A response to Danny Frederick's pornography and freedom

• Main Author: Beltrano, Joseph Dione R.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2024
• Subjects: Pornography; Pornography—Law and legislation; Freedom of expression; Sex; Sex and law; Danny Frederick (Philosophy teacher); Philosophy
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_philo/17
• Institution: De La Salle University

In “Pornography and Freedom”, Danny Frederick argues that pornography is a crucial avenue for freedom of expression, giving people the opportunity to express their sexuality, upholding their self-determination. He refutes allegations against pornography like how it degrades or treats people as inferior, saying pornography empowers people. He concludes that pornography must not be suppressed for it would give rise to issues such as state censorship and organized crime. His argument hinges on the claim that since such objections do not have any ground, making them false, it follows that pornography is crucial for a person’s self-development and flourishing. However, there arises the problem whether pornography, as an avenue for freedom of expression, truly helps in one’s flourishing. I claim that Danny Frederick’s claim that pornography is a crucial avenue for freedom of expression is wrong because pornography, with its objectifying nature, abuses one’s freedom of expression, limiting people’s flourishing. I argue that pornography is not a crucial avenue for freedom of expression because pornography doesn’t help in people’s flourishing in a free society, not granting people the potential to express themselves freely and truly. Pornography, being a medium of objectification with the Objectification Theory, and it does not value a person’s autonomy with the Self-Determination Theory, limits people’s flourishing. In lieu of Aristotelian thought, this paper would enable one to view pornography as an avenue where a person degrades oneself, their full potential diminished, and that one’s flourishing in life would be inconceivable.