Catherine A Mackinnon`s Only Words

Constitutionally protected speech that is Clearly sexual abuse is discriminating and unconstitutional, therefore, must be restricted speech. Catherine A. MacKinnon, in her book provided Words gives persuading evidence that filth subordinates wo manpower as a group through sexual abuse. She says Protecting pornography agency protecting sexual abuse as speech, at the same time that both pornography and its protection render deprived women of speech, especially speech against pornography (MacKinnon, 9). MacKinnon argues this bye explaining defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and equality and peech.Women be sexually abused for the making of pornography. Torture, rape, hot wax dripping over nipples, and murdering women are the tools to produce a product of evil. Literature is the interpretation of these crimes against humanity (emphasized) and cameras are proof of these crimes. On the assumption that words have only a referential relation to reality, pornog raphy is defended as only words-even when it is pictures women had to instantaneously used to make, even when the means of writing are womens bodies, even when a women is destroyed in order to say it or show it or because it was express or shown.MacKinnon, 12) However, assuming words are only a partial relation to reality would mean we would have to reconsider what reality is. Our wedding vows much(prenominal) as I do would be meaningless(prenominal) and a jury could never return a verdict that is only partial to reality. These words are treated as the institutions and practices they constitute, rather than as expressions of the thinking they embody (Mackinnon, 13) Therefore, if these words of pornography are only words, dont they institutionalize rape Since pornography is rape on women.Pornography is protected by the First Amendment as free speech, scarcely why Because he pornographic materials are construed as ideas, and the First Amendment protects ideas. Pornography is com monly brushed of as some product of fantasy for those who buy it. But what about the women who were tortured to make it. Also it is brushed off as simulated. This means that the pain and hurt the women are feeling is just acting. Put a little music and a smile here and there to cover up the pain, and you are portraying to and giving pure pleasure for those who buy the product.Just like fantasizing a death, how do you simulate a death But discarding pornography as a representation is the most frequent excuse. But how can a murder be justified on terms of representation (MacKinnon, 27,28) . When unmatchable fantasizes about murdering another person, this is premeditation of murder. If he were to express this idea, he would be heard as expressing a threat and penalized. For the obvious reason, publications that are how to guides on murdering nation are not protected speech. I believe Pornography is the catalyst for premeditation of rape. Pornography flicks are how to guides for rape. So why are they legal His idea is protected, and further more is his threat of Im gonna *censored* her, because both are seen as antasy, but why isnt murder seen as fantasy Murder is the loss of aces life, but so is pornography when women have been killed to produce it. Pornography is proven to be addicted. When somebody is addicted to premeditating rape, its only a matter of time before his habituation of premeditation becomes a solid plan. Sexual or racial harassment has been suggested to only be made illegal if only directed at an idiosyncratic and not a group.The idea seems to be that injury to one person is legally actionalble, but the same injury to thousands of people is protected speech.. MacKinnon, 51) This would be disparate impact which involves employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups, but that, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity. (Lindgren & Taub,167) Pornogr aphy is disparate impact on women, because of the sexual abuse, and ironically the disparate impact seems to be the business necessity. Under Title Sevens disparate impact treatment concept, pornography is illegal. I just have to prove it now)Also, is there not easonable equipment casualty (Wolgast, 432, Fem Juris) for a women to visit a place where men are watching a porno and premeditating her rape Is she not infringed on her First Amendment right to meet with equal respect. The idea of pornography (pre meditated rape) does not allow her respect. It does not allow respect for women as a whole, living among men as a whole, who have the idea in their mind. Two groups, men and women, one who is premeditating rape against the other because of a purchased product, pornography, the catalyst to rape. Pornography clearly resembles the theory of Dominance.The important difference etween men and women is that women get *censored*ed and men *censored* women (MacKinnon, 499. Fem Juris) soci ally and constitutionally. This in turn renders them incapable of an individual self. When protected dehumanizing speech (pornography) is ramped in the market, subordination of women occurs. The more violent speech gets, it seems that more protected it becomes. The more pornography expands, the more protected it becomes. Therefore, the more pornography is produced, the more unequal women become, and there speech is less heard and reduced to Only words.. (MacKinnon) Women are then left to remain silent.