Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance — easy summary

What it is
- The Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance (also called the Dworkin–MacKinnon ordinance) was a proposed set of local laws in the United States in the 1980s.
- It treated pornography as a civil rights violation against women and let women harmed by pornography sue producers and distributors in civil court, rather than relying on obscenity laws.

History in brief
- Origin: In the 1980s, feminist activists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon argued that pornography harms women and should be fought as a civil rights issue.
- Minneapolis (1983): A version of the ordinance was passed by the city council but vetoed twice by the mayor, who opposed both the idea and the constitutionality.
- Indianapolis (1984): A version focusing on violence against women was signed into law but was quickly challenged and overturned as unconstitutional.
- Hudnut case: The U.S. Supreme Court later refused to hear the Hudnut case, leaving the Indianapolis approach or its philosophy unresolved as a constitutional matter.
- Cambridge and Bellingham: Cambridge voters rejected the ordinance in 1985; Bellingham passed it in 1988, but federal courts struck it down as violating the First Amendment.
- Overall: The effort showed how a civil-rights approach to pornography faced major legal and constitutional challenges in the United States.

Definition of pornography (in the proposed ordinance)
- The core idea was that pornography is a form of sex discrimination against women.
- The “model” definition described pornography as graphic, sexually explicit content that subordinates women and meets several conditions, such as depicting women as sexual objects, showing humiliation or pain, sexual violence, or treating women as body parts.
- The ordinance also considered depictions involving men, children, or transsexuals in place of women to be pornography for purposes of the law.

Causes for action (how a lawsuit could be brought)
- Trafficking in pornography: Producing, selling, displaying, or distributing pornographic material (with certain library exemptions) could support a suit by women harmed by it.
- Coercion into porn: People coerced or fraudulently involved in pornography could sue the producers and distributors.
- Forcing pornography on someone: If pornography was forced on a person at home, work, school, or public place, the perpetrator and institution could be sued.
- Assault or injury: If someone was physically injured or harmed due to pornography, the victim could seek damages and injunctions.
- Defamation (added in some versions): Pornography that defamed someone could also be grounds for a suit.

Criticism
- Free speech concerns: Critics argued the ordinance could chill broad free speech and private expression, and that it risked policing personal tastes.
- Feminist debate: Some feminists supported the civil-rights approach; others argued it would be ineffective or harmful to free speech, or that it distracted from education and action.
- Canadian context: The Butler decision (1992) in Canada limited how obscenity laws could be used to enforce morality, while not adopting the U.S. ordinance itself; debates there influenced opinions on the U.S. approach.

See also (context)
- American Booksellers v. Hudnut (a related court case often cited in debates over pornography and free speech)
- Other related laws and feminist discussions about pornography and civil rights

Bottom line
- The Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance was a bold, controversial attempt in several U.S. cities to treat pornography as a civil-rights issue and allow lawsuits for harms against women.
- It faced strong legal and constitutional challenges and ultimately did not become lasting law in the United States, though it sparked a long-running debate about censorship, free speech, and gender equality.