Strossen argues that censoring pornography would do more harm than good.

Question

Strossen argues that censoring pornography would do more harm than good.

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The claim presented is that Strossen argues that censoring pornography would do more harm than good. Answer option choices: True, False.
Option 1 – True: This aligns with Nadine Strossen’s position on pornography and censorship. She argues from a civil liberties perspective that censorship of pornographic material can cause greater societal and constitutional harms than the potential benefits, citing free speech protections, the risk of government overreach, chilling effects on lawful expression, and unpredictable or counterproductive outcomes (such as driving content underground or failing to address underlying issues). The reasoning emphasizes that restrictions may set dangerous precedents and undermine core democratic values while not necessarily reducing harm in the intended way.
Option 2 – False: This would be incorrect because it asserts the opposite of Strossen’s stated position. If one claimed she argued that censoring pornography would be beneficial or that censorship would do more good than harm, that would conflict with her advocacy for free expression and her critique of censorship as a policy tool. The false choice would misrepresent her emphasis on the potential harms and unintended consequences of censorship as outweighing any argued benefits.
Rationale for why the correct stance is True, in more depth: Strossen’s framework often centers on the principle that freedom of expression should limit the government’s power to regulate speech, that attempts to suppress pornographic material can fail to achieve public interest goals, and that such policies may impose broader costs on civil liberties and political discourse. In evaluating policy, she weighs the harms of censorship (e.g., erosion of constitutional rights, arbitrary enforcement, stigma, and the possibility of censorship expanding to other expressive domains) against the purported benefits, typically finding the net effect detrimental. Therefore, the claim that censoring pornography would do more harm than good captures her general conclusion about censorship as a tool, making True the appropriate option.
Notes on why the other option would be misunderstood: Saying False would imply she endorses censorship as beneficial, which contradicts her advocacy for free speech and her critical stance toward censorship-based solutions. It would ignore the arguments about free expression, government power, and real-world effectiveness that motivate her position.

PHI 007Y A01 WQ 2025 Week 6 Quiz

Strossen argues that censoring pornography would do more harm than good.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In the United States, the right to free speech:

In its 2011 Snyder v. Phelps ruling, the Supreme Court held that Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals

If you know that some law restricts only unprotected speech, what can you conclude based on that fact alone?

Strossen argues that censoring pornography would do more harm than good.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler