Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <1164@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1164 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:18:57 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> <691@rduxb.UUCP> <24@unc.unc.UUCP> <1159@ihuxn.UUCP> <1158@mtgzz.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 50 Xref: watmath net.women:7445 net.motss:2070 net.flame:11952 -- [I said, in response to Frank Silvermann] > > Sorry, you can't simply define away the problem [porn]. The fact is > > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does > > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize > > their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > > pornographers responsible for their actions. [Evelyn Leeper] > Oh, does this mean that men who feel they are defamed by feminists > who claim "all men are rapists" can sue them and expect to collect? > > Evelyn C. Leeper Sorry for the oversimplification. First off, there's a difference between having status to sue and expecting to collect. Second, having status to sue (in US law, anyway) is predicated on the notion of real (i.e., monetary or reducable thereto) damages. It's not a matter of feeling one is defamed--you have to be able to show how you, personally (or as a class, I suppose), were materially wronged. Some types of published material are already subject to such law. Who was it (Liz Taylor?) who took the National Enquirer to the cleaners? This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights". (It's under- standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.) And thus legal responsibilities, which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but certainly ought to, derive from moral responsibilities. Responsibility is not proscription. I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, libelous. I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights, my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any analogous responsibilities. I thought that ethical egoism (the notion that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101. Now, these folks have almost no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they don't know. Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it false. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 17 Sep 85 [1ier Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com