Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!mcgeer From: mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate Message-ID: <10429@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 00:19:03 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10429 Posted: Thu Sep 19 00:19:03 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:59:24 EDT References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP> <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> <2061@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) Distribution: net Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 68 Xref: watmath net.women:7459 net.politics:11068 In article <2061@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >In article <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes: >> >> After reading Ellen Eades' recent postings I'd like >>to point out something that hasn't been mentioned here. >>That is, how the preoccupation with censorship that has >>arisen in the women's rights movement in the last few >>years has influenced the public's view of feminism. It >>has influenced my view, and fairly negatively, and here's >>why. > >It is a shame, but the "public" can be very easily manipulated >to believe almost anything. Well, as a member of the public I believe that statements like this are a crock. I can't find anybody who admits to being manipulated: I *can* find people who believe that other people are being manipulated, generally because they don't like what other people believe. This is a very nasty form of elitism, which should be squelched at every opportunity; one can justify all sorts of petty tyrannies -- and grand tyrannies as well -- by arguing that "the people" never used their freedom, they were being manipulated, anyway. >The "media" (another strange entity) >seems to have made up its mind recently to prematurely bury >feminism by defamation and assertions that it has passed away. Evidence? >i.e in this case, feminist writings. Having read a lot of feminist >material myself, I have found basically that there is not one >single issue on which all feminists agree (or did I miss it?). Try the ERA? >> I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed >>feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported >>except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography >>is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type >>of thing. > >While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have >seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is >too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you >did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". >A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not >doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography >does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat >might just include some amount of censorship. Well, there may not be a standard position of feminists on the issue of pornography, but this comes pretty close. And it's still wrong. Nobody ever got hurt by a picture, a cop show, or a newspaper article. People get raped and killed by jerks and thugs, generally employing knives or guns. The jerks may claim to be inspired by movies, records (it's thought that the Night Stalker was "inspired" by an AC/DC album), but the bottom line is that they pull the trigger or wield the blade. Not the album. Not the magazine. The jerk. So the solution is to lock these guys up and toss away the key, not go after the publisher. Even if there were good evidence to support the claim that "porn is the theory and rape is the practice", censorship would still be wrong. It's a terrible precedent. What happens when we find out that lefty papers inspire terror bombings? Do we ban them, too? Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Personally, I think we oughta keep it. Defend the First Amendment, while you still have the right to. -- Rick. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com