The next essay is focused on Langtons claim pornography restricts the liberty of women to speak.

First of all Ill explain what arguments are using Langton in order to defenses such claim. The free speech of woman is prevented by free speech of pornography with the result that woman is literally silencied though pornography therefore emerging a conflict between two freedom: the freedom of pornographer to made pornography and the freedom of woman to speak, both incompatibles. For such explanation we must bear in mind that Langton find out support in the Austins1 work in How do things with words, follow the Austins slogan say something is do something we can do things with words. The speech act is a discurs where speak is directly act. She thinks that pornography is such speech act whose effects cancel some act that the woman want to perform with her words. At this point I will make a brief reference to the difference between the three acts we can do with our words2: Locutionary act, Illocutionary act and Perlocutionary act. With that difference we can understand that the pornography restrings the liberty of the woman to speak in two different ways: silencing her illocutionary act -illocution disablement- and silencing her perlocutionary act -perlocutionary frustration. Secondly, having highlighted the argument of Langton and explained the same I will now consider the potencial objection of Jacobson and Alexander Bird against such claim. Such objections are doble. On the one hand, they attack an important notion in Langtons theory, the notion of 'uptake'. Uptake is the recognizion of the speakers intended illocution by an audence. Uptake is in Langtons view necessary in order that the illocution to be satisfaced, in order to a woman can do thing with her words in sexual contexts, if the uptake is not secured the illocution is disablement, if the uptake is not secured the woman is silenced in her illocutionary act. The objection of Jacobson and Bird is that uptake is neither sufficient nor necessary for an illocutionary act. In the kind of contexts which Langton is referring. On the other hand the other objection is against the perlocutionary silenced, they say that a perlocutionary frustration is not silencing in the free speech sense. Of these objections it follows that if they are true then pornography is not restrinct the liberty of women to speak but it have unwanted consecuences for women. To sum up I will put forward my opinion and I shall suggest some solutions for the problem of pornography. 1. Explanation of Langtons claim. Langton says that Pornography is a kind of speech act 3such kind of speech act is silencing an other speech act. As Langton Im going to consider how an speech act be silenced and how can be silencing in differents contexts for the better undertanding of how the pornography can silence woman. There are three sorts of acts that we can do with words: The locutionary act is one that is saying something, is the utterance of one or more sentences expressing a literal meaning. e.g (1) A and B are in a party A says to B: Sit down next to me!. The locutionary act in that sentence is the utterance: Sit down next to me!. The illocutionary act is the intent or purpose for which the speaker says the phrase. In the e.g(1) the illocutionary act is the order or command. In other words in saying somenthing A is ordering to B to sit down. The perlocutionary act is the effect of such utterance has in the hearer. In the e.g.(1) A finally sit down next to B. In other words by saying something A achieved her/his goal producing her/his desired effect. A speech act can be silenced in particular contexts and circunstances when we failure to act or to
1 How to do thing with words Austin didnt write about Pornography but this Austins work is a base for arguments of Langton. 2 The original difference is of Austin: How do things with words 3 Rae Langton Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Pag. 293

