Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <1669@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 05:28:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1669
Posted: Sat Sep 14 05:28:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 16:52:47 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <4500038@ccvaxa> <2504@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 47
Summary: "Why" is more important than "whether".

Those who still read my postings are aware that I've been consistently
against censorship of any kind.  So, it was a surprise to me while I
was composing a followup to John Chapman's article (I was, of course,
disagreeing with him), that I found a condition under which I would not
be opposed to the banning of some kinds of pornography...

In article <2504@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes:
>> ----------
>> > 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. [Kenn Barry, I think]
>> ----------
>> Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should
>> not be illegal to sell or possess them. [Scott Preece]

>  To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust
>  by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and
>  possess it? [John Chapman]

My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott.  But, if child porn was
to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing
it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to
such a ban.  If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or
that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness
of children, I would be opposed.

The *reason* *why* a law is made is very important.  The same
justification can be used again for making later laws.  If child porn
can be banned because it's disgusting or because it spreads dangerous
ideas, then anything "disgusting" (a *very* subjective judgement) can
be banned, or anything, such as political writing, that spreads
"dangerous" ideas, (where dangerous ideas might be anything the
government doesn't like).

But banning child porn because a crime has to be committed in order to
produce it is different.  The government can't use this reason
arbitrarily to suppress ideas, so it's not a threat to freedom of the
press.  And a desire to protect the freedom of the press that we have
left is the major reason I've been opposing censorship all along.
-- 
David Canzi

ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a
justification of ourselves for having wronged him.  (Ambrose Bierce)

Corrupt Xref line!!!  7190 --> net.politics(1..7177)