Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <7800461@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 20:27:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800461 Posted: Mon Sep 23 20:27:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:19:08 EDT References: <2061@mnetor.UUCP> Lines: 66 Nf-ID: #R:mnetor:-206100:inmet:7800461:177600:3183 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Sep 23 20:27:00 1985 >/* Written 8:05 pm Sep 8, 1985 by sophie@mnetor in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: A suggestion for a ground rule" ---------- */ >...It is one thing to object >to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses >no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another >to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. >I object to pornography for this reason. It scares the hell out >of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and >decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will. That >has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their >own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety. Excuse me, but even if a very strong statistical, as opposed to causal, link between pornography and violence existed, you still would have no kick coming. There are laws against people raping you, attacking you, detaining you. or even threatening you. These laws are just and worthwhile. There are NO laws against people fantasizing about doing these things, no laws against deciding to do them, but there are laws against doing them. Why? Because it only harms you when these things are done, not when they are considered. Eliminating pornography because there might be (my understanding is that it is hardly beyond argument) a statistical link between porn and violence ignores the point: violence is already illegal. If you could show that some people react involuntarily with violence when confronted with porn, you could perhaps legitimately make it a crime to show THOSE people pornographic things. As it is, I don't know of any such identifiable class of people, and the violence you fear is already against the law. To object that making porn illegal would result in fewer rapes per year is silly. Segregating men and women might accomplish the same objective, as might castrating all men. The fact is that our society is free enough to recognize (most times) that it is the CRIME that is the thing to be made illegal, not the circumstances which MIGHT lead to crime. > >.... Nobody's objecting to >people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate >literature which endangers their safety. Then sue for reckless endangerment! Of course, if you don't think you could win..... >> So my advice, to those who are considering jumping >>on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice >>about what you are doing. By attacking one of society's >>basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire >>women's rights movement. > >Gee, and I thought the right to physical safety was one of our >society's basic rights too. Sounds like some rights have to >be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada) > That's EXACTLY right. The danger of censorship (which carries with it the rationale that the state may PREVENT certain non-violent, non-intrusive behavior because non-identifiable folks MIGHT react in dangerous ways) must be balanced against an unproven implicit claim: that you would be safer in a society where pornographers operate outside the law. (Remember, making pornography illegal merely makes it illegal -- it doesn't stop it). Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com