perform it. According to the three kinds of acts there are three kinds of silenced: Someone or something is prevent us to speak. We cant say any word at all any utterance is said we failed to perform the locutionary act. The illocutionary act is silenced when we say the words but fails to achieve the action you want perform. We fail to perform a perlocutionary act when we say the words with a illocutionary force but someone boykotts the effect that I pretended produce. Can a speech act activitly silencig an other speech? Langtons answer is affirmative. Im going to consider a several examples. *someone give me an order to no speak or someone theated me -someone is affair of the theated and she/he doesnt say any word. I cant say any word because of the speech act of an other person the my locutionary act fails. Any word is pronunced. *someone let me speak but his/her speech act prevented that my effect/goal expected occurr. We can imagine the e.g (1) A says to B Sit down...! just when an other speaker C say to B: Help me in the kitchen with the dinner! B disobey A and obeys C. B is not sitting down but is going to the kitchen. The perlocutionary act of A is failt because the speech act of C. That is calls perlocutionary frustration. *The illocutionary act complies with a certain felicity conditions, normally set though conventions. In a particular context someone is restrinct to me for do intended thing with my words is is interefering in the felicity of conditions which illocutionary act needs for its performance. Someone is prevents my locutionary force in someway. The illocutionary disablement is the act which Langton pays more attention. I want to emphasize two examples which are in the Langtons book. e.g(2)4: To say "I do" is, given the right circumstances, to marry, given that the felicity conditions of marriage are satisfied. Suppose now that both parties intending to marry are male. They sincerely intend to marry. The speaker uses the right locution. The priest is no mere actor. The ceremony is performed by the book. The speaker satisfies all the felicity conditions but one. Something about who he is, and who his partner is, prevents him from satisfying one crucial felicity condition. The act of marrying misfires. The felicity conditions of marriage are such that two male participants cannot succeed. The act of marriage is not speakable for homosexual couples. The power to marry, an important power available to other citizens, is not available to them. e.g.(3)5: Imagine this: the actor is acting a scene in which there is supposed to be a fire.... It is his role to
imitate as persuasively as he can a man who is trying to warn others of a fire. "Fire!"h e screams. And perhapsh e

adds, at the behest of the author, "I mean it! Look at the smoke !" etc. And now a real fire breaks out, and the actor tries vainly to warn the real audience. "Fire!" he screams. "I mean it! Look at the smoke!" etc.

Although following to Langton in boths examples the illocutionary act is disablement, there are a difference between them. In E.g(2) is the law -or the chuch- which despits the will of a legislator -the gorbernor or the popewho is prohibiting the marriage gay therefore the words 'I do' are unspeakable for homosexual couples, they cant success the illocutionary act of marry. The felicity conditions in that case is set by conventions. In e.g.(3) the felicity conditions of conventions are not sufficient for the illocutionary force occurs. Langton say that the illocutionary act fails because of uptake is not secured. The audotory dont recognized the illocution of warning, the cant take warn from the actor seriusly because it is unspeakable for him in that scenario.
4 This example which Icall e.g(2) appers like Example (2) Marriage R. Langton. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Pag 317 5 This example Langont calls Example (I) appers in R.Langton Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Pag 316. But it belongs originally to Davidson: Donald Davidson, "Communication and Convention" in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, I 984), p. 269.

