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

80 percent of the Woman’s Day respondents wanted al pornography outlawed. Less than 2 percent of this pool of people thought that freedom of speech was more important than the violence

against women generated by pornography. In the Time poll, 72

percent wanted the government to crack down harder on pornography (no separate figure is given for women). Asked if magazines with nude pictures should be outlawed in local stores, 59

percent said yes—49 percent of men, 67 percent of women. In

the Newsweek poll, 73 percent thought that magazines that show

sexual violence should be totally banned (as compared, for in­

Questions and Answers

89

stance, with 21 percent who thought that showing nudity should

be totally banned). 68 percent wanted a total ban on movies that

depict sexual violence. 63 percent thought that the sale or rental of videos featuring sexual violence should be totally banned.

The ABA did not ask lawyers any questions about total bans.

Instead, lawyers were asked about the Indianapolis Ordinance.

Only 24 percent of those polled thought that the Ordinance

constituted any form of censorship. 30 percent thought it was

overbroad and 25 percent thought it was too vague. Both overbreadth and vagueness would be legal grounds for finding the Ordinance unconstitutional, but neither has anything to do with

the basic principles of the Ordinance itself—so that, for instance, a redrafted version might not elicit these same objections from these same people. (In fact, the Seventh Circuit did not find the Ordinance to be either vague or overbroad. ) 26

percent of al the lawyers polled thought the Indianapolis Ordinance was constitutional as drafted. 30 percent said it would be constitutional as drafted if studies proved conclusively that pornography leads to violence against women. (Presumably, then it would not be “overbroad” or “too vague. ”) 42 percent of the

lawyers fifty-five or older were in favor of the Ordinance.

Al of these polls and surveys have one element overwhelmingly in common: people, and especially women (whether, for instance, in the sample of women lawyers or readers of

Woman's Day) believe, know, understand, that commercially

available pornography causes sexual violence against women.

Q: Why is the Ordinance so important?

A: The Ordinance puts power in the hands of those who have

been hurt by pornography. It recognizes pornography as sex

discrimination: as a source of sexual abuse and second-class

status, especially for women.

The Ordinance brings the harm of pornography into the

light where everyone has to see it and society must deal with

it. It al ows those hurt by the bigotry, hostility, and aggression

caused by pornography to seek legal remedies that are fair.

The Ordinance al ows people to collect money damages from

90

Pornography and Civil Rights

the pornographers. The Ordinance allows injunctions against

pornography that has caused social and sexual harm to

women, children, men, and transsexuals. We have to stop the

traf icking and the profits in order to stop the whole system of

abuse and exploitation called pornography. Injunctions narrowly directed against the material that does the harm (causes second-class status, causes sexual violence, is made from coercion in the first place) and money damages wil go a long way toward stopping the pornographers from destroying lives for