Censorship I INTRODUCTION Censorship, laws concerned with state restrictions on the expression, the publication, and the dissemination

of information. In a democracy, freedom from censorship is an important protection of particular freedoms, especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press. II !R"# $I%TOR# Censorship and the ideolo&y supportin& it &o bac' to ancient times. (ery society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, play, dress, reli&ious obser(ance, and sexual expression were re&ulated. ! )ree' Censorship In !thens, where democracy first flourished, %ocrates preferred to sacrifice his life rather than accept censorship of his teachin&s. Char&ed with the worship of stran&e &ods and with the corruption of the youth he tau&ht, %ocrates defended free discussion as a supreme public ser(ice. $e was thus the first person to formulate a philosophy of intellectual freedom. Ironically, his disciple *lato was the first philosopher to formulate a rationale for intellectual, reli&ious, and artistic censorship. *lato belie(ed that art should be subser(ient to morality+ art that could not be used to inculcate moral principles should be banned. In the ideal state outlined in The Republic, censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relatin& tales considered bad or e(il+ and in "aws, *lato proposed that wron& beliefs about )od or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal machinery be set up to suppress heresy. In the ,th century bc the !thenian philosopher !naxa&oras was punished for impiety+ *rota&oras, another leadin& philosopher, was char&ed with blasphemy, and his boo's were burnt. These instances of repression and persecution in !thens were not truly typical of )ree' democracy, for the freedom to spea' openly in pri(ate or in the assembly was usually respected. - Roman Censorship In Rome the &eneral attitude was that only people in authority, particularly members of the %enate, en.oyed the pri(ile&e of spea'in& freely. *ublic prosecution and punishment, supported by popular appro(al, occurred fre/uently. The Roman poets O(id and 0u(enal were both banished. !uthors of seditious or scurrilous utterances or writin&s were punished. mperor Cali&ula, for example, ordered an offendin& writer to be burnt ali(e, and Nero deported his critics and burnt their boo's. The far1flun& Roman mpire could not ha(e lasted for some four centuries had it not maintained a policy of toleration towards the many reli&ions and cults of the di(erse nations and races it ruled. The only demand made was that Roman citi2ens, as a political act, worship the imperial person or ima&e+ beyond that, all citi2ens were free to worship their own &ods and to obser(e their own rites and rituals. To 0ews and early Christians, howe(er, emperor1 or ima&e1worship was idolatry, and they refused to obey. They were persecuted and fre/uently martyred for their reli&ious beliefs. III C$URC$ C N%OR%$I* In ad 343 the Roman emperor Constantine decreed toleration of Christianity. Twenty years later, Constantine set the pattern of reli&ious censorship that was to be followed for centuries by orderin& the burnin& of all boo's by the )ree' theolo&ian !rius.