Having that clear Im in the momento to answer the question: How Pornography can silence woman? Pornography restrincts the liberty of woman to speak silencing her speech act in two areas: refusing and protest. The works of pornography creates an environment in which the woman is presented as someone who always wants sex, eroticizing refusing and legalizing rape in sexual contexts. Pornography silences the perlocutionary act of woman. A woman can says No in a sexual context wanting to say 'No' meaning 'No' .i.e refusing sex, in saying no woman is refusing but she cant achieve her goal that the man stops his advance. Man understand her refusing however he ignored her and force her. In this case the locutionary No! and illocutionary act refusin is successful but the effect that her wanted perform failt. Pornography has silenced her perlocutonary act.6 Pornography silences the illocutionary act of woman. In a sexual context woman say No! But man doesnt understand No! As a refusal because pornography have done unspeakable the refusal for women in every sexual context. Pornography creates the idea that women always want sex they only can consent. The speech acto of pornographer have done that refusing in sex context being imposible by woman. So man cant understand the refusing of woman in a sexual context therefore he take sex of her. In that case as in the case of e.g(3) uptake is not secured. Man cant recognized the intention of woman, he cant recognized what she wants to do with her word, he cant understand that No! Meaning No! With a locutionary force of a refusal. It is in that case when the pornography restrincts the liberty to woman to speak, to do things with her words. According to Langton if we mantaine the pornographers freedom of speech we are doing this at the expense of restricting the freedom of women to speech. Langton says: 7the words of the ornographer, llike the words of the legislator, are word that set conditions. They are words that constrain, that make certain actions -refusal, protest- unspeakable for women in some contexts. This is speech that determines the kind of speech there can be. 2. Jacobson and A. Bird objections to this claim.8 If the Langtons argument is right that have a important consequences. Besides causing the cancellation of woman to perform acts with her words, if refusing is unspeakable by woman that mean that rape is not rape. If there is illocutionary disablement the fact of that refusing doent count as such is conducting that conclusion of that in such context there wouldnt refusing then rape would not be considered rape. Since for Langton is not sufficient intended to perform for an illocutionary act. Jacobson and Bird say that uptake is not necessary. The difference between they and Langton is that for she the perlocutionary act is not the unique that has effect, he illocutionary act has to have an effect as well, for they only the perlocutionary act has effect, is not necessary that the ilocutionary act has effect for being a ilucutionary act. The intended is the unique important thing that has to ocurr for the speaker has illocuted. Therefore in the case of the pornography, it doesnt silence woman since her is refusing even if the hearer cant understand what she want to say. We can say that, in a context where the man want sex and the woman doesnt want and refused, even if the man -under effect of pornography or not- that he raped the woman and we can say as well that the woman said No! She refused. It is that uptake is not necessarily, uptake being secure or not the illocution is perform. In that point Bird offers better examples than Jacobson. Im trying illusted that objection with an own example:
6 Why the pornography would be the guilty is that scenario is not clear to me, Langton would say that pornography's fault that consumers end up taking the rape like it's okay. Pornographers have authority in the sex game in the sense that they sexual rules. woman enjoys the attacks and always wants more. the refulal is eroticized in themselves when it looks sexy which disobeys. 7 Rae Langton, Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Pag 324 8 A. Bird, Illocutionary silencing D. Jacobson, Freedom of Speech Acts? A Response to Langton.

e.g(4) A person A is normally broken her/his promises, B knows it. A promises to B something and A really believes that this time she/he do it. Can we say that the promise is unspeakable for A because of she/he never keeps a promise? In Langtons view B couldnt undertands the promise as a promise therefore A is unspeakable for promise something because the uptake is not secured, B cant understand the words 'I promise you' as a promise if the words are saying by A. So the illocutionary of A is disablement. In Birds view A is promising. Doesnt matter if A breaks again the promise or if B doesnt take the promise as a promise. A has performed the illocutionary act of promise. If such objections are true then the pornography cant restring the liberty of woman to speak9 as Langton is proposing. 3. Conclusion. In my view, the felicity conditions for an ilocutionary act always depends of the particular context. To say that pornography is in itself which silencing speech acts of woman as Langton is considering dont seem shes right. It can be that pornography creats such conditions that has effects that are degradating for women, no in the sense of speech but in other areas of her life. Pornography can attack in several ways her integrity and degrade her with its violent images and words, it can do bigger the equality gap. It can do powerless to woman because of the despicts of her. Either pornography restingt the liberty of women to speak either doesnt the fact is that a kind of pornography has bad effects for women. We need take medidas offer solutions to this problem. I dont think that the censure of all the pornography be the best because would be restinct the free speech of pornographer who dont make wiolent ponography or tipically ponography with such unwanted effect for woman. Nowadays there are pornographer as Erica Lust who made kind of ponography calls: porn for women which doesnt mind that be exclusive for woman but is differente of the typically porno by man to man. That new pornography is more real and pays special attention to not subbordinate woman in their films -or books. That sort of pornography doesnt silenced but let speak woman. Another solution will be on the hand, Take medidas for child and teenager dont see pornography before they have their own experience and can be conciesness what is real of what dont. On the other hand more education for younger people will be great.

9 They think that the case of perlocutionary act silenced i.e. Perlocutionary frustration, neither occur. Jacobson says The freedom of speech is not the freedom of perlocutionary act. Bird offers an example. I roughtly: A wants to persuadir B of x and another person C with a better argument persuad B of the opposite of x. A doesnt achieve her/his perlocutionary goal because of C. Of that example doesntt follow that C have restringed the free speech of A. We can apply the example to the pornography in the sexual context.