Article: 11287 of alt.censorship From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Excerpts from women against censorship Message-ID: <2519@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> Date: 31 Aug 92 05:40:32 GMT Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN Lines: 134 Since I quoted a portion of the book _Women_Against_Censorship_ in my preceding post, I wanted to take a moment to say something about the book and enter a couple more excerpts from it. The book is a collection of essays by various feminists who are opposed to censorship and to the anti-pornography movement represented by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. The women who have contributed essays to the book have in common only their devotion to feminism and their opposition to censorship. They state reasons for opposition which come from several different viewpoints. If you have an interest in opposing the public control of ideas, in whatever form it might take, I highly recommend the book. _Women_Against_Censorship_ Edited by Varda Burstyn Douglas & McIntyre Limited, 1985 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt 1-- From "False Promises: Feminist Anti-Pornography Legislation in the U.S.A." by Lisa Duggan, Nan Hunter, and Carole S. Vance ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [page 130] In the United States, after two decades of increasing community tolerance for dissenting or disturbing sexual or political materials, there is now growing momentum for retrenchment. In an atmosphere of increased conservatism, evidenced by a wave of book-banning and anti- gay harassment, support for new repressive legislation of various kinds -- from an Oklahoma law forbidding schoolteachers from advocating homosexuality to new anti-pornography laws passed in Minneapolis and Indianapolis -- is growing. The anti-pornography laws have mixed roots of support, however. though they are popular with the conservative constituencies that traditionally favor legal restrictions on sexual expression of all kinds, they were drafted and are endorsed by antipornography feminists who oppose traditional obscenity and censorship laws. The model law of this type, which is now being widely copied, was drawn up in the politically progressive city of Minneapolis by two radical feminists, author Andrea Dworkin and attorney Catherine MacKinnon. It was passed by the city council there, but vetoed by the mayor. A similar law was also passed in Indianapolis, but later declared unconstitutional in federal court, a ruling that the city will appeal. Other versions of the legislation are being considered in numerous cities, and Pennsylvania senator Arlen Spector has introduced legislation modeled on parts of the Dworkin-MacKinnon bill in the U.S. Congress. Dworkin, MacKinnon and their feminist supporters believe that the new antipornography laws are not censorship laws. They also claim that the legislative effort behind them is based on feminist support. Both of these claims are dubious at best. Though the new laws are civil laws that allow individuals to sue the makers, sellers, distributors or exhibitors of pornography, and not criminal laws leading to arrest and imprisonment, their censoring impact would be substantially as severe as criminal obscenity laws. Materials could be removed from public availability by court injunction, and publishers and booksellers could be subject to potentially endless legal harassment. Passage of the laws was therefore acheived with the support of right-wing elements who expect the new laws to accomplish what many censorship efforts are meant to accomplish. Ironically, many antifeminist conservatives backed these laws, while many feminists opposed them. In Indianapolis, the law was supported by extreme right wing religious fundamentalists, including members of the Moral Majority, while there was _no_ local feminist support. In other cities, tra- ditional procensorship forces have expressed interest in the new approach to banning sexually explicit materials. Meanwhile, anticensorship feminists have become alarmed at these new developments, and are seeking to galvanize feminist opposition to the new antipornography legislative strategy pioneered in Minneapolis. One is tempted to ask, how can this be happening? How can feminists be entrusting the patriarchal state with the task of legally dis- tinguishing between permissible and impermissible sexual images? But in fact this new development is not as surprising as it first seems. For the reasons explored by Ann Snitow (see page 107), pornography has come to be seen as a central cause of women's oppression by a significant number of feminists. Some even argue that pornography is the root of virtually all forms of exploitation and discrimination against women. But this analysis takes feminists very close -- indeed far too close -- to measures that will ultimately support conservative, anti-sex, procensorship forces in American society, for it is with these forces that women have forged alliances in passing such legislation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [page 147] The consequences of enforcing such a law, however, are much more likely to obstruct than advance feminist political goals. On the level of ideas, further narrowing of the public realm of sexual speech coincides all too well with the privatization of sexual, reproductive, and family issues sought by the far right -- an agenda described very well for example, by Rosalind Petchesky in "The Rise of the New Right" in _Abortion_and_Woman's_Choice_. Practically speaking, the ordinances could result in attempts to eliminate the images associated with homosexuality. Doubtless there are heterosexual women who believe that lesbianism is a "degrading" form of "subordination." Since the ordinances allow for suits against materials in which men appear "in place of women," far right antipornography crusaders could use these laws to suppress gay male pornography. Imagine a Jerry Falwell-style conservative filing a complaint against a gay bookstore for selling sexually explicit materials showing men with other men in "degrading" or "submissive" or "objectified" postures -- all in the name of pro- tecting women. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt 2-- From "Feminist Debates and Civil Liberties" by June Callwood ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [page 122] My personal experiences around the issue of pornography and censorship mirror those of thousands of women in this country who have become estranged from feminist colleagues and even from close friends. What alarms me most is that this polarity might well cripple our efforts to work together in the future on such common -- and vital -- causes as day care, reproductive rights, equal pay for work of equal value and adequate pensions for women. As lawyer Mary Eberts once said, "Pornography is our Skokie." Just as the American Civil Liberties Union's controversial decision to support the rights of self-styled Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977 divided that organization, so the pornography debate is splitting the women's movement into separate, often hostile, camps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [page 129] Mistrust of civil liberties reveals a lack of historical perspective. The freedom of dissent enjoyed by today's feminists owes everything to the civil liberties groups who 30 years ago fought for the right of marginal organizations to disagree with the majority. It was a civil liberties organization that sought to make covenants on the sale of land to Jews illegal. It was a civil liberties group that in 1965 fought a Toronto bylaw that would have allowed police to censor placards in demonstrations. Today, it is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that protests such draconian welfare laws as the man-in-the-house rule and campaigns against inequities in the country's abortion laws. ... Feminism and civil liberties are inextricable. The goal of both is a society in which individuals are treated justly. Civil libertarians who oppose censorship are fighting on behalf of feminists, not against them.