As a focal point, the article examines a pornography ordinance that was drafted by Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found the ordinance to be unconstitutional on the grounds that the ordinance discriminated against protected viewpoints such as female inferiority. The holding is examined, and further criticism of the ordinance is provided. The need for pornography regulation is discussed with emphasis on the impact of pornography on social conditioning, violent acts, and coerced participation in pornography. The requirements of regulation that overcomes constitutional barriers are also examined. Such legislation must take into account protected speech aspects of pornography and must focus the attack on the incitement of illegal activities, obscenity, and creating a new exception to protected speech. The MacKinnon/Dworkin ordinance is examined for its definition of harm being based on viewpoints, its overbreadth, and vagueness. A proposed alternative ordinance is provided that focuses on propriety of motive, but survives overbreadth and vagueness challenges. 152 notes.