Susan Brownmiller's essay, "Let's Put Pornography Back in the Closet," makes a compelling case for taking pornography out from under the cloak of the First Amendment and exposing it for the offensive anti feminine agenda that underlies it. Brownmiller's point is that although she fully supports First Amendment rights and is not in favor of censorship, there is a limit to the types of material that should be defended under the aegis of the first amendment; pornography is not one of them. As she aptly puts it:
             No, the feminist objection to pornography is based on our belief that pornography represents hatred of women, that pornography's intent is to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic stimulation and pleasure. We are unalterably opposed to the presentation of the female body being stripped, bound, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered in the name of commercial entertainment and free speech (49).
             Brownmiller addresses an issue that has all too often been overlooked in arguments that claim the First Amendment as their justification-that the First Amendment is intended to protect people's freedoms, but not at the expense of other people's freedoms. It therefore cannot be employed in defense of any type of subject matter that enslaves, demeans, or destroys people. Her answer to Justice William O. Douglas's comment that "no one is 'compelled to look'" is, as she asserts, "hardly true" (Brownmiller 49). It is impossible to avoid seeing the images unless, as is now the case in grocery stores, store managers are compelled to conceal a portion of the magazine covers that display them.
             Brownmiller's argument is the clearheaded and considered response of one who has given much thought to the issue and looked at both sides before deciding, not the impassioned diatribe of someone with a pre-existing agenda that she wants ...