Product Description

An indictment of a legal system at odds with itself, its First Amendment promoting the very inequalities its Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to end, Only Words contends that pornography, racial and sexual harassment, and racial hate speech are acts of intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination, and should be legally treated as such.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #268543 in Books
• Published on: 1996-03-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 160 pages

From Publishers Weekly
In her most cogent and accessible book to date, feminist legal scholar MacKinnon lashes "absolutists" who maintain that all forms of expression, including pornography and hate propaganda, should be constitutionally protected. MacKinnon counters that pornography and hate messages "do the same thing: enact the abuse." Porn, she argues, subordinates and degrades women and incites sexual harassers, wife beaters, child molesters, rapists and clients of prostitutes. MacKinnon, a Univeristy of Michigan law professor, believes that we need to balance First Amendment concerns for free speech with Fourteenth Amendment protection of equality. She advocates "a new model for freedom of expression . . . in which free speech does not most readily protect the activities of Nazis, Klansmen, and pornorgraphers, while doing nothing for their victims." And she hails two recent decisions by Canada's Supreme Court which bolster the rights of persons harmed by pornography or hate propaganda.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
MacKinnon, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the author of numerous works (e.g., Toward a Feminist Theory of the State , LJ 8/89), is one of the nation's foremost proponents of feminist legal theory. Her latest work, a collection of three essays, is a polemic against pornography and its protection under the First Amendment. The first essay presents a highly emotional attack against pornography that would have benefited from a definition of terms and fewer unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions. The other two essays compare and equate pornography and sexual harassment with racial discrimination and abuse; they are more reasoned and provide cogent material for discussion of gendered aspects of the legal system. This book will create controversy among legal scholars and feminists. Recommended for both legal libraries and women's studies collections.
- Sharon Firestone, Coll. of Law Lib. , Arizona State Univ., Tempe
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
Three passionate, intellectually fascinating essays, each arguing an aspect of the case that sexual words and pictures may by their nature be bannable, even though they may also be Constitutionally protected speech--by University of Michigan law professor and noted feminist legal scholar MacKinnon (Feminism Unmodified, 1987, etc). In ``Defamation and Discrimination,'' MacKinnon argues that ``pornography is sex'' and that American law irrationally treats it as a possible cause of individual injury--that is, purely as a matter of true or false content--rather than as a sui generis act of ``sex discrimination based on conditions of sexual inequality''; and she holds that, like other kinds of action speech (saying ``You're fired,'' advertising ``for whites only''), pornography should be banned. In ``Racial and Sexual Harassment,'' MacKinnon declares that ``if ever words have been understood as acts, it has been when they are sexual harassment'' in the workplace, but she regrets that, recently, courts have weakened this confluence by overturning universities' restraints of racial and sexual speech on campus and by dismissing a sexual-harassment complaint made by a female shipyard worker because the harassment consisted in having been shown pornography, which is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In ``Equality and Speech,'' MacKinnon makes explicit many of the contradictions she's been suggesting in the earlier essays; she argues that ``the law of equality and the law of freedom of speech are on a collision course in this country'' and must be meshed--for example, by considering ``group defamation'' as ``the verbal form inequality [or group discrimination] takes.'' Although MacKinnon's passionate conviction sometimes causes her ideas to elide and her logic to blur, the ideas are original and gripping, her references are wide-ranging, her legal logic is provocative--and her latest is must reading for anyone interested in either fairness or free speech. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Customer Reviews

Bothered by porn, but doesn't bother with the facts
Catharine MacKinnon, along with her long-time legal and scholary partner, Andrea Dworkin, is one of the most prominent feminist critics of pornography. Her *Only Words* is an attempt to place her critique of pornography within the larger context of a critique of hate speech in general.

