Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!west
From: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ...
Message-ID: <715@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 13:21:14 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.715
Posted: Sun Jan 27 13:21:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 13:41:40 EST
References: <243@looking.UUCP> <11300010@smu.UUCP> <4560@cbscc.UUCP> <354@ahuta.UUCP> <671@utcsrgv.UUCP> <118@cci-bdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 65
Summary: 

<>
me>>   I think that you have stated the fundamentals of the argument right
me>> there.  *I*, at least, do not think that *totally* free speech is worth
me>> another holocaust, or in this specific case, I don't think it's worth
me>> the warping of attitudes towards women that pornography involves.  

>free speech didn't cause the holocaust.

 Of course not!  Free speech in itself doesn't cause anything.  But it does
*allow* for such to occur.

>an unfair an oppressive treaty
>of Versailles that forced germany into paying all of the war debts and
>reducing the entire country to poverty level is what sowed the seeds of
>world war II and the holocaust.  While free speech did allow hitler to
>be heard, it was not free speech that allowed him to come to power.  He
>would probably have been heard then as a raving madman had it not been
>for the duress the german people lived under and their desperation to gain
>back not only a standard of living above bare-bones survival, but dignity
>for their country as well.  

  True, but it was free speech that allowed him to manipulate the Germans in
their desperation.

>Hitler fed egos, and that's where he won.  it's human nature.  but i
>don't see anyone suggesting we should ban human nature or stop saying
>nice things to each other and encouraging self-pride.

  It is well known that we humans can be manipulated.  We can't change
human nature, but we can see if we can stop the worst excesses from being
encouraged by others.

>the holocaust went on because no one could believe the atrocities were
>happening.  they were all passed along as rumor, but if there truly had
>been free speech under Hitler then everyone would have seen him for the
>madman he was and that would have been the end of that.

  The government can easily keep secrets while free speech prevails (or does
the USA have no secrets?)  I'm afraid that free speech only occurs where the
facts are known by somebody willing to report it.

>i wouldn't want the nazis or the born-again's or any oppressive group
>to stop talking.  I want to know what i'm up against.

  Different strategies, I guess.  I prefer to muzzle dangerous influences 
before they can badly warp society.

>					larry...

  I will state (before I get flamed to the wall) that I believe that any 
restriction of free speech must be done with *great* care.  There is certainly
the ability to mis-use such power, however I believe that there are certain
cases where restriction of free speech is merited, such as the case of hate
literature and pornography (yes, I do see a link, it's just one is a little
more blatant than the other).  Certainly any such restrictions must be done
so that (1) The reason for restriction is given and (2) There is recourse to
the courts to lift a restriction.
  Note that this is just a slight extension of the restrictions already in
place.  The gov't doesn't allow free distribution of its secrets on the basis
that this would harm the country more than the restriction of free speech
that stops such secrets from being disseminated.  I propose that this 
principle should be slightly extended.

     Tom West
 { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west