Naked, Well-Lit, and Afraid: Why do States Regulate Pornography in the US?
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Keywords
Censorship, First Amendment, Ideologies, Media, Gender
Department
Political Science
Major
Political Science and Sociology
Abstract
Pornography and its censorship have been a mainstream controversial political subject for at least 50 years. Discussions over its legality and permissibility have their roots in the Supreme Court’s development of the Miller Test, Catharine Mackinnon's writings, and liberal advocates for freedom of speech. As pornography has become increasingly accessible, and production and consumption have greatly increased, discussion of pornography has grown, and states are responding with policies such as age verification laws in attempts to regulate pornography’s social effects. This paper examines the conditions under which US states regulate Pornography. By utilizing a small-N qualitative design, I conduct process tracing analyses of California, Virginia, and Louisiana. Drawing on consumption and industry data, public opinion, legislative activity, interest group influence, and court decisions, I track how these independent variables affect the likelihood of regulation. Existing scholarship offers competing explanations for pornography regulation, including radical feminist critiques of gender hierarchy, religious conservative claims about moral and psychological harm, liberal defenses of free speech, and court-centered institutional analyses. While each framework captures part of the story, none fully explains when and why regulation occurs. This paper argues that regulatory outcomes emerge from the interaction of these forces, rather than any single cause. I find that while pornography use continues to rise across states regardless of regulation, policy change is most closely associated with moral framing and coordinated advocacy—particularly from religious conservative organizations advancing “public health crisis” narratives, even when empirical evidence remains contested.
Faculty Mentor
Karie Riddle
Funding Source or Research Program
Political Science Honors Program
Location
Black Family Plaza Classroom 188
Start Date
10-4-2026 3:15 PM
End Date
10-4-2026 3:30 PM
Naked, Well-Lit, and Afraid: Why do States Regulate Pornography in the US?
Black Family Plaza Classroom 188
Pornography and its censorship have been a mainstream controversial political subject for at least 50 years. Discussions over its legality and permissibility have their roots in the Supreme Court’s development of the Miller Test, Catharine Mackinnon's writings, and liberal advocates for freedom of speech. As pornography has become increasingly accessible, and production and consumption have greatly increased, discussion of pornography has grown, and states are responding with policies such as age verification laws in attempts to regulate pornography’s social effects. This paper examines the conditions under which US states regulate Pornography. By utilizing a small-N qualitative design, I conduct process tracing analyses of California, Virginia, and Louisiana. Drawing on consumption and industry data, public opinion, legislative activity, interest group influence, and court decisions, I track how these independent variables affect the likelihood of regulation. Existing scholarship offers competing explanations for pornography regulation, including radical feminist critiques of gender hierarchy, religious conservative claims about moral and psychological harm, liberal defenses of free speech, and court-centered institutional analyses. While each framework captures part of the story, none fully explains when and why regulation occurs. This paper argues that regulatory outcomes emerge from the interaction of these forces, rather than any single cause. I find that while pornography use continues to rise across states regardless of regulation, policy change is most closely associated with moral framing and coordinated advocacy—particularly from religious conservative organizations advancing “public health crisis” narratives, even when empirical evidence remains contested.