! Roman Catholic Censorship !fter the emperor Theodosius made Christianity the established reli&ion of the empire, the Roman &o(ernment and the Church be&an to persecute both pa&ans and Christian heretics who de(iated from orthodox doctrine or practice. The pope was reco&ni2ed as the final authority in Church doctrine and &o(ernment, and the secular state used force to compel obedience to his decisions. -oo's or sermons that were opposed to orthodox faith or morals were prohibited, and their authors were punished. The first catalo&ue of forbidden boo's was issued by *ope )elasius in 567. Indi(idual heretical boo's were subse/uently forbidden by special papal edicts. Censorship in this period was concerned primarily with suppressin& heresy. 8or the purpose of punishin& all such manifestations, *ope )re&ory I9 instituted the In/uisition in 4:34. 8or almost ,;; years the In/uisition remained an influential a&ency of reli&ious censorship. The in(ention of printin& in the 4,th century made pre1publication censorship possible. In 45<= *ope Innocent >III introduced such censorship. *rinters were re/uired to submit all manuscripts to Church authorities, and a wor' could be printed only after it had been appro(ed. *ope *aul III in 4,5: established the Uni(ersal Roman In/uisition, or Con&re&ation of the $oly Office, one of whose duties was to examine and condemn heretical or immoral wor's. In 4,,6 *ope *aul I> first issued the Index of 8orbidden -oo's, which was supplemented by his successors. !pproximately ,,;;; boo's were ultimately listed in the Index, the last edition of which was issued in 465<. In 467, *ope *aul >I made substantial reforms, chan&ed the name of the $oly Office to the Con&re&ation for the Doctrine of the 8aith, and abolished the position of censor. It was announced that the Index would not be renewed, that the penalty of excommunication would no lon&er ha(e the force of law, but that the Con&re&ation for the Doctrine of the 8aith would occasionally publish lists of boo's that were not recommended for readin& by Roman Catholics. - *rotestant Censorship The *rotestant Reformation did not itself effect a chan&e in the practice of censorship. Its leaders?amon& them 0ohn Cal(in, 0ohn @nox, and Aartin "uther?claimed liberty of conscience and toleration only for themsel(es and their followers. Bhen in power, they too attempted to suppress all de(iation from their own brands of orthodoxyC they persecuted *rotestant heretics and Roman Catholics. In n&land $enry >III supplanted the pope as head of the Church of n&land. The !ct of %upremacy D4,35E (ested in the 'in& the power to declare and punish heresies. $e persecuted both papists and reformers, and he burnt copies of the n&lish translation of the New Testament. $enry >III established a licensin& system that resembled the pre1publication censorship of *ope Innocent >III. It re/uired printers to submit all manuscripts to Church authorities for their appro(al prior to publication. This licensin& system continued in n&land until 476,. The n&lish poet 0ohn Ailton protested a&ainst such censorship in his classic essay F!reopa&iticaG D4755E. Aany n&lish people associated licensin& by Church censors with ecclesiastical super(ision, the In/uisition, and restraints on reli&ion, education, and intellectual pursuits. I> C N%OR%$I* IN T$ AOD RN BOR"D The 4<th century mar's the be&innin& of the modern period, with its emphasis on toleration and liberty?a be&innin& that reflects the influence of the !&e of nli&htenment, the !merican Bar of Independence, and the 8rench Re(olution. !lthou&h the new spirit of liberty was first felt in the area of reli&ious belief, it rapidly affected political life, science, and literature. -ritain, the United %tates, and 8rance set the pattern and the pace. The Declaration of Independence D4==7E, the U% Constitution D4=<=E with its -ill of Ri&hts D4=<61 4=64E, and the 8rench Declaration of the Ri&hts of Aan and of the Citi2en D4=<6E became models for the

modern world. In -ritain Roman Catholics were freed of all disabilities in 4<:6+ 0ews achie(ed the same freedom in 4<,<. ! Reli&ious Toleration In modern democratic countries, certain basic constitutional principles are &enerally acceptedC a personHs reli&ious beliefs and forms of worship are matters of strictly pri(ate conscience, into which no &o(ernment act or official may intrude+ no reli&ious re/uirements may be stipulated for any public office or benefit+ and the state and reli&ion are independent of each other. !lthou&h these principles do not resol(e all problems, and perplexin& /uestions must be faced continually, the principles ha(e established peaceful relations between the &o(ernment and reli&ious systems in truly democratic societies. The situation was /uite different in Communist countries such as the former Union of %o(iet %ocialist Republics DU%%RE, where reli&ion was not at all, or only &rud&in&ly, reco&ni2ed, and atheism was the established ideolo&y. !nother exception is the 'ind of theocracy established in Iran after the 46=6 re(olution with the institution of an Islamic republic. - )o(ernment Censorship In n&land reli&ious conflict had bred &eneral intolerance, which resulted in censorship that embraced political as well as reli&ious expression. !t a time when reli&ion dominated society, e(ery aspect of life was necessarily sub.ect to official control. In 477:, for instance, a licensin& act created a sur(eyor of the press who had power to in(esti&ate and suppress unauthori2ed publications. The Toleration !ct and the -ill of Ri&hts in 47<6 dealt with important personal liberties but said nothin& about freedom from censorship. To publish an unfa(ourable opinion of the &o(ernment was still a Fseditious libelG. 8rom the start of the 4<th century, howe(er, n&lish newspapers became more numerous, boo's on a &reater (ariety of sub.ects were published, and arbitrary censorship was slowly reduced. 8reedom of the press came about &radually as a result of .udicial decisions and popular opposition to political oppression. xcept for a brief period in 8rance after the Re(olution of 4=<6, political censorship continued to flourish in continental urope until the rise of republican &o(ernments in the mid146th century. In the 463;s a new wa(e of political censorship swept urope, especially in the totalitarian re&imes of )ermany, Italy, and %pain. %ince the end of Borld Bar II, howe(er, political censorship has diminished in Bestern nations. %tate censorship remained se(ere in the former U%%R and in other countries where political opposition is suppressed by permittin& the existence of only one party. One1party nations determine directly the ideas and information to be published, circulated, and tau&ht. Bhen publishers, authors, or broadcasters are ad.ud&ed to ha(e trespassed the political or moral boundaries set by law or administrati(e edict, they may be arbitrarily punished by fines, imprisonment, confiscation of their publication, prohibition of future publications, or closure of the medium of communication. Ratin& countries on a scale ran&in& from 4 Dmost freeE to 4, Dleast freeE, a sur(ey published by 8reedom $ouse in the late 46<;s disclosed that 7; countries comprisin& about : billion people en.oyed the hi&hest de&rees of freedom D41,E. In these countries?concentrated in North !merica and Bestern urope but also includin& 0apan, !ustralia, and New Iealand?indi(iduals &enerally had the ri&ht to brin& about peaceful chan&es in &o(ernment, en.oyed freedom of speech and the press, and had free access to other mass communications. !nother 36 countries with about 4 billion people recei(ed ratin&s of between 7 and 4;, while 7< countries with :.4 billion people had forms of &o(ernment that denied citi2ens most political and ci(il ri&hts. Auch attention was focused on censorship in the former U%%R and other Communist countries. xiles from the former U%%R ha(e disclosed the se(ere persecution to which they were sub.ected. !mon& such exiles were literary personalities and scientists, such as !le'sandr I. %ol2henitsyn, who was awarded the Nobel *ri2e for "iterature in 46=;, and !ndrey D. %a'haro(, who won the Nobel *eace *ri2e in 46=,. Borld

