Author Archives: Allan Tweddle

Pornography is notoriously difficult to define, but it is estimated that it accounts for 12% of websites and 30% of all web traffic. And while broadcast media is subject to ever more content warnings, or outright censorship, on racial or cultural grounds, explicit sexual content has become ever more acceptable on our screens.

Now, porn isn’t my thing. Watching porn as a blind person is akin to standing outside McDonalds, engulfed in the delicious aroma of Big Mac and fries, while not being able to find the door. Despite that, being a staunch believer in free speech, I’ve always supported the right of its makers and consumers to get on and enjoy themselves, provided they are not harming others in the process.

I suspect this is a common view, but an episode of The philosopher’s Zone podcast I recently heard has left me wondering. The Philosopher’s Zone, published by ABC, examines a different philosophical topic every week with the help of experts. You can listen to the relevant episode here in which Caroline West, a philosopher from the University of Sydney and author of the chapter on pornography in the Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech, considers whether pornography should be classified as free speech, or even as speech at all.

It isn’t written speech, at least not at the point of consumption. And it would be hard to argue that what passes for a pornography movie script can stand in as a representation for the final product. It is also not, for the most part, spoken speech either. I don’t suppose many folks consume pornography for the witty repartee.

But even if we assume that pornography does count as speech, it still may not fall under the protective umbrella of free speech. Legal scholars and philosophers have argued that there are plenty of things we would count as speech in the normal sense that no one would argue should be protected. Examples include criminal solicitation, defamation, perjury, and whites only signs. In a similar vein, there are plenty of things that would be counted as free speech that are not normal speech. These include flag burning, silent vigils, and sit-ins.

The conclusion, as far as I understood it, was that when we define free speech, what really matters is the underlying justification for why that speech should be free. John Stuart Mill’s argument that rational debate and the free flow of ideas is more likely to lead to true and justified beliefs feels relevant when discussing the activities of Extinction Rebellion, but less so when considering the latest R-rated movie. The same goes for the vital role free speech plays in a well-functioning democracy.