Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: pornography, censorship
Message-ID: <2529@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 13:36:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2529
Posted: Thu Sep 19 13:36:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:16:47 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 73

I'd like to make a few points about the ongoing porn/censorship
debate.

 { pre-point : when I say porn below I am not talking about films
   books etc. showing consenting adults enjoying themselves.
 }

1. Everyone seems to operate under the assumption that freedom of
   speech is a yes/no situation - it' either there or it isn't.
   Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that in
   the US the publication of anything that counsels sedition is
   censored and/or prohibited.  Assuming this is true it seems
   a reasonable proposition - at least there don't seem to be
   many people arguing for the right to publish seditious material 
   - it protects the general welfare.  Is the publication of what
   is generally considered "classified" material not censored or
   prohibited.  Is not the correspondence of inmates in various
   institiutions censored?  It seems to me we are not talking
   about whether or not to introduce censorship into our society
   but rather whether or not it should be extended to a very
   particular/limited form of publication. 
 
   Why do people think that the interests of such a complex "thing"
   as our society are best, or even adequately, served by simplistic
   black and white rules?  Life is much more complex so why should
   our laws be so simpleminded and inflexible?

2. Freedoms generally also entail responsibilities as well.  We,
   for example, have freedom of movement but not the freedom to
   move by vehicle while intoxicated.  If we are to have freedom
   of speech should we not also have commeasurate responsibilities
   as to it's use?  Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to
   promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group
   (e.g. women)?  

   Here in Canada there have recently been convictions of individuals
   on the basis of their publishing material which they knew to be
   false and which was designed to encourage hatred of an identifiable
   group.

3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not
   enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that
   any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both
   lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus
   is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not
   therefore enjoy constitiutional protection?

4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link
   of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and
   rape".  Maybe there isn't. I don't know.  What I do know is
   that the very toleration/existence of porn by society lends
   it an air of legitimacy and thereby associates the same air of
   legitimacy and acceptance with the attitudes and ideas it promotes.
   I do find it impossible to believe that this legitimization of
   hatred/violence towards a particular group *does not* encourage
   a similar attitude/behaviour among it's fans.

5. As for those who worry about censoring porn opening the floodgates
   of censorship I reiterate we already have some forms of censorship,
   this will not be a first.  Should we worry about censorship getting
   out of hand?  You bet; I don't trust the government anymore than
   anyone else - but instead of putting so much  energy into protecting
   porn why not save it to protect something worth protecting if and
   when it comes under attack from censors?


-- 

	John Chapman
	...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman

	Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me
		     and they may not even be mine.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com