Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!prs From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,net.singles Subject: Re: Re: Commission on Pornography -- reply to GWSmith Message-ID: <1144@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 16:01:21 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.1144 Posted: Tue Sep 16 16:01:21 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Sep-86 22:03:26 EDT References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1506@mtx5a.UUCP> <15596@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1522@mtx5a.UUCP> Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) Distribution: net Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 68 Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:133 net.legal:3576 net.singles:10362 In article <1522@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >Ok. At least we are talking about issues and principles. Let me ask you >then about specifics. [The following arbitrarily edited, fresh list needed anyway...] >would you support specific public health laws to address this situation by >requiring that the booths be closed to each other and that the occupants be >visible from the outside? (Or pick another remedy of choice ...) >photographs are sometimes seized when alleged pedophiles are arrested, would >you support closing the loopholes in evidence requirements under existing >statutes regarding interstate distribution of such materials? >Would you allow a person who is not old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages >to act in films whose sole purpose was sexual arousal of the viewer, or could >the same (or similar) requirements of age be acceptable or appropriate? >a few such places would seem to call for no less regulation than, say, the >restaurant industry. >*THESE* are the kind of actions that the Commission recommended! Yes, they Thank you. But please be even more specific, quoting the recommendations verbatum so that those of us who want to may respond to the report rather than to a mixture of their suggestions and your suggestions. Since most of us don't have the report *yet*, you can facilitate non-flame discussion by posting this. Some of what you present in this posting (ie closing loopholes re pedophiles) is reasonable enough to discuss in terms of how it can be implemented without undesirable side-effects (such as accidentally outlawing family-oriented nudist magazines by defining child-pornography too broadly, as one proposed law would have done). >*do* recommend that we take notice that there may be harms resulting from >other kinds of material. Yes, they recommend that California change its >State requirements for community laws to match the *Miller* standard, rather >than the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. But if you want to take issue with a >finding or a recommendation, know what it is. *THEN* argue. Not sure I caught that, could you also please include (briefly) how the *Miller* standard differs from the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. Just so we know what is being recommended. (If you said earlier, I forgot it). >It's true that I presented the concerned statements of two of the Commissioners >because they were eloquent. But if you examine the specific *recommendations* >of the report, they are almost never as strong as you would expect, given the >harms that the Commission believes exists. Instead, they call for further >study. > >The two exceptions are kiddie porn and loopholes in existing laws. In case it isn't obvious, my request is for quotes of the *action* recommendations, as calls for more study are not contoversial. References to studies, page numbers, etc, will be a good idea later, when more of us (presumably) will have cheap copies of the report. > from Mole End Mark Terribile - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: Everybody bops. _on blackboard or something in "She Bop" video.