reco&nition and acclaim did not pre(ent the %o(iet &o(ernment from attemptin& to suppress their wor' and persecute them. -y the late 46<;s, howe(er, the U%%R under *resident Ai'hail )orbache( had relaxed &o(ernment censorship of the media as part of a more &eneral reform mo(ement, and other countries of the astern bloc were also affected. The increase in freedom soon led to the o(erthrow of se(eral Communist &o(ernments by lon&1suppressed dissident forces. The Communist countries ha(e not been alone in imposin& control o(er thou&ht and expression in modern times. In the mid146=;s India imposed strict censorship as part of an alle&ed state of emer&ency, while !r&entina (irtually suspended the importation of all forei&n publications. (en in democratic 8rance, the &o(ernment started criminal proceedin&s in 46<; a&ainst the newspaper "e Aonde for publishin& fi(e articles in the precedin& three years that alle&edly cast discredit on 8rench courts. In the United %tates the 4st !mendment has been interpreted as pre(entin& the restraint of publication except in exceptional cases. In a famous case, called the *enta&on *apers D46=4E, the %upreme Court ruled that a hea(y presumption lay on a state to .ustify interferin& with the press unless the &o(ernment could pro(e that disclosure would cause F&ra(e and irreparable in.ury to the public interestG. In -ritain, there is no written constitution that pro(ides safe&uards a&ainst censorship. In practice, this means that le&islation can ma'e ma.or inroads in curtailin& a freedom that cannot be re(iewed by the courts. %uch le&islation will o(erride any common law protections of ci(il liberties. C The Rule !&ainst *rior Restraint in n&lish "aw %ir Billiam -lac'stone, an important 4<th1century le&al commentator on n&lish law, ar&ued that the freedom of the press depended on the absence of any pre(ious restraint on the publication of boo's or newspapers. This rule a&ainst prior restraint thus re/uires that althou&h the press can be restricted by law, they ou&ht not to be sub.ect to restrictions that pre(ent them publishin& in the first place. The rule is explained by the famous phrase Fpublish and be damnedG. $istorically, freedom of the press in n&land suffered under the rule of Oli(er Cromwell in the 4=th century, when he established a licensin& system for both boo's and newspapers. Censorship was in(o'ed where written material was considered Fcontrary to &ood life or mannersG. This system of licensin& was finally abolished in 476, after a series of scandals relatin& to its operation. Aore recently, concerns re&ardin& prior restraint ha(e focused on a series of cases where the -ritish &o(ernment was successful in pre(entin& or delayin& publication of information in the press. The so1called %pycatcher case of the 46<;s concerned the /uestion of the a(ailability of an in.unction to restrain publication of information by the press and is therefore an important case with re&ard to the si&nificance of prior restraint. The liti&ation concerned a claim, brou&ht by the -ritish &o(ernment in the ci(il courts, arisin& out of an alle&ed breach of confidence by *eter Bri&ht, a former security ser(ice a&ent. Bri&htHs boo', %pycatcher D46<=E, purported to contain si&nificant information about his wor' while he had been a security ser(ice a&ent. $e had first published the boo' in New %outh Bales, !ustralia, to defy the -ritish &o(ernmentHs efforts a&ainst it. The &o(ernment then sou&ht to sue the !ustralian publishers, but this application failed. -y this time there had been widespread publication of the boo' o(erseas and there was no actual threat to national security from newspaper co(era&e. Ne(ertheless, in -ritain, the )uardian and the Obser(er newspapers published alle&ations made in the boo', but were pre(ented from further publication by the &rant of an in.unction endin& the main liti&ation D%pycatcher JNo.4K, 46<=E. In addition, a related case established the le&al doctrine that the secrecy in.unction bound e(ery newspaper and that any breach of the order would constitute a contempt of court. "ater, the case was tried and the in.unction finally set aside. In

