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: <2564@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 12:01:57 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2564 Posted: Thu Sep 26 12:01:57 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 04:17:44 EDT References: <2529@watcgl.UUCP> <1153@ames.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 131 > 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. > > } . . . > > >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. Where is it written that it is not the government's palce to enforce responsible behaviour? Why does the danger have to be direct - again life is not simple so why should we restrict ourselves to only dealing with simple relationships (although there are correlations between porn and violence)? > > > 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. Why sould it sadden you? Why shouldn't an identifiable group be afforded the same protection against slander and the promotion of hatred that an individual is? > > >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. Why is "interesting"? I think it's rather obvious that they have something in common - the encouragement of irrational prejudices against some particular group. > > >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 Right! One ought *not* to encourage people to hate. > as giving it any air of legitimacy. What's being given legitimacy is the idea If it's legal then society has said - "yes it is acceptable to us". Certainly it has more of an air of legitimacy than if it were illegal. > 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. However some of these attitudes do harm others. > > > 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? Why is it irrelevant - it's based on a lifetime of experience and some considerable thought on the matter. This type of attitude is quite frequently found on the net - if you can't quantize something then you can't legitimately comment on it - if people really ran their lives this way and refused to make decisions unless they had hard numbers then I don't think much would get done. > > >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. I don't. I fully expect and accept that other people will have different ideas and that they have the right to express them. I don't however think this is some sort of god-given right. I think the right to expression ends when what is being said is wilfully false, encourages violence, or promotes hatred and divisiveness. > > - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center > Moffett Field, CA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry -- 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