Indianapolis enacted an ordinance drafted by Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin[2] in 1984 defining "pornography" as a practice that discriminates against women. "Pornography" under the ordinance was "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or in words, that also includes one or more of the following:
Women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
Women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt, or as dismembered or truncated or fragmented or severed into body parts; or
Women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or
Women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury abasement, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual; or
Women are presented as sexual objects for domination, conquest, violation, exploitation, possession, or use, or through postures or positions of servility or submission or display."
The statute provides that the "use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women in paragraphs (1) through (6) above shall also constitute pornography under this section".[3]
Judge Easterbrook, writing for the court, held that the ordinance's definition and prohibition of "pornography" was unconstitutional.[5] The ordinance did not refer to the prurient interest, as required of obscenity statutes by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).[6] Rather, the ordinance defined pornography by reference to its portrayal of women, which the court held was unconstitutional, as "the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message [or] its ideas."[7]
^American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).
^McClain, Linda (2019). ""'Male Chauvinism' Is Under Attack From All Sides at Present": Roberts v. United States Jaycees, Sex Discrimination, and the First Amendment". Fordham Law Review. 87: 2386. Retrieved 25 November 2019.
^Hudnut, 771 F.2d at 324, quoting Police Department v. Mosley, 408U.S. 92 (1972)
External links
Works related to American Booksellers v. Hudnut at Wikisource
Text of American Booksellers v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985) is available from:CourtListenerJustiaOpenJuristBoston CollegeUMKCHarvard University
January 16, 2023
american, booksellers, hudnut, 1985, 1001, 1986, 1985, court, case, that, successfully, challenged, constitutionality, antipornography, civil, rights, ordinance, enacted, indianapolis, indiana, previous, year, courtunited, states, court, appeals, seventh, circ. American Booksellers Ass n Inc v Hudnut 771 F 2d 323 7th Cir 1985 1 aff d mem 475 U S 1001 1986 was a 1985 court case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance as enacted in Indianapolis Indiana the previous year American Booksellers Ass n Inc v HudnutCourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitFull case nameAmerican Booksellers Association Inc v William H Hudnut Mayor of IndianapolisArguedJune 4 1985DecidedAugust 27 1985Citation s 771 F 2d 323Case historyPrior history598 F Supp 1316 S D Ind 1984 Subsequent historyRehearing and rehearing en banc denied Sept 20 1985 aff d mem 475 U S 1001 fees awarded on remand 650 F Supp 324 S D Ind 1986 Court membershipJudge s sittingRichard Dickson Cudahy Frank H Easterbrook Luther Merritt SwygertCase opinionsMajorityEasterbrook joined by CudahyConcurrenceSwygertLaws appliedFirst Amendment Contents 1 Background 2 Holding 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground EditIndianapolis enacted an ordinance drafted by Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin 2 in 1984 defining pornography as a practice that discriminates against women Pornography under the ordinance was the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women whether in pictures or in words that also includes one or more of the following Women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation or Women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped or Women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt or as dismembered or truncated or fragmented or severed into body parts or Women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals or Women are presented in scenarios of degradation injury abasement torture shown as filthy or inferior bleeding bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual or Women are presented as sexual objects for domination conquest violation exploitation possession or use or through postures or positions of servility or submission or display The statute provides that the use of men children or transsexuals in the place of women in paragraphs 1 through 6 above shall also constitute pornography under this section 3 The case was first heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana which declared the ordinance unconstitutional 4 Petitioners appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Holding EditJudge Easterbrook writing for the court held that the ordinance s definition and prohibition of pornography was unconstitutional 5 The ordinance did not refer to the prurient interest as required of obscenity statutes by the Supreme Court in Miller v California 413 U S 15 1973 6 Rather the ordinance defined pornography by reference to its portrayal of women which the court held was unconstitutional as the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message or its ideas 7 See also Edit Freedom of speech portalCatharine MacKinnon Andrea Dworkin Women Against Pornography R v Butler 1992 1 S C R 452 Anti pornography movementReferences Edit American Booksellers Ass n Inc v Hudnut 771 F 2d 323 7th Cir 1985 McClain Linda 2019 Male Chauvinism Is Under Attack From All Sides at Present Roberts v United States Jaycees Sex Discrimination and the First Amendment Fordham Law Review 87 2386 Retrieved 25 November 2019 Indianapolis Code 16 3 q American Booksellers Ass n Inc v Hudnut 598 F Supp 1316 S D Ind 1984 Hudnut 771 F 2d at 332 Hudnut 771 F 2d at 324 Hudnut 771 F 2d at 324 quoting Police Department v Mosley 408 U S 92 1972 External links Edit Works related to American Booksellers v Hudnut at Wikisource Text of American Booksellers v Hudnut 771 F 2d 323 7th Cir 1985 is available from CourtListener Justia OpenJurist Boston College UMKC Harvard University Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title American Booksellers Ass 27n Inc v Hudnut amp oldid 999803192, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
