Liberty Limiting Principles o Harm to others Justification for most restrictions of liberty o Harm to self Legal paternalism Try

Try to prevent ignorance or willingness that lead to harm to self Some argue that harm to self can lead to harm to others o Offense principal An act can rise to a certain level of offensiveness that it should be banned o Immorality The 1967-1968 (Johnson Nixon) Committee Report o Pornography is innocuous should not be banned o No evidence to support porn causing sex crimes o Recommended that people should be allowed to watch porn The Attorney Generals Report o Connection between violent, degrading porn and sex crimes o Child pornography extremely harmful and thus should be banned

John Stuart Mill On Liberty o Society is only warranted in restricting liberty if that activity causes harm to others o Rejects paternalism and immorality as justification o Utilitarianism People should be allowed to seek whatever makes them happiest as long as it does no come at the expense of others Stanley v. Georgia o You are free to use porn in private, as long as there is no public transaction Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton o States may regulate the public transaction of porn

Mark R. Wicclair Anti-censorship o Accepts that porn may include violent, degrading material o We should be suspicious of state interference regarding expression o Censorship of pornography is not a legitimate means of preventing harm to women The connection between porn and harm to women is too speculative to incur the cost censorship There are more effective ways to combat violence to women More police, etc. o If it is legal to do, why is it not legal to show? o Trying to censor the internet is absurd o Cathartic effect of porn

Susan Brison Feminist o Porn is harmful and we do not have the moral right to enjoy it o Brisons definition of porn: violent, misogynistic words, pictures & films, portraying women a objects worth of demeaning and torture o Argues for harm to women using the Evelina Globe example o Porn causes brutalization of women and rape and increases sexist attitudes o Criticism Of course rape, prostitution, etc. are illegal and wrong-nobody has a right to see that We should try to prevent these crimes, not censor videos Is all porn violent, misogynistic? What about men? Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America (1978) o Background Nazis wanted to march in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois o Circuit Court issued injuctions against: 1. Marching in party uniform 2. Displaying the swastika 3. Distributing pamphlets realying racial hatred o Appellate court allowed 1 & 3, but denied swastika o The precdents: Cohen v. California Fuck the draft shirt is okay Political speech Chaplinski v. New Hampshire Sets precedent of fighting words doctrine Rockwell v. Morris Allows swastika under political speech Offensive but not fighting words o Not mano y mano o Conclusion: The first amendment gives the Nazi rights to all three actions, the injunctions are unconstitutional o Evaluation Entirely different context than Rockwell v. Morris Skokie is a lot different than Central Park

Corry v. Stanford University o Background Stanford code prohibits speech or expression intended to insult people on the basis o race, sex, ethnicity, etc. Students argued that this was an unlawful restriction of free speech and a misuse of t fighting words doctrine o Precedents Terminello v. Chicago

 Speech did not cause clear and present danger Gooding v. Wilson Threatening to police officers did not present clear and present danger R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul Cannot proscribe speech on the basis of content All of these cases involved a narrowing of fighting words doctrine o Conclusion: Court rules in favor of the student