Argument 5

I thought the argument presented in Minneapolis Pornography Ordinance was fair. I didn’t necessarily agree with it, but I thought it was a valid argument. At the beginning, the author grabs the audience emotionally by acknowledging the pool table gang rape. I think the author’s main audience is women because women would have stronger feelings toward the pool table gang rape story. Even though the men involved in the gang rape may not have read the Hustle magazine, but the viewing of explicit pornography may affect the way men view women. In these explicit videos the women are degrading themselves and giving men the impression that they like to be raped or mutilated, when in reality most women would never want this happen to them. I didn’t agree with the end of the argument. I think everyone should have freedom of speech because it is a part of our American Constitution, and censoring what someone puts in a magazine or the Internet may be taking the freedom away. But, at the same time, if this type of freedom is affecting our society in a negative way then wouldn’t we want to stop something so harmful whether or not it took the freedom of speech away or not?