To start with the first part of the essay, we should understand the “harm principle” presented by Mill. An individual is not under any control of the state or the society so long as his actions do not cause any harm to the society. He does not stand liable to be forced or coerced out of any sort of indulgence or pleasures so long as these practices do not inflict any harm on the society. That is the main idea behind Mill’s essay on liberty where he explains this “harm principle”.
Mill argues that an individual is free to choose his life style and his tastes so long as they don’t inflict any harm on the society. What Mill does not clearly specify is whether that harm suffered, is only referred to the society only, or a second individual as well. For if the activities of the individual in question bear a harmful effect on another individual, it indirectly affects the society, as society comprises of these "individuals".
Mill is unable to clearly define the meaning of harm in his "harm principle". Harm inflicted on one member of a society means harm on the society as a whole, that is, if we consider society comprising of these individuals, and those each individuals being affected harmfully, by their own actions. This is one valid criticism of Mill's harm principle.
Mill goes on to say that as long as the individual is aware of the harmful consequences of committing an act and so long as that act has a negative effect on him, then the society can merely inform him, yet not suspend his activities or compel him to comply otherwise. The individual should be in perfect freedom to perform that act and suffer the consequences. Restricting that right of the individual to suffer, or to enjoy, as he might perceive it to be, is a violation of the many liberties that every individual is entitled to. These liberties are what is a necessity to the mental well being of mankind, according to Mill.
Coming to the views of Narveson on pornography, we see two main arguments that he uses against its censorship. On the claim that pornography is the influence behind an individual committing rape or other acts of sexual violence, Narveson refutes it by using the argument that there is inconclusive evidence to prove the argument to be true. He contradicts the statement by suggesting that there are no statistical nor any scientific evidence provided which conclude that a person will definitely commit rape after viewing or utilizing pornography. He goes on to say that for an individual to be motivated to rape, commit assault, murder, or to do any evil, there is no evidence that the underlying reason is pornography.
Narveson presents a social cost benefit analysis on abolishment of pornography. He debates that, to abolish pornography, in order to prevent the crimes committed or the "harm" caused to the society or the individual, by the acts of rape or murder and the likes, which are said to have been caused by pornography, is a waste of an investment of the societies resources, for a minor gain in security, eventually jeopardizing the societies liberty.
In assessing this very argument of Narveson, taking into consideration the views presented by Kostash, we can clearly see "both sides of the story" to the censorship of pornography. Kostash talks about the negative effects of pornography on society and the women in that society. Narveson forms two major arguments about the censorship of pornography, one of which is based on the fact that there is no evidence or statistical data to prove that rape or sexual assault is a result of pornography. Kostash accepts that this direct link is yet to be established, but aggression, which is the underlying emotion inside the individual who commits such acts of violence, has been traced to pornography. She uses the studies conducted by Drs. Neil Malamuth and James Check in concluding that pornographic violence heightens aggressiveness in an individual for at least a week.
In response to Narveson's argument about the existence of formal evidence that depicts the link between rape and pornography, Kostash provides the statistical evidence, depicting the link between rape and pornography. She talks of rape committed from 1960 to 1978 rising by 60 percent in the Nazis era, when they occupied Poland and flooded bookstalls with porn to demoralize the population.
Kostash talks about how pornography depicts an unequal balance of power between the male and the female in society, and how it encourages male supremacy. Kostash also talks about how the pornography is a $4 billion industry in America, which only depicts the benefit of pornography to the economy on the whole. She goes on to portray the status of women being harmed and degraded by the content of pornography, which we may view as a "harm" to society according to Mill's "harm principle" discussed previously. Aggression towards women, and negative feelings in males towards females, can also be viewed as a harm to women on the whole, based on the fact that the "harm" referred by Mill is not only physical.
Narveson's second argument against the censorship of pornography, which is an analysis of the social cost-benefit for the proposal of the abolition of pornography, does not take into account the many other benefits and costs that, may refute his very conclusion. Narveson is very quick to arrive at the conclusion that the costs and the benefit, when compared do not support the view that pornography should be censored. Kostash mentions the pornography industry earning $4 billion for the economy. If we were to give a monetary value to the cost of pornography endured by the economy, we can quickly identify the amount of resources spent by the police to prevent sexual assault and rape incidences; we can realize the loss to the society when we see the property values of an area going downhill due to the zoning of prostitution, which stems from pornography, hence enhancing crime in that area. More than that creating a thick line between the rich and the poor.
Above all nothing can compare to the trauma and injury suffered psychologically and physically by a rape victim. To compare that suffering and pain of an individual to the pleasures of pornography would be totally heartless. Even the "utilitarian" approach of maximum benefit and happiness, would conclude that the activities that have the slightest connection to extreme pain and suffering and an overall negative effect on society, should be abandoned. Kostash's arguments have a very strong bearing on Narveson's arguments. She is clearly identifying the very core of Narveson's basis for his conclusion against censorship of pornography, in the lack of statistical evidence. Kostash acknowledges that there is a lack of evidence in the direct link of rape and porn. Yet the link between the underlying feelings that cause rape, which is aggression, is identified to be linked with porn, and she provides the reader with that statistical evidence.
Kostash provides the reader with reasonable evidence and a thorough detail of the harmful effects of pornography on a woman's image in society on the whole in order to make a strong case for censorship. However, Kostash is unable to fully identify the social benefits of preventing porn. Kostash identifies the crimes caused by pornography, and Narveson argues that if pornography does affect the society negatively, then censoring it is only a violation of the individuals right to liberty and freedom. However the only solution is to educate and debate on the morality of pornography, especially in early childhood, by those wishing to protect the public.
Finally "to censor or not to censor" is not an easy decision when the rights of an individual are felt violated. To arrive at a conclusion for anyone is not an easy task, especially when there is clearly a lack of evidence in the direct link between rape and porn. However when that evidence will be clear, it will be for us to see how the society can argue on denying themselves these "legal pleasures".