As we have seen with many Supreme Court decisions, especially recently, the notion that nine legal professionals have the ability to dictate what others can do with their bodies and protected freedoms is not always what it seems. The Potter Stewart test refers to a Supreme Court opinion that classified hard-core porn as “hard to describe” but “I know it when I see it.” This very definition indicates that what “should” be censored is incredibly subjective. Further, the distinctions between what constitutes artistic expression and pornography are almost indistinguishable. Nudity in art culture has also existed since Ancient Rome, but these figures are often praised instead of being seen as taboo, although this does vary based on location and governing body (i.e., religious power associations).
The intentions behind censorship policies and the reality of their functioning are thus wildly different. Censorship policies are intended to protect people, specifically children, from obscene content, but in reality, censorship policies can be sexist, racist, and discriminatory to sex workers and sexual education content. This points to the performance of policy within society; often the creation of the rule is much different than its implementation. Additionally, there becomes a strict distinction between the public and private spheres. This binary is complex because, while you can generally access social media platforms from anywhere including the comfort of your own home, your created content is then accessible to large networks of people. Therefore, digital surveillance and rights to privacy rely on each other, potentially in a detrimental way, in the modern-day creation of online presence.




















