Argument Analysis

Name:

Course:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Instructor:

Date:

Argument Analysis: First Amendment Junkie

The author’s thesis could be succinct in that she gives an elaborate individual position about pornography and its effects in our society. She states of the imminent separation of women and the civil libertarians on the issue of pornography. The strength of her thesis is emphasized by its directness as she states blatantly of how she view pornography as opposed to nude images, which could as well be classified as, forms of art. The authors seems to reject the idea that the revocation and reformation of the First Amendment is appropriate but assumes the position that it is an insufficient and inappropriate approach towards sheltering the society from the obscenities posed by the pornographic elements (Jacoby, 93).

The writer however seems to be indulged in an eerie of self-emotion as she exhibits anger in her tone and equates the various forms of art, which she finds as offensive. In addition, she tells of the various views that some of her friends possess about the presence of pornography within the society. The author could be described as biased in that she exercises a form of selective amnesia and ignores the presence of self-will by the actors in these pornography movies, which she loathes. The ignorance is biased as she blatantly fails to view the matter in another perspective. These women acting in pornography movies do so out of self-will with the aim of supporting their families and uplifting their living standards.

She agrees that pornography has assumed a distasteful approach to point of inclusion of children in such materials. However, such issues of underage pornography do not fall within the First Amendment. This is an indication that she does not give any specific preference for any positions as she gives a clarified opinion that despite the inappropriateness of child pornography, it does not amount to the reformation of the First Amendment.

Her tone seems to be embedded in too much anger and hate for these programs within the public. Her hate for the programs seems to stem from her conservative values making her view any form of nudity as a form of immorality. Her tone seems to advocate for the existence of the First Amendment in its initial form and should not be tampered. She adds that when the First Amendment is subjected to changes, it becomes evident that some values and moral holding of individuals are given preference over the expressions of other individuals within the society. The effectiveness of her argument is enforced by her position that not all naked photos or material amount to pornography. She describes nude art, which in essence is an incorporation of nudity and artistic minds of artists. This is a clear indication of her consideration of what amounts to pornography.

The author implicitly calls for an articulate interpretation of the first amendment hence the name “First amendment junkie” (Jacoby, 92). She assumes a fair position in that she tries to find ground for both sides of the argument. The first side is those calling for an overhauling of the first amendment in aims to include new provisions for the capping of moral conduct within society in instances such as pornography. This would amount to an infringement on what is merely considered within the United States as free access to speech and expression. Hence, she tries to argue that the presence of free speech and expression within society should not amount to moral and ethical considerations as people within the society hold diverse beliefs as to what they consider as morality and ethics. Her emotions are depicted by the use of various examples and answers she receives form individuals within her social realm. This enables her to convince further the audience of the impracticality of revision of the first amendment.

Her references such as pornographic movies and magazines such as Hustler, Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Playboy, and Deep Throat are perfect illustrations of pornography at its bets despite their differences in terms of execution. Some of the highlighted reference articulate the use of violence and seem to exercise the belief of violence within sexual encounters such as Looking for Mr.Goodbar, which exercises a great extent of sexual violence and objectification of women. In essence, her sources are perfect illustrations as they display the presence of objectification of women and violence against the same (Jacoby, 47).

Her conclusion could be summed as effective as it is impossible to assume equity in terms of opinions while infringing the rights of others for expressing how they feel and highlighting it to others. She has been able to display both sides of the argument, in support of the first amendment and that against pornography, as it is tasteless. She assumes that once the First Amendment is amended to include the vilification of some form of expression, which some individuals find as offensive, distasteful, and as morally in appropriate could eventually develop in a country, which has little regard for expression of any kind. Her position however does not view pornography as an appropriate act as it is erosive in terms of ethics and morals. She views that sexual content within mainstream media is both offensive to the women and society as a whole because of the light in which women are portrayed.

Pornography in essence portrays women as object according to the author which is a view that could be described as free from malice and bias as evidenced by the various movies she describe as distasteful. According to the author, she finds the vilification of pornography as adequate but denial of this form of expression would cap other forms of expressions in society which conservative people view as morally and ethically inappropriate. Jacoby seems to find pornography as among the most distasteful elements within the society.

According to Jacoby when something “falls short of 100 percent vulgarity,” society lacks the ability to confront such issues within our society due to a level of high handedness. However, society becomes self-indulged by “the impulse to censor,” that “places no faith in the possibilities of democratic persuasion”. This is an implicit indication of the selectiveness of society in dealing with issues in our midst based on morals (Jacoby, 64).

From her argument, it is evident that she is correct because if such issues such as pornography are not discussed and deliberated on, then it amounts to the loss of mandate to discuss issues of gravity, which are of a sexual nature. She adds that the arguments about pornography also reduce the ability to differentiate between appropriate conduct and expression, which is a basic right provided for by the first amendment.

The article is sufficiently effective as the author assumes all the possible positions about the views of society on pornography. Her view that pornography can be simply classified as distasteful, lacking moral weight and offensive is a clear and precise view, which is in essence accurate. Any reader would assume an identical position, so long as he or she is of sound mind and biased by his or her moral conduct. In essence, the mutilation of the First Amendment is in essence an explicit and exemplary illustration of the becoming of the society. Her view that of society is allowed to mutilate the First Amendment, it might as well mutilate other parts of the constitution which would result in a biased constitution that infringes upon the numerous freedoms for individuals within the society. Hence, her position, that mutilation of grounds of morality is in essence a biased affair as it allows for the implementation of ideas and interest of few individuals within society who are of a different moral view about pornography.

In conclusion, the argument could be described as sufficient as it assumes various views giving no bias and examining the various positions in the society. In addition her assumption is real in that mutilation would set an unhealthy precedent allowing for more infringements on grounds of morality and ethical conduct. Hence, all should protect the First Amendment as it in essence protects rights of all despite the moral inclination (Jacoby, 91).

References

Jacoby, Susan. “A First Amendment Junkie”