46<< the $ouse of "ords held in %pycatcher JNo.:K that &i(en the publication abroad, the information in the boo' was in the public domain and could no lon&er be treated as confidential. !lthou&h the &o(ernment had secured a temporary in.unction that had pre(ented publication for nearly two years, it failed to obtain a permanent in.unction. In 4664 the uropean Court of $uman Ri&hts held that the interlocutory in.unction upheld by the $ouse of "ords in %pycatcher JNo.4K was an infrin&ement of !rticle 4; of the uropean Con(ention on $uman Ri&hts. In -ritain, D1Notices may be in(o'ed to restrict the publication of information relatin& to matters of national security. %uch notices alert the press to any security1sensiti(e e(ents that may be happenin&, but re/uest that the information remains unpublished. D -roadcastin& -ans Under pro(isions of the licence of the -ritish -roadcastin& Company D--CE the $ome %ecretary has powers to prohibit the --C from broadcastin& any item or pro&ramme at any time. 8urthermore, under recent le&islation, commercial tele(ision companies are sub.ect to similar constraints. The discretion of the $ome %ecretary is extremely wide and can only be challen&ed on the basis that the $ome %ecretary is actin& unlawfully. One example of a le&al challen&e to a broadcastin& ban was the -rind case in 466; when the $ome %ecretary exercised his discretion to ban the transmission of inter(iews with representati(es of certain &roups, includin& the Irish political party %inn 8ein. The $ouse of "ords considered a .udicial re(iew application in respect of the ban, but upheld the ministerHs exercise of discretion. The .ud&es did not consider the uropean Con(ention on $uman Ri&hts, which restricts infrin&ements of freedom of expression, to be rele(ant and found that the minister had not acted unreasonably in utili2in& a ban in an attempt to deny publicity to terrorists. In practice, broadcasters were able to circum(ent the ban by dubbin& the (oices of actors o(er the (oices of the banned spea'ers. -ritish -oard of 8ilm Classification The -ritish -oard of 8ilm Classification D--8CE is a pri(ate body that ne(ertheless has considerable power o(er the showin& of films. The --8C has de(eloped a system of certification of films that pro(ides &uidance on the public acceptability of the film Dsee8ilm CensorshipE. Distributors pay a certification fee, and the Director of *ublic *rosecutions will not prosecute films that ha(e been &ranted certificates. The >ideo Recordin&s !ct 46<5 &i(es the --8C statutory reco&nition as the re&ulator of licensin& of (ideos char&ed with monitorin& material that is Fsuitable for home (iewin&G. 8or further material on censorship, see hi&hli&hted articles and -lasphemy+ Ci(il Ri&hts and Ci(il "iberties+ Contempt+ Obscenity "aws+ Official %ecrets !ct.

Contributed -yC 0ane $anna

Obscenity "aws Obscenity "aws, le&al restrictions on the publication of words or other material on the &rounds that they are too indecent to be acceptable to society. %ome countries ha(e stricter obscenity laws than othersC Ireland and Italy, for example. In n&lish law it is a criminal offence to publish obscene articles for financial &ain, and obscenity is determined by reference to those who are li'ely to come into contact with the publication. The

