Arguments Against Mackinnon

MacKinnon’s push for the removal of the right to free speech is not only reckless, but extremely dangerous. As an American, MacKinnon fails to recognise that it is a fundamental democratic right recognized in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and that freedom of speech is far too precious a protection to be eliminated. She attempts to justify her arguments by using the example of protecting pornography. This poor argument to such an important right in the US does not represent it in its full scope. The First Amendment ensures that speech ensures that every person has the opportunity to express their views. It also protects the individual from a tyrannical regime by ensuring that criticism can be expressed towards the
Whilst many view pornography is offensive, viewing pornography itself does not adhere to acceptable standards of moral behaviour. It is arguable that one does not have to agree with the action being defended in order to uphold the principle it relies on such as supporting the use of pornography in order to defend it as a right of privacy or free speech. It seems hypocritical that MacKinnon is claiming that such liberty-limiting principles should be imposed. One can argue that MacKinnon is using her right to freedom of speech to make such radical proposals against men and speak out for women everywhere but if these rights were taken away from her, she would be powerless. MacKinnon is likely to reject the views of Mill and others who share his views because advocating such a position as the liberty of the individual will result in males being further protected, while also further dominating
In New South Wales law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution as it must prove the guilt of the defendant. This principle is known as the presumption of innocence. One could assume that MacKinnon would consider removing that privilege at the expense of men. MacKinnon asks if ‘the practice participate in the subordination of women to men, or is it no part of it?’ Going further, MacKinnon adds ‘whether statutes are sex specific or gender neutral would not be as important as whether they work to end or reinforce male supremacy.’ By this assumption, MacKinnon appears to question whether certain areas of law hurt women or help them. However, one would counter-argue that it is not women themselves that are at a disadvantage when faced with the presumption of innocence or burden of proof, but rather the victim no matter if they were male or female. Legal academics such as David Paciocco ask, ‘How can we as a society justify driving a person to these depths of vilification if we are not sure of his or her guilt?’ It is important to note that even though in some cases involving acts such as rape and social assault, it is not fair for feminists like MacKinnon to unfairly justify that it’s because men look at as if ‘women are human beings or not’. Every person is subject to the rule of law no matter the gender and the presumption of innocence is there to protect