Now Playing Tracks

Response To An Antiporn Whitewash of MacKinnon/Dworkin's "Civil Rights Ordinance"

kinkykinkshamer:

It bothers me when people say that Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon were working to criminalize pornography. This isn’t true. Their proposed statute used civil tort law, not criminal law. As John Stoltenberg explains in his essay “Confronting Pornography as a Civil…

Sorry, but no dice.

Using “civil rights” language to promote obvious censorship of legal speech amongst consenting adults is bad enough….but whitewashing away the direct effects of allowing any woman to claim treble civil damages against anyone who produces adult consensual sexual media on the grounds that such content is innately damaging to “all women”, all without even necessitating direct proof of damage done? That is simply insane.

The fact that only fundamentalist Christian right-wing groups backed this “ordinance” should speak loudly about its true nature. And the fact that some antiporn activists speak so fondly of it even today should also speak loudly about the inherent fascism of todays antiporn “feminist” movement.

Sex Not Gender: Busting Myths About Andrea Dworkin: No, She and MacKinnon Didn't Try to Criminalize Pornography

kinkykinkshamer:

It bothers me when people say that Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon were working to criminalize pornography. This isn’t true. Their proposed statute used civil tort law, not criminal law. As John Stoltenberg explains in his essay “Confronting Pornography as a Civil…

Ummm…no.  Nice try at whitewashing, KKS, but Dworkin-MacKinnon was in fact outright censorship, of the most rancid kind. Allowing ANY WOMAN to file frivilous lawsuits against ANY form of speech they proclaim as “pornography” merely because it is held to violate “women’s civil rights” is the epitome of “content-based” restriction that has always been dismissed by any decent non-wingnut court of law.

Also…I find it hilarious that KKS attempts to differeniate the “civil rights pornography ordinance” from classical obscenity laws…by stating how classical obscenity laws are softer on actual sexual speech than their proposed ordinance!! In other words, outflanking the traditional Right FROM THE RIGHT, yet claiming their work to be “leftist”??

Then again, this is the same kind of claptrap that produces the likes of Gail Dines and Melissa Farley….so I shouldn’t be surprised, I guess.

Kinky Kink Shamer: Busting Myths About Andrea Dworkin: No, She and MacKinnon Didn't Try to Criminalize Pornography

imcuriousblue:

kinkykinkshamer:

It bothers me when people say that Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon were working to criminalize pornography. This isn’t true. Their proposed statute used civil tort law, not criminal law. As John Stoltenberg explains in his essay “Confronting Pornography as a Civil Rights Issue”:

Nothing like some outright revisionism about Dworkin and MacKinnon. The idea that their so-called “civil rights ordinance” did not constitute censorship because it used the instrument of civil law rather than criminal law is simply ludicrous. Any law that defines an entire category of speech or expression to be open to civil lawsuit is in fact state-sanctioned legislation against speech, in other words, state censorship, even if it invites non-state actors to penalize speech rather than direct employees of the state. Add to this the fact the Dworkin/MacKinnon ordinance had an incredibly broad definition of “pornography” (far broader, in fact, then the majority of obscenity law, especially with the post-Miller restrictions on the application of such), and its clear why the courts in Booksellers v. Hudnut were quite right to strike down the Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance as unconstitutional, directly violating First Amendment speech protections, and in many ways, a much stronger form of censorship than traditional obscenity law.


It is indeed unfortunate that to this day, there are many attempts to soft-peddle and propagandize for what was one of the most grevious attempts to silence sexual expression that the US has seen in recent decades. All too often, out of a misguided need to defend any and all things “feminist”. What’s especially sad is that these days, too many supposedly “kinky” and “sex-positive” folks are drinking this koolaid.


Some useful background reading, with good links to further background reading on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Booksellers_v._Hudnut

: FUCK YOU EXPORN GIRLS TRYING TO "SAVE THE WORLD" RANT

eladarling:

Fucking preach it. Stop assuming I’m too ignorant or blotto or otherwise incapable of making an informed decision about the career I choose to pursue. I fucking love my job.

missdanidaniels:

Women know what they are getting into when they get into this industry. And if you didn’t research, that’s your problem. Don’t ruin it for the rest of us to try to make yourself feel better for your own regrets. But hey, what do I know, “I was tricked into porn and didn’t know when I get tested it…

As we like to say down here:  CHHHHHHRRRRRUUUUCCHHHHH!!!!!!!

Comparing porn performers to animals in mainstream movies? I was never caged and made to act by some master/keeper without my own voice to consent. It is dangerous to refer to legal sex workers in this way. Michael Weinstein has stated repeatedly that performers don’t have a choice. This is the argument anti-porn people use to conflate porn performance with sex trafficking. It’s insulting and irresponsible and I appreciate Larry Elder pointing it out during his interview with Weinstein. No one is forced to work in porn. No one has a gun held to their head. People have a choice. The propaganda and lies are thick.
http://www.juliemeadows.com/blog/2013/04/11/doug-offers-his-perspective-on-ab-332 (via juliemeadows)

ATTN: Assembly Member Roger Hernandez:

If you Google my “Dave Cummings” stage name, you’ll see that I am Hall of Fame porn performer Dave Cummings,and an 18-year veteran of the Adult Film Industry who also has been a Producer and Director for over 10 years. And, I am a regular voter in California.

I’m also a former military officer of 25 years active duty, and recipient of The Bronze Star; and, I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Economics, and a Masters Degree in Public Administration.

From an economics viewpoint, enactment of AB 332 seems like it could devastate far too many jobs in California, lower sales tax income and income tax payments to the Great State of California, and cause a costly State enforcement/bureaucracy and funds to implement a silly system that seems unnecessary given the present MORE THAN SATISFACTORY, and rigidly followed, medical testing procedures ALREADY in place for us performers.

In my opinion, passage of AB 332 innately has the potential to push MANY porn productions “underground” or out of California, possibly stripping us performers of some of the workable protections we presently have from the testing regimen already in place. Passage of AB 332 could also possibly result in lessened/lax future compliance by performers of present testing Industry mandates and health protections for actors/actresses, something people like me and many other tax-paying performers and voters are strongly against.

Want an avenue to temporarily side-step your hearing? Postpone it until the Constitutional and other challenges presently already in the Federal Courts are resolved and all appeals are ruled upon. Why spend State of California monies to enact and implement a law that might not pass Constitutional muster!?!?!

Administratively, please share this (FAXED) email ASAP with all your committee members.

Respectfully and sincerely,

David Conners, aka “Dave Cummings”

Dave Cummings on #AB332; http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Dave-Cummings-Speaks-Out-Against-AB-332-513798.html (via juliemeadows)

I may not be a native Californian…but if I was, I’d be spreading the word around. Then again, this could easily go nationwide if it passes, anyways. Please….spread the word!!!

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union