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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <399@scirtp.UUCP> Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 14:46:46 EDT Article-I.D.: scirtp.399 Posted: Thu Sep 5 14:46:46 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 13:35:37 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1870@reed.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 113 > Todd argues against a ban on pornography for the following > reasons: > > blah blah blah (edited for minor breivity) > 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. My point is: NO ONE is fit to judge allegedly pornographic materials. Not you. Not me. Not Jerry Falwell. > 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. I'm not trying to pass off Christians and feminists as unreasonable, I'm trying to point out that the extreme factions of these two groups will be the ones pushing for legislation and attempting to be the judges. > 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; I did refute this argument and will continue to do so. What is your general population consensus percentage that is necessary to ban a piece of information? Obviously the general population cannot scrutinize every piece of literature and photography in their comm- unity, so you will have to have a government sponsored committee. Yuch! > Todd seems to feel > that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue > with that; It's not just obscene, it is hideous, but that is not the issue nor is it the reason it should be banned. It involves taking indecent liberties with a minor and should be outlawed on that basis. > I feel that snuff films are hideous and obscene, and know no one > who would argue with me. Again, I feel the obscenity is moot. The point is that actual snuff films require rape and murder and should be outlawed on that basis. > 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. This is *highly* subjective. I doubt you and I would disagree over what is and isn't sick, obscene, etc... but as soon as someone attempts to draw the line, someone else will attempt to draw it more strictly, and before long many cherished pieces of literature and photography will be outlawed. > 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, This has not been proven. Do you really think that if perverts never had access to pornography there would be no violent crime against women and children? I try not to be so naive. Even if it were so, just because one individual reacts in a certain way to a piece of information, does this justify the withholding of that information from everyone? Think about the implications of an affirmative response. If I read the Bible and am inspired to kill my brother as Cain did to Abel, should we ban the Bible or edit it so that others will not follow my lead? > 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. This doesn't compromise my position. > 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. I think this is reasonable, assuming the viewer was viewing pornography of this sadistic nature. > Ellen Eades Ellen- I am not promoting pornography or presenting it as a wholesome pursuit. I am respecting the rights of citizens to produce erotica (as long as all parties are consenting adults) and to consume it. I am very afraid that censorship is like nuclear war: it is nearly impossible to keep it limited. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.