brian Weatherson, audiences at the Australian National University, Cornell University, and Syracuse University, as well as the anonymous referees for this journal for very helpful comments on this material.

References

American Booksellers, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).
Austin J. L. 1975 How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed., ed. J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisá (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Braddon-Mitchell D., and C. West 2004 ‘What Is Free Speech?’ Journal of Political Philosophy 12: 437– 460.Google Scholar
Brink D. O. 2001 ‘Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech.’ Legal Theory 7: 119– 157.Google Scholar
Feinberg J. 1975 ‘Limits to the Free Expression of Opinion,’ in J. Feinberg and H. Gross, eds., Philosophy of Law (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Greenawalt K. 1989 Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Grice H. P. 1989 ‘Meaning,’ in Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Hornsby J. 1995 ‘Disempowered Speech.’ Philosophical Topics 23: 127– 147.Google Scholar
Langton R. 1993 ‘Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.’ Philosophy & Public Affairs 22: 293– 330.Google Scholar
Langton R. 1998 ‘Subordination, Silence, and Pornography's Authority,’ in R. C. Post, ed., Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation (Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute).
Lawrence C. R. III. 1992 ‘Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination and the First Amendment.’ Villanova Law Review 37: 787– 804.Google Scholar
Lawrence C. R. III. 1993 ‘If He Hollers, Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus,’ in M. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence III, R. Delgado, and K. Crenshaw, eds., Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (Boulder, CO: Westview).
MacKinnon C. A. 1987a Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
MacKinnon C. A. 1987b ‘Francis Biddle's Sister: Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech,’ in Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
MacKinnon C. A. 1993 Only Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Maitra I., and M. K. McGowan (n.d.) ‘On Racist Hate Speech and the Scope of a Free Speech Principle.’ Unpublished manuscript.
McGowan M. K. 2003 Conversational Exercitives and the Force of Pornography. Philosophy & Public Affairs 31: 155– 189.Google Scholar
McGowan M. K. 2005 ‘On Pornography: MacKinnon, Speech Acts and ‘False’ Construction.’ Hypatia 20: 22– 49.Google Scholar
Mill J. S. 1978 On Liberty, ed. E. Rapoport (Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Pub. Co.).
Parent W. A. 1990 ‘A Second Look at Pornography and the Subordination of Women.’ Journal of Philosophy 87: 205– 211.Google Scholar
Russell D. 2002 ‘Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model,’ in D. Cornell, ed., Feminism and Pornography (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Schauer F. 1982 Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Schauer F. 2004 ‘The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience.’ Harvard Law Review 117: 1765– 1809.Google Scholar
Volokh E. 1996 ‘Freedom of Speech, Permissible Tailoring, and Transcending Strict Scrutiny.’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144: 2417– 2461.Google Scholar