THE PHILOSOPHICAL CASE FOR PORNOGRAPHY Danny Frederick Adult persons, unless they suffer some form of impairment, are entitled to discover for themselves, by trial and error, what sort of life will fulfil them. Freedom of expression is essential for that, and it includes the freedom to produce and consume pornography. For most people, sex is a very important part of life; and for many of them the experience of participating in the production or consumption of pornography, and the ideas for experimentation communicated by that medium, contribute to the development of their sexuality and personality. Some people are critical of pornography; and, for some of them, articulating and communicating those criticisms is a part of who they are or of who they want to be. Such criticism is part of freedom of expression and it can prompt producers and consumers of pornography to reflect on, and perhaps revise, their own activities. The common criticisms of pornography are that: (i) it tends to deprave and corrupt those who produce or consume it; (ii) it degrades women; (iii) it portrays women as sexual slaves or as subservient to men; (iv) it exposes third parties to risk of offence or assault; (v) it is objectionable because it is harmful to children. Each of those criticisms is mistaken. First, pornography is sexually explicit representation that is sexually arousing. However, some medical texts are sexually explicit and some scenes in mainstream cinema are sexually arousing. If neither of these deprave and corrupt, or degrade women, why should material which combines the features of both? Second, for the majority men and women, sex is an important and fulfilling part of life. Why should sex suddenly become something that depraves and corrupts, or degrades women, when it is done in front of a camera or when it is viewed? Third, while some pornography does show women being subservient to men, some involves men being subservient to women. However, most pornographic material appears to portray women as independent people who engage in sex because they enjoy it. Fourth, extensive empirical research into the effects of pornography on its consumers does not substantiate the allegation that pornography leads to sexual offences. Some people are offended by pornography, but that can be avoided by restrictions on where or how it may be distributed. Fifth, if consuming pornography is harmful to children, it is the responsibility of their parents or carers to keep them away from it, as in the case of dangerous medicines. If participating in the production of pornography harms children, that is an argument for outlawing children’s participation; it is not an argument for restricting adults’ use of, or participation in, pornography. Many people urge (i) - (v) as reasons to suppress pornography. Given that (i) - (v) are mistaken, they are poor grounds for suppression. In any case, suppression would conflict with freedom of expression, which is required for personal fulfilment. Insofar as (i) - (v) concern the messages supposedly conveyed by pornography, suppression would be ineffective, since the same messages can be expressed in other media. Further, suppression would have enormous social costs, since: innovations in information and communications technology have been driven by the demand for pornography; once censorship is accepted in one area, it tends to be extended to others; a black market in pornography would arise which would make criminals rich and lead to corruption of public officials, particularly police officers; the costs of investigations, prosecutions and imprisonment of those involved in pornography would be huge. For more detailed discussion and references, see: https://www.academia.edu/214204/Pornography_and_Freedom