Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ...(re: E. Leeper)
Message-ID: <20515@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 09:03:53 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.20515
Posted: Tue Jan 29 09:03:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 13:19:29 EST
References: <287@harvard.ARPA> <162@moncol.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.books:1370 net.women:4352

> >> Kiddie porn too?  If not, why the difference?  Please read my comments
> >> on that again.
> >
> >I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and
> >"normal" pornography.  I don't think any kind of sex between
> >consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what
> >happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers.
> >The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is
> >lacking in the case of kiddie porn.
> 
> 
> One cannot so easily dismiss what happens between the porn
> actress/producer/customer.  It is an unfortunate reality that
> ultra-profitable businesses like pornography attract a criminal
> element that is willing to go to ridiculous measures for profit.
> Kiddie porn is one result .. but there are others.  There is an
> underground type of film called a 'snuff film'.  In these movies,
> the producers will promise anything to the porn actress to secure
> her cooperation.  At the end of the film, the actress is killed,
> both on-screen and in real life!  Talk about degradation of women!
> I don't think any of these movies have been made in the US, but
> they are available in this country through the same channels that
> distribute kiddie porn. Hence, although I have no moral objection
> to standard pornography, I would tend to shy away from patronizing
> distributors of it until it is available through more legitimite
> channels.
> 
>                                 Ben Broder
>                                 ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben


Two points:

Paul Dubuc's point seems to be that we need a definition of porn
in order to outlaw it.  Someone (I'm sorry, I don't recall who)
recently made the point that there are already laws against the
things you object to.  Murder, child molestation, forcing someone
to do something against their will, etc are all against the law
*now* -- These crimes are all well defined with (relatively)
clear-cut laws proscribing them.  If these laws don't work, how
can we expect to define and pass laws against, something as
nebulous as pornography?

Point 1:
Enforce the existing laws don't make new, unnecessary laws that
won't do what you want and will serve no one but the lawyers that
they will enrich.

Point 2:
If porn is made illegal by whatever ill defined laws its
opponents come up with it **won't** become available through
"more legitimate channels" it will ****only**** be available
through the criminal channels (as was booze during prohibition)
and control of methods as well as content will become even less.
There is, obviously, a significant market for porn or no one
would bother to make it.  When such a market exists, it will be
serviced, one way or another.

None of these ideas are original; I think all have been mentioned
here on the net over the months.  Somehow they just get swept
aside in the fervor and the fury of those with a cause and need
to be remembered from time to time.

Charlie