Free Speech v/s Fair Speech

I could not be more pleased that the pornography debate is happening at the University of New Hampshire. Although, I must clarify: I am pleased that Radical Feminists are making the debate happen, as the pseudo “pro-”pornography advocates just want to screen that we are anti-sex and proclaim freedom of speech as the solidifier of a profoundly violent, anti-woman, anti-queer, and anti-environmental industry. The “pro-pornography” scholarship, if that even exists, remains fundamentally uncritical.

A discussion of whether we should explore policy to regulate porn-access in the library is one current debate. The catalyst that led to the emergence of this conversation was the arrest of a fifty-seven year old man from Exeter, NH, who was caught viewing child pornography in the Dimond library this summer. My class became interested in people's reactions to this event and how they felt about regulating or completely denying access to pornography in the library.

As good-old-fashioned-Feminists, we hit the streets. (my class that is) We went around and asked the following questions: Did you hear about the summer incident in the library? What do you think about implementing policy to avoid this?

My group found answers within a diverse community -- an elected official, a philosophy professor, a leader of a multicultural movement on campus, and a business student. I was disappointed that all but one provides us with the same constitutional flattery, patriarchally commodified, essentialist and absolutist argument regarding free speech, “....if we start to mess with free speech, it is a slippery slope”

On the contrary, not messing with “free” speech has created an avalanche of oppression. Freedom of speech is not absolute, just like private property isn’t, there is law allowing for eminent domain, and just like liberty is not guaranteed if you provoke the law. Here is a kicker, how about fair speech. The man, yes, man editing “the money shot” on his Adobe is entitled to free speech and uses woman as the objects of his hypocritical application of freedom, not to mention that the children in the pornography that this man was consuming don’t have freedom of speech.

How this university can remain blind to these issues is beyond me. We need to understand that you can not act or say what ever you want. In addition, let’s not play “political theorist” and say that we don’t find a profound tension and oppressive nature to pornography; it is there. And then to say that people consuming pornography in a public library could be exercising scholarship or research -- bullshit

If this university is truly devoted to sustainability, as they market themselves, they would know that banning this toxic detriment from our public spaces is essential to sustain our community, what you do in your bedroom with your computer is your problem, but keep this filth out of our public spaces. I view a lot of pornography for my research, and I certainly don’t do it in the library. There is no argument here. And when you can’t defend your weak arguments, cite the “founders” and romanticize the discourse with some bizarre claim to freedom.

Give me a break.