외설적 표현권의 전의미

The Overall Meaning of Pornographic Rights to Express

For Plato and Aristotle in ancient times a work of art was considered valuable if it could provide good for the society. Plato convicts art because, as he claims, it destroys our psychic harmony, while Aristotle defends art because it cathartically drains away our fear, pity, and violence. b1 modem times, though, the so-called artistic legitimacy depends largely on individual free choice rather than traditional social values. This does imply that pornographic rights to express outweigh some various social threats allegedly caused by pornographic representations. Further pornographers ought to face feminists' rebel with a cause. Feminists' accusation that sexually explicit materials lead to social gender inequality as well as chilling individual autonomy can not so much be nullified as be incorporated within the supremacy of "freedom to offend" that modem democracies have made. That does by no means suggest, however, that freedom of speech, conceived and protected as a fundamental negative liberty, ignores either societal values or women's serious critiques of pornographic literature. Thus the concept of liberal pornographic "neutralizability" seeks both free speech and aesthetic utility. And further the right to free speech is ready to accept "the openness of the future" which recognizes the complexity and uncertain nature of human culture including potentially marginal and possibly innovative pornographic arts. Free speech right has to allow room for adventure that will inevitably be a part of such a fluxive and human enterprise. That is, I suppose, what pornographic rights to express should all mean.