publication must be li'ely to Fdepra(e and corruptG such people. It is no defence that the article will only be seen by people who are already depra(ed and corrupted. The law today is not limited to matters of sexual moralityC it extends to publications dealin& with (iolence and dru&1ta'in&. It is widely drawn and what exactly constitutes depra(ity may depend upon the approach ta'en by the trial court. The authorLs intention is irrele(antC the offence depends exclusi(ely on the effect the publication has on its readership, in the opinion of the .ury. $owe(er, an article is .ud&ed as a whole, so part of a no(el, for example, which mi&ht be considered obscene if ta'en alone, could escape the char&e if it were included for literary reasons. The typical obscenity offence concerns words or still pictures, but films and (ideo recordin&s are also co(ered+ howe(er, prosecutions may only be brou&ht for showin& obscene commercial films when the hi&hest le(el of prosecution &i(es consent. It is a defence a&ainst the char&e of obscene publication to show that the article was published for the public &ood because it is science, literature, art, or learnin&, and expert e(idence may be brou&ht to demonstrate the case. Other offences that may be committed include outra&in& public decency, a common law offence. 8or this to be pro(ed, the article must pro(o'e public outra&e and dis&ust, but it need not depra(e and corrupt. This offence was used amid considerable contro(ersy in 4664 to ma'e ille&al a display of earrin&s made of free2e1 dried human foetuses in a "ondon art &allery. This was seen as a re(ersal of the increasin& tendency for the laws to be used lar&ely a&ainst only hard1core porno&raphy, mainly the case since 467;, when a prosecution of *en&uin -oo's for the publication of "ady ChatterleyLs "o(er by D. $. "awrence was unsuccessful. It was then thou&ht that artistic wor's would be immune from censorship of this 'ind. The law on obscenity is widely distrusted because of its (a&ue nature. It also has critics amon& those who would li'e a return to stricter re&ulation to stren&then social morality, and those ad(ocates of feminism callin& for the widespread censorship of porno&raphy, which is now lawful, because they consider it dan&erous to women and to the position of women in society.

Contributed -yC Da(id Batson Pornography I INTRODUCTION *orno&raphy, commonly defined as Fthe explicit description or exhibition of sexual acti(ity in literature, films, photo&raphy, and so on, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelin&sG. Current debate about porno&raphy tends to di(ide alon& two main axesC the porno&raphyMerotica distinction, and the issue of censorship with its concern for the impact of porno&raphic ima&es on the perception and treatment of women. II *ORNO)R!*$# > R%U% ROTIC! The attempt to distin&uish between porno&raphy and erotica, and between Fhard1coreG and Fsoft1coreG porno&raphy, is (ery contentious and often hi&hly sub.ecti(e. $ard1core porn often includes sadistic (iolence

