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

The statement presents a position attributed to Strossen: censoring pornography would do more harm than good.
First, note that the provided data lacks any answer options to evaluate, so we cannot perform option-by-option elimination. Instead, we can analyze the claim itself and why it is often argued to be true in libertarian or civil-liberties perspectives.
Consider the core idea: censorship of pornographic material tends to raise concerns about freedom of expression and the boundaries of government intervention. Proponents argue that bans or prior restraints can escalate government power, set a precedent for broader censorship, and create a chilling effect where even protected speech is deterred due to fear of penalties or enforcement.
Additionally, historical and legal analyses frequently point out practical harms of censorship: it can drive contentious content underground, complicate enforcement, divert law enforcement resources, and fail to address issues like exploitation in a targeted way if the censorship regime is broad rather than narrowly tailored.
However, critics might claim that pornography can harm individuals or society, potentially justifying some regulatory approaches. In the Strossen framework, the counterarguments are weighed against the protections of free expression, due process, and the risks of government overreach. The claim that censorship would do more harm than good aligns with an emphasis on First Amendment principles and the view that suppression often yields negative unintended consequences.
Because no explicit alternatives are provided here, we cannot compare each one, but the central rationale behind the statement is the concern for civil liberties, potential unintended chilling effects, and the difficulty of crafting narrowly tailored prohibitions that do not chill legitimate speech.
In sum, the assertion rests on balancing free-speech protections against the perceived harms of censorship, arguing that the harm from restricting expression outweighs the benefits of banning or suppressing pornographic material,
which is a common position in Strossen’s advocacy regarding civil liberties and free expression.

PHI 007Y 001 SS1 2025 Week 6 Quiz

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

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for all individuals and in all cases.

According to the lecture, how is the right to free speech often framed?

The First Amendment protects even speech that violates criminal laws.

Speech counts as “protected” if...

Laws that are designed to suppress the publication of particular viewpoints in the US are reviewed under a judicial standard of:

“Chilling effect” is a term that describes:

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