Berger claims that this is unlikely. By analogy, claiming htat one may profit off of another does not straightforwardly turn the latter into nothing but a source of profit. (Marxists would disagree). -rejects alleged harms of porn: a) Kristol's masturbatory claim: no reason to think that pornography really causes or increases instances of masturbation. b) influence of beliefs and behavior: Berger admits that porn can have a causal role in shaping beliefs and behavior. But it is not clear that it causes harm or that it is sufficient for censorship. Why? 1) Porn isn't alone or distinguishable from other materials that cause similar harm and 2) the indirect harm is certainly insufficient to make a case for censorship. Rapists and the like do not seem to have been shaped by pornography. Furthermore, Berger resists the notion that porn, or at least all of what is often considered porn, actually dehumanizes persons (n.b. McKinnon defines porn in a more restricted way). - Argues that ultimately censorship causes the ultimate harm: the loss of the right of citizens to self-determination. - Does NOT argue that all porn is unobjectionable, nor that it will cause no harm at all. Bottom Line: Porn can be bad and perhaps a little bit harmful. But not as bad as the conservatives say it is and certainly not harmful enough to warrant censoring it. c) .
McKinnon: - Anti-absolutist: Focuses on the harm to women brought about by pornography - Argues that the freedom of speech is only a meaningful right to those that have 'speech' - Having speech requires that people will at least be disposed to take you seriously until your speech shows them that they shouldn't; any society that has institutions that prevents one from being taken seriously on the basis of their membership in a group (i.e. as a black person, as a woman.) is an unjust society to that extent. - Porn causes women to be taken less seriously: hence, porn silences women.