Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!ellen From: ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <1870@reed.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Sep-85 20:45:38 EDT Article-I.D.: reed.1870 Posted: Mon Sep 2 20:45:38 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 06:29:41 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 75 Todd argues against a ban on pornography for the following reasons: > 1. The practicality of enforcement. > Who decides what is obscene? A council of religious zealots? > A panel of enraged feminists? > 2. The practicality of exemptions. > Who decides what isn't obscene? the above groups? What if I > want The Bible banned for its graphic depictions of lust, > adultery, sodomy, etc...? > 3. Orwellian approach to literature. > Take both of the above reasons, add one part self-righteous > feminist and two parts Liberty Bible College hit squad, stir > over low flame and voila! You've got someone else telling you > what to read and think. > NO THANKS!!!! > There is no solution to the "problem" of pornography > that will leave freedom of the press intact. Don't > give me mumbo jumbo about applying "community standards," > this is as vague as anything else. > > Face it, pornography is a pretty small price to pay > for something as important as freedom of the press. I disagree strongly with this position, popular as it is among the white liberal males of my acquaintance, and some of the women. First of all, Todd reveals that he has already formed certain opinions about the "religious zealots" and "enraged feminists" which make him believe they are unfit to judge pornography, or to ban certain allegedly pornographic materials. I think this is unfair both to concerned Christians (or members of other religions, like me) and to feminists, some of whom neither rage nor foam at the mouth. Todd is not making a fair judgement here. Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; Todd seems to feel that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only to sick people. Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy (any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and ashamed, for him. Ellen Eades -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen