Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!well!ptsfa!dual!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: pornography, censorship
Message-ID: <1153@ames.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 17:27:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1153
Posted: Sun Sep 22 17:27:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 10:12:24 EDT
References: <2529@watcgl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 109

From John Chapman (watcgl!jchapman):
> { 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. 

	There is probably less censorship in the US than you suspect; it would
not, for instance, be illegal for me to post a top-secret government document
as long as I'd come by it innocently (found it lying in the street, say). But
your point still stands; we do practice some limited forms of censorship, I
suppose. Moreover, we also limit people's rights to engage in other,
non-free-speech related activities, even though those activities are in some
cases apparently harmless (e.g., prostitution).
	I would make two points. First, that I am opposed to all laws that
prohibit activities which do not endanger innocent bystanders, or society at
large. This would include laws against gambling, prostitution, drugs,
"deviant" sexual practices, and porn. Second, I am in agreement with
"censorship" of the sort that prohibits one from shouting "fire" in a crowded
theater for no reason. But I cannot extend this principle to allowing the
censorship of porn unless someone can show that porn presents the same kind of
clear and present danger to innocent bystanders.
 
>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)?  

	It is not the goverment's place to enforce responsible behavior in the
broad sense, only to limit dangerously irresponsible behavior. Unless and
until someone can show porn to be literally and directly dangerous, this kind
of argument is simply subterfuge.

>   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.

	I'm aware of the case; it's a dangerous precedent, and it saddens me,
even though I'm pretty sure that Canadians are too sensible to let this kind
of repressiveness become a trend.

>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?

	Well, I consider Nazism and other extreme racist philosophies beneath
contempt, too, but I don't want to censor them. I infer that you would. It is
interesting to note that the more modern anti-porn rhetoric, the kind that
condemns it as violent and hate-filled rather than as perverted and sinful,
extends so easily to the censorship of other kinds of materials, like Nazi
political tracts.

>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.

	Dangerous logic. Those who would outlaw homosexuality, or Communism,
use the same reasoning. I believe the law's job is only to tell me what I
ought *not* to do, not what I ought, and I don't see something's being legal
as giving it any air of legitimacy. What's being given legitimacy is the idea
that we all should have the right to do as we please, as long as we don't harm
others in our pursuit of happiness.

>   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.

	But what you believe is irrelevant; what *facts* do you have to
justify the *imposition* of your belief on others?

>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?

	If you only wish to protect ideas you agree with from censorship, then
you do not, by my definition, believe in freedom of speech.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com