Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sbcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!debray
From: debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <456@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 20:54:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: sbcs.456
Posted: Fri Sep  6 20:54:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 11:21:29 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1870@reed.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Science Dept, SUNY@Stony Brook
Lines: 57

Ellen Eades (arguing for the banning of pronography):

> ... 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; 

If an adult chooses to watch, in private, certain acts involving other
adults with their (implicit) informed consent, everyone involved in the
transaction is acting within their rights.  Everyone concerned is fully
aware of what they're doing, and consenting to it.  Moreover, they aren't
infringing on the rights of anyone who isn't similarly inclined.  What
does it matter, then, what 99.95% of the populace think of it?  Or are we
to try and legislate purity of thought?

> 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.

In Europe, during the Inquisition, some thoughts and opinions were thought
to be so outrageously offensive that there was hardly any argument about
burning people at the stake for them.  The point I wish to make is that 
absolutes are hard to come by in matters that are essentially subjective.

> Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of
> the press" does not seem valid to me.

It might mean more, perhaps, if you'd experienced, first-hand, censorship
of the press (I have, through two wars and a period of "national emergency"
in my native country).  It's hard to appreciate a full belly until you've
been hungry.

> 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, ...

I share your concern about the possible effects of pornography.  It
disturbs me, though, that movies like "Rambo", that essentially glorify
orgies of violence, gross millions in the box office ... and as long as
we're talking of violence, how about that uniquely American institution,
the football game?  Or hockey?  Or pro wrestling, which has become so
popular lately?  I'm suggesting that this society actually craves violence,
and it's not clear that pornography is the leading contributor here.

> ... 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.

While your frustration is understandable, I'm not convinced that that two
wrongs can really make a right.
-- 
Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook

	uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray
	arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
	CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet