Essay, Research Paper: Pornography, And Freedom Of Expressio

The freedoms of the Canadian people, as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms states in section 1 that ". . . guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only
to such reasonable limits . . . ." This means that specific freedoms, though guaranteed in section
two of the Charter as "fundamental freedoms" are subordinate to limitations as the government
sees fit, unlike the freedoms of the United States constitutional freedoms, which have no limits put
on them, and are occasionally abused by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, and anti- government
militia groups as a result. Pornography, hate propaganda, and racist literature are all examples of
areas of expression subject to limitation by the government in Canada, as they are all viewed as
obscene.
The first laws governing obscenity in Canada were created in 1892. These laws prohibited
the sale and display of any material which was deemed immoral. Later, in 1927, the obscenity
laws were expanded to include anything referring to "the corruption of public morals." The laws
were expanded to make criminal the possession, circulation, distribution or fabrication of any such
material. During the 1950's, there was an increase in the availability of pornographic materials.
This resulted in two opinions regarding pornography to surface; one opposed to the pornography
industry, and demanded more rigid and strict regulations, while the other side of the debate called
for no further regulations. During 1958, amendments were put forth in the House of Commons to
define the term "obscene" in the Criminal Code of Canada, and were adopted in 1959.
Throughout the 1970's, there was an increased outcry by the Canadian public against the growing
amount of pornographic material available in Canada. A committee was formed to look at the
problem, and in 1978, decided that Canadians were justified in calling for the control of such
material. This advice, however, was never acted upon.
In 1992, Donald Butler appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn a decision
regarding his adult oriented members only video store. Mr. Butler opened his store in Winnipeg in
August of 1987. Later on that same month, the Winnipeg police force entered and seized the
inventory of Mr. Butler's store, and charged him with a total of 173 counts of selling, possessing
with the intent to distribute, and possessing with the intent to sell, obscene material, contrary to s.
159(1-2)(a) and 163(1-2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Justice J. Sopinka heard the
appeal, and reached the decision that "the restriction on freedom of expression does outweigh the
importance of the legislative objective."
The problem with an attempt to restrict what the public can or cannot view by the
government is that it is an infringement on the principle of individual liberty, as described by John
Stuart Mill. Mill states that so long as one is not causing harm to others, then "In the part which
merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute." Thus, the government has no
right to stop the public from viewing pornographic material, so long as no one was harmed in its
distribution or production. Thus, depictions of sex involving, or combined with, children,
violence, cruelty and/or dehumanization can be regulated or censored, as they are causing harm to
others.
However, one could argue that if the depictions of sex combined with any of the
aforementioned violent actions is done by a person of legal age of consent, and done willingly by
this person, then it is not causing harm to let it be viewed by the public, as the persons involved
were willing participants. In such cases, censorship should still occur, as there must be a
reasonable limitation on the freedom of expression of others when there is the promotion of harm
to others in pornographic depictions. The distribution of such acts meets the definition of obscene
as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and therefore should be regulated, so as to avoid the
indirect harm which may be caused to the groups commonly depicted in such scenarios, namely
women.
The potential for indirect harm is best described as an analogous situation in which an
individual who views a depiction of a violent sexual encounter, and becomes so aroused, or sees
such acts as normal in society, that he goes out to commit the same acts which he had just
witnessed. Thus there is an indirect harm caused to women as a result of the distribution of such
materials which promote harm to women, and are now at risk for being assaulted. Thus the
government should censor pornographic materials which offer such depictions. The potential for
an individual who agrees with harm to women, or views women as subservient to men is not a
social norm, and so materials depicting such should not be tolerated in society.
There are those who would state that those who act out on such intense impulses are but a
few of the many who view such material, and so the restriction of such material is essentially
punishing the majority for the evils of a select few. However, the same could be said about laws
governing domestic violence, or arms restrictions; "why are there laws to regulate specific aspects
of society simply because of one or two individual's actions or inactions? Why does the
government make it so that John Doe, who's children haven't touched his guns before, store his
ammunition and weapons locked up and separate?" Many anti-pornography groups state that if it
has happened before, then it could happen again. The potential for an individual who does feel
compelled to act upon viewing such material is too great for there to not be any government
regulation.
There is also an analogy made by these same groups of pornography being no different
than any anti-minority hate propaganda. They view pornography as being anti-women. They state
that women are held as objects, not persons, and that women are commonly subordinate to men,
and are depicted as having no sense of authority over themselves as a result. The proponents of
pornography say that this is not the case, as the women who make these films are fully aware as
to what they are making, and do not view the films or themselves as promoting the subordination
of women. This does not seem to be the case, as most pornographic depictions have the male as
the dominate subject in the setting, while the woman simply does what she is told to do. It is not
common place to see a equal and mutually inclusive encounter in a pornographic depiction, with
the male and female having equal authority in the situation.
Although the problem of pornography is still persistent in society, the status of women in
seems to be less affected today than it would have been thirty or forty years ago. Though many
sexist attitudes do still persist in society, women are continuing to overcome these archaic
stereotypes to reach a position of equality with men. The elimination of such demeaning roles in
pornographic depictions however would no doubt aid in the abolition of views that have to be
eliminated before true equality of the sexes can be obtained.








Pornography and Freedom of Expression
vs.
Harm, Censorship, and Equality
























Chris Stone
ID. 97107692
December 1, 1997
Philosophy 1100A
Prof. N. Brett