Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <450@scirtp.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 18:21:51 EDT Article-I.D.: scirtp.450 Posted: Thu Sep 12 18:21:51 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 03:41:51 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> <393@scirtp.UUCP> <11518@rochester.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 154 > > > = I can't remember > > = todd jones(me) > = ray frank > > > Before porn the free press was just that free, > > > > Was just *HOW* free? Pornography has always existed in some > > form or another. > > > Porn has never existed to the extent it does today. > Before about 15 or 20 years ago I would defy you to easily > purchase the heavy duty porn you can easily find > in just about any corner store today. I said,"Pornography has always existed in *SOME* form or another." > Perhaps you are just too young to have any > perspective into the rampant exceleration of the growth of porn and their out- > lets. > The press was free, period. No more or no less than today. > > > When porn is banned the free press will be just that free. > > > > Just *HOW* free? How can something be free if it's banned? > > > Are you for a second equating 'free press' with 'porn'? What the hell does > Hugh Hefner have to do with freedom of the press? I'm not equating porn with free press, but I contend that you cannot ban pornography (whatever that is?) and claim you have a free press. > Why do you insist that banning porn bans free press, the two are as different > as porn and the daily newspaper? Do you understand what freedom of the press is? It is being able to publish material for public consumption (including something you may consider obscene) without governmental interference (i.e. a ban by the government). > Again you've become a victim of global thinking. > > > > Try if you can not to have such GLOBAL thinking > > > processes, i.e. if this happens then all that will happen. > > > > What? > > > Over you head eh? Not over my head, UNDEFINED! GLOBAL: 1. Having the shape of a sphere. 2. Of, relating to, or involving the whole earth. 3. Comprehensive, entire, total. So is my thinking spherical, earthy or comprehensive? > > > We as intelligent rational beings can surely > > > make guidelines differenciating > > > between watching people take a shit in a porn movie > > > and the more wholesome freee > > > media enlightening us to local and world events. > > > > Have intelligent people ever agreed on subjectively defining something? > > I've never seen it done, just look at the variety of opinions on the net. > > > > > > I don't for a second believe that the opinions on the net represent America, > instead they represent the net, which consists of many extremist airing their > views and believing they are representative of more than a handful of people > but in fact represent a very small number of people, in fact too small to > pay much heed to. Does this mean that America is a politically homogenous group that would have little difficulty defining and restricting obscenity? I believe nothing could be farther from the truth. America would have a *tremendously* difficult time arriving at a definition of obscenity that wasn't: A. Full of holes (no pun intended) B. Unacceptable by a majority, and C. Threatening to great many works of literature INCLUDING THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! > > > There is an organization in Boston who advocates legalizing > > > sex with children offany age, but in particular with > > > their own children whom they claim are theirs too > > > do with as they sexually please and should not be governed > > > by outside sex laws.. > > > > So you have unearthed a bunch of perverts. BFD. > > > Porn is not perverted? Children are much involved unwillfully in porn. This may be a shocker, but much "pornography" involves only consenting adults. In this entire net-debate, NO ONE has advocated allowing child pornography to be published. This is not a hole in the no-ban argument, it is recognizing that freedom to publish does not include freedom to break laws in order to publish. > In many cases, adults are also unwilling participants. > The bottom line here is > that porn is a scab and puss oozing sore on the face of society. > That industry > is made up of perverts, pimps, the mob and many other such unruly characters > whom I'm sure you would not want to invite to Sunday dinner as you would the > publisher of a daily newspaper. > > > > Your irrational 'global thinking' would say we must not > > > interfer with these people in Boston, > > > for if the government prevents their freedom of sexual ex- > > > pression then we will surely be next. > > > > To grant press freedom to pornographers *DOES NOT* give them license > > to perpetrate crimes against children, or unconsenting adults. > > Child Pornography necessitates the corruption of minors, which > > clearly should continue to be illegal. > > > Porn necessitates the corruption of society at large. Says who? > By merely supporting > porn gives it a license to perpetuate it's goals, which is to appeal to the > 'darker' side of humanity. > Are you willing to guarrantee that porn will not > continue to infiltrate and break down taboos? I will guaran-darn-tee this much: The damage done by pornography (excluding child porn) is infinitesimal compared to the potential damage that could result from overzealous enforcement of a pornography ban. I'll use this example again, The Old Testament contains many passages dealing with lust, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, etc... Under any definition of pornography that I have ever seen, this work of huge cultural and religious significance could be illegal to produce, sell, or own in America if anti-pornography legislation is passed. > Can you guarrantee that > with the subtley with which porn propagates that they will not eventually win > the rights to exploit children whom they claim are consenting and have the > blessing of the parents? Call it a crazy hunch, but I think it will be a cold day in heck before Americans condone child molestation, kidnapping, or rape. > You should surely realize that when porn was legalized > a flood gate was opened and no one can be sure how much water will spill over. > Because of the unsavory types who make up the porn industry, it is not at all > clear that they will ever limit the means to which they will go to generate > more revenues for themselves. One last question, Mr. Frank: What is your definition of pornography? ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.