In some ways, *Only Words* is a success. She presents her viewpoints lucidly and passionately. She does indeed offer a thought-provoking analysis of pornography as hate speech (though I should note that in the legal statutes that she and Dworkin have drafted, she treats pornography not as hate speech, but as libel), and offers an insightful approach to hate speech. Philosophers reading this book will see the strong influence of J.L. Austin's concept of the speech act. The idea Austin offers us is that there are cases in which to *say* something is also to *do* something. For example, under the appropriate circumstances, to utter "I do" or "Guilty" just *is* to marry, and to convict a defendant, respectively. MacKinnon uses this idea to argue that to the extent to which pornography *says* something (she isn't entirely consistent on whether pornography expresses an idea or an ideology, often vaccilating between different conceptions of what pornography does as is needed to suit her immediate goals), it also *does* something. Pornography, she argues, *is* a form of violence against women.

But while her comitment and passion are indubitable, her evidence is not as well situated. In good lawyerly fashion, MacKinnon is more interested in convincing her readers than getting at the truth. She plays fast and loose with her data, and much of the book (especially part I) seems to be written according to the dictim: 'I know what I think, so don't bother me with the facts.

Some examples: (1) MacKinnon continuously claims that the production of pornography always abuses women. However, there is a large genre of pornography--erotic literature--for which this claim is simply not true. Perhaps, as MacKinnon contends, this form of pornography harms women when people *consume* it, but she is clearly overstating her case, and fully well knows it. (2) On several occasions, she appeals to the especially appalling case of the snuff film (where women are tortured and killed in the production of the film). However, there is no evidence that *any* such films exist. Even the film whose title, *Snuff*, gave this genre its name, has been known to be a hoax for 3 decades. (The actress allegedly killed on-screen herself came forward and admitted that the claims about her actually being killed was a publicity stunt for a failing movie.) (3) On pp.18-19, she treats a man who raed, killed and necrophiled a woman (allegedly) bcause he had watched snuff films as representative of porn users, when the available evidence suggests otherwise. Most sex offenders and murderers have used porn; but it is *not* the case that most, or even many, porn users become sex offenders or murderers. MacKinnon is just playing on a popular stereotype here--is this hate speech on her part? (4) Speaking of playing on popular stereotypes, MacKinnon claims (p.20) that women involved in the porn industry are typically sex abuse victims, drug abusers, etc., etc. This may be widely believed, but there is no evidence to support this. (5) MacKinnon appeals to the widely believed but unsubstantiated claim that porn *causes* sexual crimes. Her only evidence is to offer *one* case of someone who committed a rape after having looked at pronography. One might as well offer one case of someone who died of a heart atack after lookingat porn as conclusive evidence that porn uses causes heart disease. Anecdotes do not establish such strong claims, and one anecdote certainly not.

This, unfortunately, is not the end of MacKinnon's shenanigans. Twice (on pp.37 and 62) she argues that porn and hate speech, respectively, *are* harmful because it can't be shown that they *aren't*. As a lawyer, making this kind of argument is shameful. MacKinnon is claiming that porn and hate speech can be banned simply because they can't be proven harmless. She comes very close to reducing racism to sexual agression. She repeatedly speaks as if pornography were some omnipotent force--even once claiming that it has as much power as any government (pp.39-40). She repeatedly speaks of the acts pictured in pornography in ways that make them sound violent whether they are or not--penises, in MacKinnon's world, can only do one thing--"ramming" (pp.23-4). The list could go on, but I'll spare you further details.

One reviewer wonders whether MacKinnon is really a lawyer. I can assure you that she is. In fact, the problem is that she is *too much* a lawyer in this book. The book is written with the intention to convince its readers no matter what, and if the facts don't fit, or if we need to appeal to popular stereotypes, or if we need to use sloppy but rhetorically powerful language, so be it.

An academically unsound and very disappointing effort
[Note: This review deals almost exclusively with the first essay.]

Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon is at once one of the brightest and most controversial feminist legal scholars today. She and Andrea Dworkin were instrumental in getting anti-pornography legislation enacted or considered in several towns and cities (though the legislation adopted was later declared unconstitutional). MacKinnon is also the person to whom the claim that all sex is rape is most often attributed (probably unfairly). She is thus someone to whom much attention is, and should be, devoted.

