Only Words
Constitutionally protected speech that is Clearly sexual abuse is discriminating
and unconstitutional, therefore, must be restricted speech. Catherine A.

MacKinnon, in her book "Only Words" gives persuading evidence that
pornography subordinates women as a group through sexual abuse. She says

"Protecting pornography means protecting sexual abuse as speech, at the same
time that both pornography and it’s protection have deprived women of speech,
especially speech against pornography (MacKinnon, 9). MacKinnon argues this bye
explaining defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and
equality and speech. Women are sexually abused for the making of pornography.

Torture, rape, hot wax dripping over nipples, and murdering women are the tools
to produce a product of evil. Literature is the description of these crimes
against humanity (emphasized) and cameras are proof of these crimes. On the
assumption that words have only a referential relation to reality, pornography
is defended as only words-even when it is pictures women had to directly used to
make, even when the means of writing are women’s bodies, even when a women is
destroyed in order to say it or show it or because it was said or shown. (MacKinnon,

12) However, assuming words are only a partial relation to reality would mean we
would have to reconsider what reality is. Our wedding vows such as "I do"
would be meaningless and a jury could never return a verdict that is only
partial to reality. These words are "treated as the institutions and practices
they constitute, rather than as expressions of the idea they embody" (Mackinnon,

13) Therefore, if these words of pornography are only words, don’t they
institutionalize rape? Since pornography is rape on women. Pornography is
protected by the First Amendment as free speech, but why? Because the
pornographic materials are construed as ideas, and the First Amendment protects
ideas. Pornography is commonly brushed of as some product of fantasy for those
who buy it. But what about the women who were tortured to make it. Also it is
brushed off as simulated. This means that the pain and hurt the women are
feeling is just acting. Put a little music and a smile here and there to cover
up the pain, and you are portraying to and giving pure pleasure for those who
buy the product. Just like fantasizing a death, how do you simulate a death? But
discarding pornography as a representation is the most frequent excuse. But how
can a murder be justified on terms of representation? (MacKinnon, 27,28) . When
one fantasizes about murdering another person, this is premeditation of murder.

If he were to express this idea, he would be heard as expressing a threat and
penalized. For the obvious reason, publications that are "how to" guides on
murdering people are not protected speech. I believe Pornography is the catalyst
for premeditation of rape. Pornography flicks are "how to" guides for rape.

So why are they legal? His idea is protected, and further more is his threat of

"I’m gonna *censored* her", because both are seen as fantasy, but why
isn’t murder seen as fantasy? Murder is the loss of ones life, but so is
pornography when women have been killed to produce it. Pornography is proven to
be addicted. When somebody is addicted to premeditating rape, it’s only a
matter of time before his addiction of premeditation becomes a solid plan.

Sexual or racial harassment has been suggested to only be made illegal if only
directed at an individual and not a group. "The idea seems to be that injury
to one person is legally actionalble, but the same injury to thousands of people
is protected speech". (MacKinnon, 51) This would be disparate impact which
involves "employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of
different groups, but that, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than another
and cannot be justified by business necessity." (Lindgren & Taub,167)

Pornography is disparate impact on women, because of the sexual abuse, and
ironically the disparate impact seems to be the business necessity. Under Title

Seven’s disparate impact treatment concept, pornography is illegal. ( I just
have to prove it now) Also, is there not reasonable "harm" (Wolgast, 432,

Fem Juris) for a women to visit a place where men are watching a porno and
premeditating her rape? Is she not infringed on her First Amendment right to
congregate with equal respect. The idea of pornography (pre meditated rape) does
not allow her respect. It does not allow respect for women as a whole, living
among men as a whole, who have the idea in their mind. Two groups, men