Sound Principle

THE MAJORITY OPINION does an admirable job of cataloguing the ills of pornography. The benefits of the First Amendment are also cogently and persuasively listed. There's only one thing missing from the majority editorial--a real argument that first links the two issues and then places First Amendment considerations above a justifiable revulsion against pornography.

The argument for permissiveness toward pornography has always been "freedom of speech." But how can pictorial and literary depiction of women (and increasingly men) in degrading sexual terms be perceived as "freedom of speech"? There is no doubt that the authors of the Bill of Rights did not intend the First Amendment's speech protection to extend to pornography, and for a very simple reason: Pornography adds nothing to a healthy diversity of political, cultural, and social life in the United States, which is the core intent of the First Amendment. And nothing since the 18th century, including the great post-WWII Constitutional revolutions, has changed the fact that the First Amendment does not protect pornography.

However, Question 3 itself should not be approved, because its vague definition of pornography could, for example, lead to the censorship of classical nude statues in the Sackler. But its intent is still laudable. One hopes that all American communities will one day come up with a good definition, explicitly excluding what might be called "artistic sexuality," and then attempt to enforce a ban.

In the end there's no way to escape a simple conclusion: Advocates of "free speech" protection for pornography have been reduced to championing an abstract principle of total freedom in opposition to a perfectly justified and healthy outcry against degradation of individuals and pollution of our society.