Isn't it nonsensical to suggest, as Susan Sontag does, that "the pornographic imagination says something worth listening to?" The relationship between constitutional law and pornography is usually considered in a unidirectional way. The most common questions are what does the law say about pornography or what should the law say about it. This is nothing but a legal monologue; sometimes passionate, often judgmental, almost always self-righteous but, all in all, nothing but a monologue. In this paper, I take the opposite road, exploring the aesthetics and narrative of pornography, its underlying anthropology and sociology, and its psychological appeal to our imagination, as an illustrative resource for some debates within constitutional theory. I call this particular reversal of the legal monologue an exercise in Political Pornography.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Pornography's Many Meanings: A Reply to C. M. Concepcion.Alisa L. Carse - 1999 - Hypatia 14 (1):101-111.
Pornography as Simulation.Theodore Bach - 2010 - In Dave Monroe (ed.), Pornography: Philosophy for Everyone.
Having Fun with the Periodic Table: A Counterexample to Rea's Definition of Pornography.Jorn Sonderholm - 2008 - Philosophia 36 (2):233-236.
The Hate That Dare Not Speak its Name: Pornography Qua Semi-Political Speech. [REVIEW]Daniel I. A. Cohen - 1994 - Law and Philosophy 13 (2):195 - 239.
Added to index2009-03-05
Total downloads15 ( #308,880 of 2,153,472 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,080 of 2,153,472 )
How can I increase my downloads?