The Pornography / Civil Rights Ordinance v. The BOG: And the Winner Is...?

Hypatia 7 (3):94 - 109 (1992)
The Supreme Court dismissed the Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction of speech. The Court's dismissal itself violates the free speech of the proposers of the Ordinance. It is not possible for both pornographers to perform the speech act of making pornography and feminists to perform the speech act of proposing the Ordinance. I show that the speech act of proposing the Ordinance takes First Amendment precedence over the speech act of making pornography.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1992.tb00906.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,781
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Pornography.Lori Watson - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (7):535-550.
Linguistic Authority and Convention in a Speech Act Analysis of Pornography.Nellie Wieland - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):435 – 456.
Failing to Do Things with Words.Nicole Wyatt - 2009 - Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):135-142.
Pornography and Freedom.Danny Frederick - 2011 - Kritike 5 (2):84-95.
How to Do Things With Pornography.Nancy Bauer - 2006 - In Sanford Shieh & Alice Crary (eds.), Reading Cavell.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
25 ( #210,150 of 2,199,498 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #300,207 of 2,199,498 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature