Americans have long prized the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, yet they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift form one period of time to another. Freedom of speech as applied in the arts is often a source for arguments over limitations that may be placed on expression, especially with art works depicting sexual behavior, nudity, or subjects considered irreligious. Much of the debate takes place at the extremes, with absolute freedom of speech at one end and tight control and censorship at the other. The issue remains controversial. Some believe that proscribing pornography has a chilling effect on free expression in general, meaning others censor themselves before they speak lest they be prosecuted after. The argument over pornography cuts deep into the nature and structure of the American system and challenges many of our most deeply held beliefs. Recently, the argument has also crossed ideological lines. Conservatives have long railed against pornography as a danger to the social fabric, while more recently many on the Left have cited pornography as a causative element in such social problems as domestic violence, rape, and the lower status accorded women. An examination of the issues involved points to the necessity for society to regulate and control pornography in order to prevent or reduce some of these social problems. If pornography can be shown to produce some real harm to society, then society has the right and the responsibility to regulate and even ban it for society own protection.
Freedom of speech is actually a messy business, as we have to admit, and freedom of speech often clashes with good taste and seemingly even with good sense. This need not be so, but clearly we have elevated free speech to a high level because it is important to the functioning of our democratic form of governme...