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!ned
From: ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <400@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 16:38:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: scirtp.400
Posted: Thu Sep  5 16:38:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 13:36:08 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1870@reed.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 69

> 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.

Child porn and snuff films are (already) illegal to produce because they
require rape (including child molestation) and murder to be made.  The
issue that I believe Todd is trying to address is whether or not
sexually explicit materials legally made by consenting adults should
be banned.

> Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of
> the press" does not seem valid to me.  To me, the fact that the
> 1) institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children
> daily, 2) promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against
> weaker persons, 3) and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient
> interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press,
>
> Ellen Eades
> 	tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen

Re 1) No, not the "institution of pornography" (whatever that is).  It's
the porn producers that use rape and murder to make their product
that maim the lives of women and children.  Not all sexually explicit
material is made this way (i.e. illegally).

Re 2) This is not fact.  Some sexually explicit material can actually help
some people learn how to make better love.

Re 3) Not all sexually explicit materials resort to "flaunting degradation"
to arouse the consumer.

The point is that some pornography is legally produced and depicts
"normal" or, at least, non-abusive sex acts.  The problem is that one
person's definition of "normal" and "abusive" may be quite different from
another's.

I share Ellen's concern about illegally produced porn.  It is very
difficult to weed-out because it's practically impossible to trace how
such material is made, under what circumstances it is made, and who's
responsible for making it.  But to attack the problem by banning sexually
explicit materials altogether is not a good strategy for the following
reasons:

o The "obscene" label is very subjective when applied to sexually explicit
  material that is legally produced (i.e. did not involve rape, murder,
  assault, etc.).  No persons or body of persons can definitively say what
  is dangerously lewd and deviant and what isn't among much of the material
  that is currently clumped together and classified by many as pornography.

o Sexually explicit material that helps people make better love, either by
  education or stimulation, could be subject to banning.

o Many people would lose their jobs or, worse yet, would resort to following
  the once legal sex industry to the gutters of the black market.  We'd also
  be giving more business to the mob. (They already have enough of it!)

o An attempt to enforce a ban would require millions of (tax) dollars and
  would probably fail.

o It would be a dangerous and precedent setting encroachment of the First
  Amendment.

-- Ned Robie