Summary Of The Price We Pay By Susan Brison

In this essay, I object to the argument in favour of illegalizing the production, sale, and consumption of porn based on the premises used in Susan Brison’s essay “The Price We Pay”? Pornography and Harm. Her argument cannot be used for such grounds as it would set in place the wrongful duty of the government to prevent any influence that could potentially, in any way, instill negative views in people about a particular group of people in society.
Brison argues there to be no moral right to pornography given the harmful effects it produces against women within, and outside the industry. These are direct and indirect harms, including the many accounts of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by some pornographers. Or the role that porn also plays in
Such as many philosophers, Brison believes our freedoms are limited to the point where they harm others (Cohen & Wellman, 2014, p. 328). Since she believes porn instills a
What will be considered negative? Assuming it is any influence which places a class or group of people at risk of degradation from others, there would be a vast, perhaps even infinite amount of links one can attribute to degradation. Explicit music for example, or any form of art for that matter can be seen as harmfully degrading. One could even draw a causal link between a public figure who criticizes an aspect of a culture, and any harm against someone of that same culture. Criminalizing porn on the basis of its indirect harms sets a precedent for criminalizing anything that is deemed to be an indirect harm to someone else. If your voiced opinions are deemed to be under this category of harm, then there is legal justification to criminalize your thoughts of opinion. This would be thought policing, which has no place in a society which places freedom of thought in their