and may also include bestiality Dsexual intercourse between humans and animalsE. *orno&raphy may ta'e the form of (isual ima&es?photo&raphs, (ideos, film, ad(ertisements, and billboards?or text Dstories, articles, published lettersE. rotica may ta'e the same forms, but differs from porno&raphy in that it is usually associated with su&&esti(e or symbolic ima&es of desire and sexual arousal and pleasure, rather than with more &raphic ima&es. In theory, erotica allows for the possibility of women and men en&a&in& as Fe/ualsG, thou&h such a theory is not easily translated into practice in the current social order?char&ed as it is with une/ual access to power based on differences related to &ender, race, and class. Unli'e erotica, porno&raphy is not associated with an ideal of e/uality, or mutual pleasure. In fact, many ha(e ar&ued that the function of porno&raphy is to exploit women by representin& them merely as sexual bodies, rather than as full, thin'in&, feelin& people. Thus, it is not surprisin& that porno&raphy has lon& been at the centre of feminist ar&uments about the oppression Dsymbolic and realE of women in society. III 8ORA% O8 *ORNO)R!*$# *orno&raphic ima&es of women are by far the most common form, thou&h child porno&raphy?that is, porno&raphic ima&es of, not for children?has an increasin&ly lucrati(e mar'et and is often distributed by co(ert paedophile networ's. There is also an expandin& mar'et for porno&raphy representin& ima&es of men Dmostly mar'eted for &ay men, althou&h some is aimed at womenE and there is a small but expandin& mar'et for feminist erotica DsexualMerotic ima&es mar'eted for womenE. %ome of this is lesbian erotica and some depicts men, for a mar'et of heterosexual women. 8eminist erotica includes films, (isual ima&es, or fiction produced by women, for women, whether the sub.ects depicted in the ima&es are men or women. It has been ar&ued that $arle/uin romance no(els appeal at a certain le(el as Fmass1mar'et porno&raphyG. This (iew opens out the porno&raphy debate by mo(in& from discussion of porno&raphic ima&ery made by men, to discussion of a no(el by a woman that may also be seen to function as a 'ind of Fporno&raphyG. I> *ORNO)R!*$# !ND C N%OR%$I* !t the heart of the porno&raphy debate is the /uestion of censorship, or the imposition of limits on freedom of expression. The notorious no(el "ady ChatterleyLs "o(er, by D. $. "awrence, was once considered obscene, and 0eanette BintersonLs recent no(el Oran&es !re Not the Only 8ruit mi&ht ha(e fallen under this same headin&, if the same definitions and restrictions were applied today. !t the heart of the debate about censorship is the /uestion of oppressionC does porno&raphy oppress women, or others, more or less than the imposition of limits on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech would doN This is a 'ind of chic'en1and1e&& dilemmaC the /uestion bein& whether porno&raphy is, indeed, at the root of womenLs mar&inali2ed position in society?or only one manifestation of it. There is also the hi&hly contro(ersial /uestion of economics in porno&raphy?whether people ta'in& part in porno&raphy actually benefit economically from pro(idin& the supply to satisfy the demand. !n or&ani2ation called 8eminists !&ainst Censorship ar&ues that in choosin& to censor porno&raphy, feminists may thereby Dintentionally or unintentionallyE censor womenLs sexual experience and womenLs self1 expression as well. The radical feminist position of !ndrea Dwor'in and Catherine Aac'innon (iews porno&raphy as a form of Fhate speechG Din (isual and textual mediaE and an imposition on the ri&hts of women in the public sphere, connected in some instances with real incidents of oppression of, and (iolence a&ainst women?that certain 'inds of porno&raphy (iolate womenLs ci(il ri&hts. > *ORNO)R!*$# !ND >IO" NC !)!IN%T BOA N The relationship between porno&raphy and (iolence a&ainst women has initiated considerable debate. Dwor'in and Aac'innonLs boo' *orno&raphy and %exual >iolenceC (idence of the "in's contains the first1 person testimonies of female sur(i(ors of porno&raphy1related crimes. The boo' includes transcripts from

the actual court case which resulted from Dwor'in and Aac'innonLs proposal of an amendment to the U% Constitution on the issue of porno&raphy. In addition, much porno&raphy made by men portrays women of colour as the ob.ects of DwhiteE menLs desire. Thus, racial pre.udice can be seen to interact with the dynamic of &ender and power which is central to the porno&raphy problem. *atricia $ill CollinsLs essay F*orno&raphy and -lac' BomenLs -odiesG examines the lin's between race, power, and &ender in porno&raphy, and does so throu&h the (oice of a blac' female academic DCollinsE who refers to another blac' female creati(e writer and criticC !lice Bal'er. The ar&ument is literary, but its connections to real (iolence a&ainst women are clear. In fact, one of the stron&est and most fre/uently cited ar&uments a&ainst porno&raphy Dand for censorship thereofE is the existence of the Fsnuff filmG, one of the most extreme forms of porno&raphy, in which people Dusually womenE are literally 'illed on screen, in the culmination of &raphic sexual scenes Dmost often depictin& women as ob.ects and men as acti(e, (iolent, sub.ects in the sex actE. >I COA*!R!TI> >I B% O8 *ORNO)R!*$# The horror of the Fsnuff filmG ta'es on new proportions when considered in the context of modern society. It is not only shoc'in& that such films are made, and that some people choose to watch them, but also that it is now possible for these films and other associated ima&es to be accessed by (irtually anyone (ia a ran&e of media from ma&a2ines to FadultG cable T> channels, home (ideos, electronic &ames, and computer networ's. In addition, the impact of new communication technolo&ies has made (ideo and cable tele(ision porno&raphy immediately accessible and controllable by the (iewer with the free2e1frame command. >ideos are usually consumed pri(ately, and are not therefore amenable to public sanction. It has been ar&ued that a limited focus on porno&raphic ima&es themsel(es is not enou&hC that the process of production and distribution of those ima&es must also be considered, since those processes are infused with &endered power stru&&les, and the ima&es produced represent not only womenLs sexual or&ans but also the (ery real FsaleG of the woman?her body, her inte&rity?as a commodity in the public sphere.

Contributed -yC "i2beth )oodman Aicrosoft O ncarta O ncyclopedia :;;:. P 46631:;;4 Aicrosoft Corporation. !ll ri&hts reser(ed.