NCJ Number
115850
Journal
Journal of Law Reform Volume: 21 Issue: 1 and 2 Dated: (Fall 1987, Winter 1988) Pages: 69-136
Date Published
1988
Length
68 pages
Annotation
This legal brief and political statement intends to mobilize a broad spectrum of feminist opposition to the enactment of laws that would expand State suppression of sexually explicit material and to place before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a legal argument for the unconstitutionality of an Indianapolis municipal ordinance that would have permitted private civil suits to ban such material, purportedly to protect women (American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut).
Abstract
Sexually explicit speech is not per se sexist or harmful to women. The Indianapolis ordinance authorizes the suppression of an enormous range of sexual imagery and texts. This reinforces the notion that women are too fragile and men too uncontrollable, absent the aid of the censor, to be trusted to reject or enjoy sexually explicit speech for themselves. By identifying 'subordination of women' as the concept that distinguishes sexually explicit material which is tolerable from that to be condemned, the ordinance incorporates a vague and asymmetric standard for censorship that can as readily be used to curtail feminist speech about sexuality or to target the speech of sexual minorities. Perpetuation of the concept of gender-determined roles regarding sexuality strengthens one of the main obstacles to achieving real change and ending sexual violence. This brief was written on behalf of the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce and was cosigned by the Women's Legal Defense Fund and 80 feminists. 30 footnotes.