Lets Put Pornography Back in the Closet by Susan Brownmiller

Chad Cummins English 122Y Mr. Fiorenza Analysis root word The first essay I chose is lets put filth back in the closet, by Susan Brownmiller. I chose this one because I reckon analyzing it would not be too difficult after writing to the highest degree First Amendment Junkie, in a previous assignment. Susan Brownmillers essay voices her feminist realise towards porno brilliant secular. Her claim is that without restriction, the first amendment has allowed women to be mankindly perceived as objects. The first amendment gives American citizens the right to uninvolved speech, and in Brownmillers opinion the nation abuses that right.Obscenity laws sport been in place since the early seventies, but according to Brownmiller, the woo has ruled sexually explicit con tennert not obscene some times throughout history. By her bringing up the Hollywood ten makes readers think that the directors of pornography should also go to jail. Her feminist view is that graphic pornographic cont ent is obscene when it degrades women. Sexual material with educational or objective purpose is fine, as long as there is no dehumanizing or demeaning of women.Brownmillers opinion is that porn turns women into objects, and is advertised in much(prenominal) a way that the public perception of women is that they are dear material objects. She thinks material that humiliates women in this way should be restricted, shut away from the public eye. Instead it gets winked as its been in the past. One example she chooses to fight her subject area is that if the public perception of women is that they are objects, a rapist might safely think hes done nothing wrong. She says it makes a rapist belief want he is merely giving into normal inspires.Brownmiller implicitly anticipates m any angles for wrinkle in her essay. She goes after the argument one might make that pornography is a form of art. Her opinion is that the porn industry is an unethical superior business using high standar ds of visual technology. They get away with it straightway because it is skillfully filmed and edited, to have a good design of disingenuous grace. Another argument she predicts is the opposition made by the tribunal reflexion that no one is compelled to look. Her opinion is that with porn having the ability to flaunt tself openly to the general public without the filtering of degrading explicit content, it just throws itself in the face of the public. Brownmiller has said one possible solution at to the lowest degree to her would be to get the stuff out of sight. She wants to leave it up to the legislators. Let them be the judge if pornography should be kept out in the public eye. In conclusion, Brownmiller laid out the main points to a heavy(a) problem in America. The issue of freedom of speech, and if there are any limitations. Using pornography as an example made a very(prenominal) good argument for this topic.The punt essay I chose to analyze is hold dear Freedom of Ex pression on Campus, by Derek Bok. I chose this as my second essay because I assumed it would relate to m more well-nigh due to the fact that I am a college student. In protect Freedom of Expression on the Campus, the creator, Derek Bok shows how expressing yourself falls under the First Amendment, whether it is on a private college campus or public college campus. He further explains that just because it is protected by law does not mean that it is right, proper, or civil.Bok goes on to show how censoring freedom of speech would cause people to runnel the limits to gain more attention than is needed and if dealt with in the proper manner. The author starts off with a strong example of Harvard students displaying a confederate gladiolus and swastika. Freedom of expression is a right and should not be apply inappropriately. The First Amendment rights have caused much controversy because it allows people to say, act, or feel how they see fit for example, hanging of a Confederate f lag or displaying a swastika in public view.It is a very with child(p) and intense act although it is their right to do so. According to the Supreme Courts ruling, the displaying of these symbols is protected under the First Amendment. Regretfully, people act and fight because they are offended by things like this, but it is one of our numerous freedoms as Americans. Although it cannot be prohibited it should be responded to in such a way they do not feel put down or that they are wrong in expressing themselves, but rather suggest to them that it is bad and disgustful to others.We have the right to be offended as others have the right to display or express their own interests. Diverse communities in the United States set certain laws to protect their properties from being vandalized with graffiti and protect them from loud noise rules of this kind should be evenly upheld in put together to not discriminate for or against anybodys opinions or ideas. If the governing regimen se e fit to change the laws to prohibit such expressions, they should be cautious.Bok says we are faced with the main example of, the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to have a community founded on usual respect. Bok shows that power of censorship is very dangerous because declaring certain things offensive provide create a lot of attention. The stance Bok sticks with throughout the article is clear. He thinks appropriate officials and faculty members should take the lead on education students on what these actions do to others.He also thinks ignoring the displays would work because students would not have such an urge to put them on. It would be safer than prohibiting them, because all that does is give the violators more of a case to act out. In conclusion, bringing up the example of the Harvard students displaying confederate flags was a good way to show his main point. The main idea is exhausting to bring out the difference between free speech and of fensive material. This was a good way to bring up a abundant problem that our nation is facing in the world today.