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.

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

类似问题

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.

You own a bond that pays $64 in interest annually. The face value is $1,000 and the current market price is $1,021.61. The bond matures in 11 years. What is the yield to maturity?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单