NCJ Number
122377
Journal
Duke Law Journal Volume: 1989 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1989) Pages: 420-432
Date Published
1989
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article takes issue with Professor Sunstein's definition of pornography and argues that pornography is not low value speech. Instead, it appeals to the cognitive facility and attempts to persuade, thus entitling it to high level protection under the Constitution.
Abstract
Professor Sunstein said pornography is low value speech because it appeals to non-cognitive processes. Calling pornography non-cognitive suggests that it appeals only to the passions. Perception and thought cannot be divided into the reason versus passion dichotomy. Pornography, like propaganda, appeals to those who want to believe it, even though it may represent a distorted view of the world. Censorship will not destroy the appeal of pornography. While pornography will no longer be of interest in a society characterized by sexual mutuality, it should enjoy protection under the first amendment because it is persuasive speech. 44 footnotes.