Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pyuxc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxc!chris
From: chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Pornography
Message-ID: <102@pyuxc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 13:03:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxc.102
Posted: Fri Sep 13 13:03:36 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 07:24:01 EDT
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
Lines: 152

>	I think Ellen Eades' reply to an article full of emotion-laden terms
>like "enraged" or "self-righteous" feminist showed commendable tact and
>restraint. I'll try to be equally civil in disagreeing with her.
>
>>> 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'm willing to concede that those who would ban certain types of
>literature have nothing but good intentions. But whether you think of censors
>as narrow-minded bigots or crusaders for a better world, they are arrogating
>to themselves a decision that I feel is rightfully mine: what I may read, see
>or hear. I judge *no one* to be better qualified than I in judging what I
>shall read and see.
>
>>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.
>
>	I still question the idea of anyone saying it should be
>censored. If you're talking about films showing real, not play-acted,
>criminal behavior, I would assume that purveyors of such films might be
>chargeable with conspiracy in commission of the crimes depicted. Such a
>tactic is not censorship, and I don't disapprove of it, though it can
>be misapplied.  I heard, recently, about charges of pandering being
>brought against the producers of hard-core (but not necessarily kinky)
>films, the logic being that buying or selling sex is illegal, the
>actors and actresses are paid, therefore the producer is a pimp.
>Actually, the logic seems sound; my problem with this reasoning is that
>I don't think buying or selling sex should be illegal. But I digress.
>
>>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.
>
>	You start out saying "the fact that", but present a series of value
>judgments, not facts. No one has ever established any causal link between the
>reading/seeing of pornography and the commission of anti-social acts. As for
>pointing out that freedom of the press gets violated in cases unrelated to
>pornography, how does this argue for censorship? Freedom doesn't just
>crumble everywhere because it's been violated a few times, but that does not
>make the violations any less odious.
>
>>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.
>
>	...and a personal response in return. I take censorship personally.
>If I hear of a book being banned, I take it as someone telling *me*,
>*personally*, what I may and may not read. It doesn't have to even be
>something I'd want to read, I just don't think anyone has the right to forbid
>such things to me. It is my personal *opinion* that a strong predilection for
>the kind of extremely sadistic material you describe is probably symptomatic
>of something wrong. But since that is in no way the same thing as saying
>exposure to such stuff *causes* violent behavior, and is, moreover, only
>a personal opinion unsupported by hard evidence, I would not feel justified
>in giving my opinion the force of law. I grant, though, that if I were a
>woman, and knew a man such as you describe, I would feel very uneasy. But, how
>broad do you intend your attack to be? Judging by your article, your
>definition of "pornography" is quite narrow, and only covers extreme sadism
>and sexual exploitation of children. If so, we're not too far apart. It seems
>to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for sex break laws
>unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without censorship, which would
>leave us only in disagreement about the status of simulated violence and
>sadism.
>	But, if you're also against all portrayal of sex that has the
>"suggestion" of dominance or submissiveness, or the "implication" of 
>exploitation in a sexual situation, then I'm afraid that you're one of
>those very well-intentioned people who want to limit my choices in reading
>material for my own good. Thanks but no thanks.
>
>-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry

Kenn

You made some excellent points in this posting.  I've
been wondering when someone would get around to saying
these things.
I'd just like to add one or two things to what you've said.

Freedom isn't easy.  
It means that lots of people are
free to do things that others find disgusting,
immoral, degrading, etc.  But, if this is truly a free
society, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THOSE THINGS.
True, some actions can and should be prohibited
for the public safety, e.g., murder, theft,
rape, etc.
But the list of things that are truly dangerous enough 
to outlaw is quite short.
And it cannot and should not be amended
simply to accommodate popular opinion,
or unpopular but vocal opinion.   And it does not and should
not include thoughts and fantasies.  Those
are the sacred province of the individuals having
them, and, in the case of pornography, sharing them.

Unfortunately, many (perhaps most people) seem
to favor limiting other people's freedom at one time
or another.  The religious right wants to limit
people's freedom to bring up their children outside
of organized religion by forcing them to pray in
school (is everyone ready for some side controversy?).
Parents' groups want to label rock & roll records for
obscenity.  Back in the 60s, lots
of people wanted to jail people who protested against
war and racism.

And the list goes on.  Sooner or later,
it becomes apparent that many of us do not want to live
in a free society, but in a society in which people
are "free" to conform to "our" point of view,
and in which "we" are free to force them to do so.

Well, that ain't the way freedom works.
And I would prefer to live in a truly free society.

Thanks again for a thoughtful posting, Kenn.

Chris Hollenbeck