Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxr!mfs From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <436@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 17:09:07 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxr.436 Posted: Fri Sep 20 17:09:07 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 04:52:48 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-IS Tech. Sales Support, Morristown, NJ Lines: 34 Xref: watmath net.women:7474 net.motss:2082 net.flame:11988 > Ken Perlow: > 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". ... > .... 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 disagree. Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a heterogeneous society. The law thus form a "barebones" moral framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own, presumably more restrictive moral codes. It is necessary in a free society that the law not be restrictive of individual morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e. my morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws in order to prevent chaos.) In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the social order is threatened by the continued availability of pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was unavailable. Clearly, we must define what pornography is before we can talk about its putative threat to society. I believe that task is up to those who wish to ban. I don't believe morality is part of this debate at all. > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. I am not sure what you meant, but the term is surely incorrect. You must libel some person, not libel in the abstract, or a class of persons. You may think pornography is offensive, repugnant, or whatever, but libelous does not apply Marcel Simon Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com