Alexander L. Pinto

American Booksellers Association vs. William H. Hundnit III, Mayor, City of Indianapolis 

This case is a response to one of many that took place in the 1980s in which radical feminist groups made various attacks on pornographic works and their sellers. In particular, the means of which the woman (or any other individual) was persuaded to display their body for "obscene" purposes. Several movies and articles had recently surfaced in which female sex symbols revealed that they had been unwillingly coerced into engaging in pornographic action. A very important instance was the actress Linda Boreman who claimed that she was violently forced by her ex-husband to make several pornographic movies including the 1980's hit Deep Throat. Catherine MacKinnon, a feminist teacher and lawyer, and Andrea Dworkin a popular feminist writer. In 1985, the city of Indianapolis passed an ordinance in which it banned all forms and aspects of Pornography because it is a degradation of women as they become objects of lust and sexual pleasure which lowers their social standing to beneath that of men's. A key issue of this case was the difference between pornography and obscenity. An earlier case, that of Miller vs. California had already set the legal definition of obscenity as "a publication must, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest, must contain patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the whole have no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."(1) Pornography on the other hand according to the newly set up ordnance of Indianapolis was defined by the following: "Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or in words, that also includes one or more of the following:

     (1) Women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or 

     (2) Women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or 

     (3) Women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt, or as       dismembered or truncated or fragmented or severed into body parts; or 

     (4) Women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or 

     (5) Women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury abasement, torture, shown as filthy or inferior,      bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual; or 

     (6) Women are presented as sexual objects for domination, conquest, violation, exploitation, possession, or      use, or through postures or positions of servility or submission or display." (2)

The question before the court was: does this ordnance violate the first amendment of the constitution by prohibiting the use of pornography as free speech and expression? The major problem with is was that the ordnance was way too vague and didn't take in various other extenuating circumstances that could be related. It based pornography as simply a practice that discriminates against women. While that may or may not be true in principle, such a complex issue cannot be resolved by such a simple and vague statement. Sexual expression is fine however it must specifically and obviously equate the woman as an equal through verbal means. Therefore, any work that might hint or make reference to women in the past or present as objects of domination, ownership, or items to be anything other than equal is unlawful. This list includes many famous works of art and poems from times past (e.g. Homer's Iliad) Needless to say this became a issue of controversy for many special interest groups. One cause for concern was that after a while the main topic of the issue strayed from its original intent of the moral issues of pornography, to the idea that any amount of sexual depiction to any level is appropriate so long as the woman is portrayed in an equal light. 

     A Federal Circut Court found that the ordinance set forth to be unlawful as it violated the First Amendment. The decision was challenged and taken the Supream Court. They decided to hear it and the case was presented, deliberated, and finally was decided upon on the 27th of August 1985. The Supreme Court voted to uphold the Circuit Court's decision. While this was a relatively small matter as far as the actual ordinance was concerned, it was an interesting decision because both courts, while acknowledging the disreputably of the production and sales of pornography, voted to allow the immoral artists to continue to production and selling in Indianapolis because it was a means of expression, and denying it would be a limitation on the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. 

     It's also an interesting decision from the Supreme Court Justices. This case was heard in the period of the Burger court (1969-1986) which was generally characterized for decisions that reflected civil rights and especially women's rights. And even though the Justices felt that pornography was a shameless and degrading bussiness they still felt that it was more important to have the freedom of speech (1st Amendment) as opposed to equality despite which gender you are (19th Amendment). Unlike other cases such as Roe vs Wade in which they voted to expand women's rights, in particular the control over her own body and the right to an abortion. However in this case, despite their views on pornography, they decided that freedom of speech and expression are more important.

     For my part, I think that the ordinance was a bit too vague and did not address many aspects of pornography. However, the reasoning in it is sound, and should have done a very good job limiting the production and sales of degrading pornography. In regards to the decision of the Circut Court and the further agreement of that decision by the Supreme Court, I do agree that freedom of speech is an important aspect of our constitutional rights, however, I also agree with the Ordinances. Pornography, or the sale or production of it in a manner which makes the woman in it seem an object that can be bought , sold, owned or is simply there for the sexual arousal of men is immoral and should be stopped. If I were in the place of the Justices or the judge I would rule in favor of upholding the ordinance but I would also stress in my opinion that it needs to be reformed and perhaps completely rewritten. In its fundamental form it's a noble cause (which may or may not be possible after all pornography has been in production for more or less as long as civilization has been in existence), but it is possible that if we make it illegal, like narcotic drugs, the thrill and drive to obtain it might be even more. Another interesting statistic that has recently come up in the last decade is, a direct correlation has been shown between the amount of pornography in the market and the lessening of female rape cases. It could be argued that pornography is a necessary evil in order to protect the safety of women. In most cases, those who make or participate in pornographic production are willing to present their body in that sort of light and are as consequence usually relatively well paid because of it. The case of Linda Boreman, while unfortunate, was a rare occasion. Models, in most cases, are not violently forced to produce pornography, it is a voluntary system just like acting or modeling, perhaps with more immoral and unscrupulous results. They are well paid and unless they are wide spread cases of abuse and manipulation, I think the Indianapolis ordinances should be allowed to stand. Perhaps with a few stipulations added here and there to provide for the occurrence of a specific scenario such as the case of Linda Boreman.  

(1)http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/amerbookseller.html

(2) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/amerbookseller.html