Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <420@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 09:14:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.420
Posted: Wed Sep  4 09:14:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 08:16:46 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1870@reed.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 71

> Ellen Eades:
>                                               Todd [Jones] 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.
> 
Child pornography is illegal, not as pornography, but as kidapping and child
molestation. Snuff films are likewise illegal as kidnapping and first degree
murder. Incidentally, despite much searching, snuff films have never been
proven to exist or to have ever existed.

>                                        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,
> 
The "violent thought and actions" argument is as much a value judgement
on your part as the "religious zealots and enraged feminists" you
deplore. The data on the effect of pornography on violent tendencies
is inconclusive at best. Viewing violence, whether in pornography
or in "The A Team" may well induce violent actions and thoughts.
Viewing non-violent pornography has *not* been shown to increase
violent or aggressive tendencies.

>                        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.
> 

While I appreciate and respect your feelings on the issue, they do not
carry much weight in the context of banning pornography.

Before any discussion of a ban or restriction can even begin, it is necessary
to define pornography. Such a definition must be more precise than
"I know it when I see it and most people would agree with me."
It must be the kind of definition you can hand to a police officer and
reasonnably expect to be carried out in *unbiased* manner.
If you are able to arrive at a definition of pornography that is not
impossibly vague and at the same time does not include, say, Cosmopolitan
magazine, "Lady Chatterley's Lover", or Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons
(unless you wish to ban these too, in which case Todd's First Amendment
argument becomes powerful indeed) you will have done
a better job than the Supreme Court, which threw in the towel on
defininig pornography with the "community standards" decision.
That pornography is generally available in most places
in this country should tell you that there is no consensus on
obscenity, except at the very local level (where intimidation by
a vocal minority is more effective)

If you are unable to come up with a reasonable, legal definition
of pornography, you have no business advocating its ban, no
matter what your feelings on the subject may be. The very intent
of freedom of the press is for me to be able to say what you do not
want to hear, and vice versa. If your feelings are able to dictate
what I should be able to see or read, *both* our freedoms will
be imperiled. Having lived in places where freedom is non-existent,
I can assure you that the lack of freedom is far worse than the
availability of pornography.

Marcel Simon