"Only Words" is the sarcastic and ironic title of a collection of three essays in which MacKinnon argues passionately that pornography and sexual and racial harassment are not "only words." The operative word is "passionately," for "Only Words" is indeed a passionate and emotional work. MacKinnon, who has argued intelligently and with great force for a new theoretical framework (as in her "Feminism Unmodified"), here falls victim to her passion, producing a work that is academically unsound. Her evidence is, at times, shoddy or even ludicrous. For example, to support the claim that pornography causes violence, she cites a convicted murderer who said as much "as only an honest perpetrator can" (p. 18). That someone as intelligent as MacKinnon would cite the words of a killer seeking to shift blame (shades of Ted Bundy) is rather astonishing and a sign that emotion has overcome intellect here. Aside from the very real possibility that the killer was simply prevaricating, there is also the problem of a killer being able to identify cause and effect, a problem that MacKinnon overlooks.

Another problematic aspect of this work is MacKinnon's fervent references to and reliance on snuff films, those apocryphal films that record actual murders. Whether such films actually exist is subject to some dispute (see, e.g., Yaron Svoray's "Gods of Death" for an account of the search for one). Despite the fact that such films may not even exist, MacKinnon points to snuff films as a part of a continuum (of sorts) of pornography and rests far too much of her argument on them. This is not to say that such films do not exist, but when an intellectual exercise relies with a blind faith on such films, it is not being honest.

"Only Words" is not the work that the anti-pornography movement deserves or should be judged by. Nor is it MacKinnon's best work by a long shot.

At least it makes you think a little...
There is no denying that Only Words by Catharine A. MacKinnon is a controversial take on current American legal policy that is primarily fueled by radical feminist thought. She argues that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States (you know, the one that, among other things, ensures equal rights) is completely disregarded in certain cases where the First Amendment is protected. To be specific, MacKinnon believes the pornography industry perpetuates inequality of women, which, in turn, perpetuates sexual discrimination and abuse. She also includes racial discrimination in her argument referring to instances where free speech allows racial inequalities to endure.
Some of MacKinnon's arguments seem a bit far-fetched, including, but certainly not limited to, her assumption that all women involved in stripping and pornography are products of sexual abuse, trapped in an industry that, under the protections of the First Amendment, has every right to exploit them. MacKinnon leaves no mention of the inevitable percentage of women in the pornography industry who, for whatever reasons, participate completed based on personal choice. Her over-descriptive narration of probably instances of abuse is disturbing, and in most cases throughout the text, it distracts from any reasonable portions of her argument.
Herein lies the true failure of this text. MacKinnon takes a reasonable argument regarding a weakness in the recognition of certain aspects of American law and disguises it as sexual slavery created and perpetuated by American men. It almost feels morally wrong to argue with MacKinnon, since one must agree that the types of pornography and abuse she speaks of are awful and should never occur under any circumstances. However, to agree with MacKinnon, you must overlook gaps in reasoning that appear throughout the text, including the manner in which she assumes that the only victims of pornography are women and that the only bad guys involved must be men. It goes against good sense to simply assume that men are never exploited in the pornography industry, but MacKinnon seems uninterested in exploring this possibility.
As I mentioned, MacKinnon also attempts to convince the reader that racial discrimination is maintained in a similar manner. In response to this portion of the argument, I found myself thinking, "So, what else is new?" Racial and gender discrimination have always existed, and whether or not we choose to override the First Amendment, I suspect they will continue to exist. While this initially might seem entirely pessimistic, I offer you this: perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the American spirit is that people continue to rise up and prevail despite such types of discrimination. The truth is, a balance must be maintained, and MacKinnon offers a solution that would greatly impair First Amendment rights as we know them. I would certainly enjoy it if Nazis and KKK members didn't exist, but I would constantly live in fear of the time when this censorship would begin to infringe upon other forms of free speech. Rather than spending the time and money enforcing MacKinnon's form of censorship, I would rather see the government focusing on initiatives to educate and improve opportunities for Americans.
In all, this book remains a valuable choice, since it absolutely forces the reader to take a stand on issues that are not always the most comfortable to think about. MacKinnon raises questions as to the way we approach inequality and discrimination in this country, and it ultimately leaves the reader thankful for the laws we do have and anxious to use them in new ways to better American life.