Duke University Press, 1996. Reviewed by Paul Parker, Division of Social Science, Truman State University. Over the past dozen years, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have led efforts to narrow the class of speech protected under the First Amendment. Kevin Saunders now presents a broader challenge to unfettered speech under the First Amendment.
Violence is at least as obscene as sex.
Thus, do not expect a justification of the obscenity exception. While one of the strengths of Saunders work is the multiple fronts on which he attacks our complacency in accepting violence as protected speech, I didn t find the argument as accessible as the cover blurb promised. But this challenge to a constitutional culture comfortable with the notion that more regulation comes at the expense of less freedom has a worthwhile payoff. Importantly, the argument that I need not consume violent media if I find it distasteful fails to recognize that I may still face harm if the postman s parents were too permissive. Saunders concludes chapter two by noting that there appears to be enough social science evidence of a link to increased aggression to support a rational basis for restricting media violence.