Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women's Equality

the assault or attack and/or against the maker(s), distributor^), seller(s), and/or exhibitor(s) of the specific pornography.

The debate over the relationship between pornography and

violence against women has been haunted by a specter of absurdity: the man who rapes with a pornographic book in his back pocket. As it turns out, these specters are real. The assault

section of the Ordinance does not resolve the debate on the relationship between pornography and rape. It does make it possible for an individual woman to sue a man who rapes her

with a pornographic book in his back pocket—and its maker,

distributor, and seller too. It gives her a chance to try to prove

that there is a direct causal relationship between an act of violence against her and a specific piece of pornography.

Sometimes men rape or maim women sexually while telling

them that they know they like it because they saw women like

them in pornography who liked it. Sometimes they bring the

pornography and force the women to open their legs, position

50

Pornography and Civil Rights

their arms, adjust their facial expressions, and say the exact

words from the pornography. Sometimes they use specific pornography to decide what “type” of woman to rape, to get themselves ready for rape, to reduce their inhibitions to rape.

Sometimes young boys murder themselves accidentally by

strangulation because they are engaging in sexual play promoted in pornography. Under this provision, no one could sue pornographers for the general contribution pornography

makes to a rape culture, a culture that equates sex with death.

Specific pornographers could, however, be sued in an at empt

to prove the causal contribution of specific pornography to the

specific physical injury. Claims under this section would be

very difficult to prove, but anyone who could prove causality

by this standard should be able to keep the same pornography

from causing other injuries, as well as receive damages.

Defamation*

Defamation through pornography: It shall be sex discrimination to defame any person through the unauthorized use in pornography of their proper name, image, or recognizable personal likeness. For purposes

of this section, public figures shall be treated as private

persons. Authorization once given can be revoked in

writing at any time prior to any publication.

Some pornography simply turns individual women into

pornography against their wil , sexualizes them. A favorite

tactic of the pornographers is to reduce specific women who

are in the public eye to “cunt. ” Whatever else a woman may

have accomplished, whoever else she may be, particularly if

she is successful, self-respecting, and/or feminist, she can be

sold to any man for his personal sexual access and use for the

price of a monthly magazine. This practice is particularly common in the case of prominent movie stars, many of whom had to do nude modeling for some part of their life, and promi­

* This provision was not proposed or included in either the Minneapolis or the Indianapolis Ordinance.

The Ordinance

51

nent feminists, especially those who oppose pornography,