The Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance v. The BOG: And the Winner Is…?

@article{Vadas1992ThePR,
  title={The Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance v. The BOG: And the Winner Is…?},
  author={Melinda Vadas},
  journal={Hypatia},
  year={1992},
  volume={7},
  pages={94 - 109}
}
  • M. Vadas
  • Published 1 August 1992
  • Law
  • Hypatia
The Supreme Court dismissed the Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction of speech. The Court's dismissal itself violates the free speech of the proposers of the Ordinance. It is not possible for both pornographers to perform the speech act of making pornography and feminists to perform the speech act of proposing the Ordinance. I show that the speech act of proposing the Ordinance takes First Amendment precedence over the speech act of making pornography. 

References

SHOWING 1-3 OF 3 REFERENCES
Toward a Feminist Theory of the State
Preface Part One: Feminism and Marxism 1. The Problem of Marxism and Feminism 2. A Feminist Critique of Marx and Engels 3. A Marxist Critique of Feminism 4. Attempts at Synthesis Part Two: Method 5.
Pornography and the Traffic in Women: Brief on Behalf of Trudee Able-Peterson, et al., Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant and Intervenor-Defendants, Village Books v. City of Bellingham
Some nights ago, while I was struggling with how to introduce this piece, I decided that the only reasonable course was to reread John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. There they all were, Tom and Ma
Pornography and the First Amendment