Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The MacKinnon-Dworkin ordinance was functionally equivalent to censorship in practice

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Prior restraint operates before publication occurs, while the ordinance's civil remedies operated only after publication and demonstrated harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The constitutional distinction between prior restraint and post-publication civil liability is not merely procedural but reflects fundamentally different chilling effects on speech.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Subsequent civil liability, unlike prior censorship, permits expression to occur and reach audiences before any state intervention, preserving meaningful communicative opportunity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ordinance granted standing to victims of demonstrable harm rather than to state censors, structurally resembling tort law more than administrative censorship regimes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.MacKinnon explicitly grounded the ordinance in anti-discrimination law, a framework courts have consistently distinguished from First Amendment speech suppression mechanisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The ordinance allowed courts to award and enforce injunctions against publication of material demonstrated to be harmful
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Enforced injunctions against publication produce the same practical effect as prior censorship bans
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.