Okay. Firrtly, the McKinnon ordinance isn't coming up to the Supreme Court now - it did in 1986, and I'm learning about it now! It was struck down, as I predicted without reading ahead in the textbook. :)
As for why I thought it was constitutional, okay. The jurisprudence of the First Amendment contains a lot of unprotected categories of speech: advocacy of illegal action isn't protected (Schenk, the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" case; neither are "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire); nor is obscenity (Paris Adult Theatre v Slaton). In New York v Ferber, the court created a new category for depictions of child porn on the grounds that a) the constitutional value of allowing these depictions was de minimis; b) they had been shown to exacerbate abuse of children and thus cause harm.
McKinnon, in her ordinance, cited studies showing that exposure to violent pornography did increase the propensity of those exposed to commit rapes, and tailored it to prohibiting porn that sexualises violence against women, not porn generally. Thus, my argument is: if Ferber is constitutional (because of limited constitutional value, and harm caused) then the McKinnon audience should be, too.
no subject
As for why I thought it was constitutional, okay. The jurisprudence of the First Amendment contains a lot of unprotected categories of speech: advocacy of illegal action isn't protected (Schenk, the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" case; neither are "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire); nor is obscenity (Paris Adult Theatre v Slaton). In New York v Ferber, the court created a new category for depictions of child porn on the grounds that a) the constitutional value of allowing these depictions was de minimis; b) they had been shown to exacerbate abuse of children and thus cause harm.
McKinnon, in her ordinance, cited studies showing that exposure to violent pornography did increase the propensity of those exposed to commit rapes, and tailored it to prohibiting porn that sexualises violence against women, not porn generally. Thus, my argument is: if Ferber is constitutional (because of limited constitutional value, and harm caused) then the McKinnon audience should be, too.