In "A First Amendment Junkie" written by Susan Jacoby, a New York Times journalist, the point is argued that first amendments rights can't be restricted in instances that you find offensive, particularly referring to feminists wanting to censor pornography. Jacoby doesn't believe that pornography is a legitimate reason to censor a person's freedom of speech. She makes the point that feminists spent so much of their energy fighting for equal rights, and now they are trying to take away the rights of others. She points out the hypocrisy amongst feminists for wanting to censor this offensive free speech, yet they don't speak out against other incredibly offensive free speech.
I agreed with what Jacoby was trying to say, but I didn't really like the way the essay was written. It felt quite scattered to me; I found it difficult to follow her points. If I did not already agree with Jacoby, I would not have been persuade by the points that she made in her essay. I felt as if the concerns of the majority of feminists were not proven irrelevant. Her case was not all that convincing to me.
As I said before, I do agree with the overall message of the essay. I think Jacoby pointing out the inconsistency of the feminists wanting to limit freedom of speech for only certain offensive speech was a great point. She explained the feminists wanting to censor harmful pornography is just the same as other censors who want the state to force ideals on the people. I think that was a powerful section of the essay for some people, but it wouldn't hit home with people who feel like that that is part of the government's job.