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: Just a couple of thoughts on Pornography Message-ID: <443@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 00:06:51 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxr.443 Posted: Sun Sep 29 00:06:51 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:11:15 EDT References: <732@utai.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-IS Tech. Sales Support, Morristown, NJ Lines: 39 > Geoff Loker: > > Thought 1: > [ A proposal to limit pornography sales to "specialty" stores located in > a specific area and providing only porn ] I understand the city of Boston did something similar, with its Combat District/Red Light Zone. Any residents of that area have any comments on the results of that experiment? Generally, the only problem I see with this approach is: where to put them? Places like New York have Times Square. What to do with the small town where the only "porn" is Playboy at the drugstore counter? Do we force some entrepreneur to go into a socially castigated business? > Thought 2: > It has been suggested about that pornographic pictures of adults are > fine because they are obviously consenting adults. > [ Some examples where pictures where doctored or obtained illicitly ] Unless the person in question is a public figure, publishing someone's picture without approval is cause for a libel suit, regardless of doctoring, so long as the person in question is clearly recognizable. If the person is a public figure, it gets tougher, as Henry Kissinger found out when a magazine (The National Lampoon, I think) published a nude picture of a man with Henry's head pasted on. The satirical context, plus the fact that the picture was an obvious hoax may have had something to do with the fact that Kissinger did not sue. Likewise, a model release for a picture taken without prior approval is not worth much. A photographer friend has told me of shooting a woman he saw in the street, then approaching her with a model release form. She sued him for invasion of privacy, and won. The point is valid, though farfetched. Linda Lovelace has claimed she was forced to "perform" in "Deep Throat." I don't know how, or whether this imbroglio was legally resolved. Marcel Simon Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com