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.