Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T15:18:55.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance v. The BOG: And the Winner Is…?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Melinda Vadas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Supreme Court dismissed the Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction of speech. The Court's dismissal itself violates the free speech of the proposers of the Ordinance. It is not possible for both pornographers to perform the speech act of making pornography and feminists to perform the speech act of proposing the Ordinance. I show that the speech act of proposing the Ordinance takes First Amendment precedence over the speech act of making pornography.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Summer 1992 , pp. 94 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Margaret. 1989. Pornography and the traffic in women. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1(1): 111–55.Google Scholar
Heyward, Carter. 1988. Our passion for justice. New York: Pilgrim Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1989. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 1986. Pornography and the First Amendment. Duke Law Journal 4(September): 589–627.10.2307/1372485CrossRefGoogle Scholar