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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: pornography, censorship
Message-ID: <437@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 17:41:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.437
Posted: Fri Sep 20 17:41:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:57:49 EDT
References: <2529@watcgl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS Tech. Sales Support, Morristown, NJ
Lines: 77

> John Chapman:
> 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....
>                                   ...  Is the publication of what
>    is generally considered "classified" material not censored or
>    prohibited....
>    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?

You are right, it is not that simple, to wit:
The government attempted to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers
on the grounds that it was classified information whose publication would
endanger national security. That its publication also exposed wrongdoing on
the part of Government (exposition of which is the press' job) was certainly
not accidental. The classified designation is often used to hide
incompetence or malfeasance that the public should know about.

>                 ... Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to
>    promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group
>    (e.g. women)?  

> 
> 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?

Fair enough. Let me throw some counter examples your way:

1- There is an organization that has been plastering Manhattan with posters
   that claim that a) the 1984 election was rigged and massive vote count
   fraud took place; b) that defense contractors have paid off Donald Regan
   to keep the President from getting real information; c) that Reagan
   has been providing > $1 billion of secret aid per year to the white minority
   government of South Africa; etc

2- There exists various organizations in America dedicated to a) "white people's
   rights", b) "ridding government of the Jewish influence", c) "silencing
   the corrupt media"; etc [the quotes are either direct or paraphrased
   from pamphlets I have been handed in the streets or in airports]

3- A Fundamentalist minister, when asked his opinion of women's rights,
   replied: "women who break up the nuclear family by entering the work place,
   who deface the miracle of birth by having abortions, should be made
   to return home and care for their families, by force if necessary,
   for that is the task God has appointed for them."

I guess that's enough. Should any of these individuals/organizations be
forcibly censored or banned under your "responsibility of speech"
definition? If so, how would you write a law that does so?

Marcel Simon


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com