Encyclopedia of Sociology

CENSORSHIP AND THE REGULATION OF EXPRESSION

typical experimental studies, participants are ran-
domly assigned to pornographic stimuli or
nonpornographic stimuli, and their attitudes, be-
haviors, or physiological reactions are then as-
sessed. There are also paradigms assessing pro-
longed exposure, including ones in which participants
return to the laboratory for multiple sessions of
exposure to pornography, to better simulate real-
life consumption patterns. Among other effects,
studies have shown that after exposure to pornog-
raphy, participants viewed rape as a less serious
crime, overestimated the popularity of less com-
mon sexual practices, and showed greater callous-
ness toward women. Furthermore, pornography
consumers have shown weaker beliefs in the de-
sirability of marriage and having children, and
stronger beliefs in the normality of sexual promis-
cuity. Ironically, pornography has also been shown
to reduce viewers’ satisfaction with their own sex
lives and partners.

Although these outcomes have been found in
a variety of studies using different research proce-
dures, not all studies have confirmed these find-
ings. Some critics of this research argue that rape
and other antisocial sexual behavior existed even
before pornography became widely available, and
that forces besides pornography play a greater
causal role in antisocial behavior. Others argue
that the increased levels of aggression, hostility, or
bias often found in experimental studies of por-
nography might be traced to differences between
the experimental and naturalistic environments in
which pornography is viewed: particularly, it is
argued that these effects may be due to the lack of
opportunity for men to ejaculate in the experi-
mental setting. They also caution that the political
biases of investigators may influence the interpre-
tation of results. Others believe that even if the
effects research is accurate, the costs of suppress-
ing pornographic material—as measured in state
encroachment on individual autonomy—outweigh
any benefits that might be gained.

An argument sometimes raised for control-
ling or eliminating pornography in the form of
images (rather than words) is that the individuals
pictured in the pornographic photos and films
suffered harm or coercion during the creation of
the materials. A counterpoint to this argument is
provided by Stoller and Levine (1993), who have

conducted in-depth ethnographic style interviews

with producers, performers, and other employees

in the pornography industry. In this work, the

researchers allowed the people who create por-

nography to speak in their own words, providing

both defenses of pornography and insight into

why individuals choose, for better or for worse, to

work in the pornography industry.

HATE SPEECH

From the advent of the printing press onward,

most efforts to legally regulate expression have

focused on various forms of mass communication.

Efforts to restrict speech can also target communi-

cation in interpersonal settings. One such exam-

ple can be found in attempts to place legal limits

on hate speech; defined as harassing or intimidat-

ing remarks that derogate the hearer’s race, gen-

der, religion, or sexual orientation.

Those who support regulating hate speech

compare it to ‘‘fighting words,’’ a category of

speech not protected by the First Amendment, or

argue that it creates a ‘‘hostile environment,’’ which

violates provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

and 1990. Champions of hate speech regulations

cite the harms its victims suffer: these may range

from feelings of exclusion from a community, to

the experience of debasement that leads students

to skip classes or distress that leads them to leave

school. In short, the liberty of a speaker to harass

may deny the hearer’s right to equality. Critics of

hate speech codes cite the administrative excesses

they allow. For example, the student guide to the

University of Michigan code stated that students

could be punished for making a comment ‘‘in a

derogatory way about someone’s appearance.’’

Following an increase in reported incidents of

hate speech in the late 1980s and early 1990s,

many universities in the United States adopted

policies forbidding discriminatory verbal harass-

ment. However, as they affect public institutions,

these rules have been declared unconstitutional in

the courts, in part for being either too broad—

affecting too many forms of speech—or for being

viewpoint based (see above).

The problems inherent in drafting laws that

affect only the speech these rules target can be