16 Everett. St. Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 March 17, 1992 The Statehouse Boston, MA 02133 Dear Representative: At a legislative hearing on Monday, sponsors of an anti-pornography bill demonstated the ugly spirit of intolerance that lurks behind it by inviting as "expert witnesses" on pornography and human sexuality two notorious bigots, the writer Andrea Dworkin and legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon. Noted for their prejudiced statements about straight men and women and gay men, Dworkin and MacKinnon have equally sordid records of attacking artistic freedom. Inciting sexual hatred, Dworkin calls all heterosexual sex rape. Her most famous book, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, describes intercourse as "the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women." Labelling men as latent pedophiles, she claims that "A man does not molest his son or close male relatives so as not to be raped by them in turn." Not limiting her hate to straight men, she adds that "Gay men share in the moral degradation common to all men." Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, 1981. Respecting only lesbians like herself, she depicts men as perverts and straight women as collaborators in their own violation. MacKinnon, a feminist law professor, calls heterosexuality "the eroticization of dominance and submission." John Leo, U.S. News & World Report, February 10, 1992. Attacking married men, she claims that "marital sex is sexual harassment is rape." Lars E. Bader, "Sexual Harassment," letter, Counterpoint, March 6, 1992. In the New York Times last fall, she labelled men "a group sexually trained to woman-hating aggression." Catharine MacKinnon, "The Palm Beach Hanging," December 15, 1991. Gay men, MacKinnon writes, replicate amongst themselves the patterns of oppression she claims exist between men and women. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, 1991. The Hildt Bill menaces artistic freedom by permitting individuals like MacKinnon and Dworkin to stifle the sexual expression underlying artistic creativity. While MacKinnon claims the Hildt anti-porn bill is about protecting women rather than censorship, examination of her own past statements reveals her deception. In 1983, Minneapolis adopted a MacKinnon-authored anti-pornography ordinance, later declared unconstitutional, that the Hildt bill mirrors in many respects. Citing the ordinance, Dworkin and MacKinnon sought to ban French and Italian art films, avant-garde art, and even Rolling Stones album covers. Michael Weiss, "Crimes of the Head," Reason Magazine, January 1992; Hans Bader, "Collective Guilt," Letter, New York Times, December 27, 1991. Under the ordinance, any woman who felt "degraded" by erotica could sue for her alleged emotional injuries, threatening the bookstores, artists, and publishers that focus on human sexuality. By endorsing censorship and implicitly sanctioning the bigotry of MacKinnon and Dworkin, sponsors of the bill display intolerance that has no place in American government. Massachusetts legislators should reaffirm their commitment to freedom of expression by rejecting the anti-pornography bill. Sincerely, Hans Bader 1L, Harvard Law School Class of 1994