Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!bellcore!whuxcc!lcuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal
Subject: Preventive Medicine on Porn and Censorship:re to Averack
Message-ID: <1253@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 09:37:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.1253
Posted: Tue Sep 16 09:37:25 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 08:26:27 EDT
References: <5221@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1183@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 63
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:147 net.legal:3587

> Brian,
> 
> I'm not quite sure how I stand on the Meese Commission yet, because it,
> indeed, is wrestling with the fine line between literal interpretation
> of the Constitution (i.e. 1st Ammendment) and *preventive medicine*.
> What I mean is, well, our society has passed various ordinances which
> allegedly impose on the rights of individuals, but which serve the
> collective good (by heading something off before it becomes a problem).
> Some examples include:
> 
> o  Drunk Driving Laws        o  Gun Control          o  Speed Limits
> o  Workplace Safety Laws     o  Toxic Waste Control  o  Etc. Etc. Etc.
> 
> If a clear relationship can be established between Pornography and
> subsequent acts of violence, then doesn't it make sense to head-off
> its chance to drive a person to that act of violence, rather than be
> poised to incarcerate the person after the fact.  By doing this, we've
> spared the life of that potential victim, hence, we've served the
> greater good of society.
> 
> I am usually a fundamentalist of the Constitution, but maybe you and 
> I need to bend a little in this matter.  Think about it.
> 
>      Bob Averack

Your analogy is flawed. In every one of those cases above we are
talking about *actual harm being done to others*.  There is no
doubt that drunk driving endangers others lives.  And the MADD campaign
has been very successful in reducing drunk driving.  But how was it
done?  Have we reinstituted Prohibition?  Did MADD ever say
"You should never drink one drop of liquor ever because it is a sin"?
No.
They took the *reasonable* approach which is preventive and not
repressive.  They said, "It is your decision to drink or not. But
it is irresponsible and endangers others lives to drink and drive."
This is manifestly NOT the approach of Meese, Reagan et al.
Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease
selling erotic materials.  This would be the equivalent of MADD going
around trying to close down liquor stores.  I don't recall that MADD
ever did that, do you?  At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't
work very well at all, now did it?

Moreover, if one is talking about what causes *violence* then there
can be little doubt about it: *violence* causes violence and
sympathetic portrayals of violence are far more likely to provoke
violence than any erotic movie.  As I pointed out in Brazil a policeman
shot 3 people when he went haywire after seeing "Cobra".
I see kids where I live playing "Rambo", playing with guns and
emulating the violence they see on TV.  As I have mentioned many
times the Meese Commission never even mentions this.  How could they?
When Meese's Commander in Chief goes around killing 9 month-old babies,
when he "jokes" about destroying a whole nation in nuclear war, when
he waxes enthusiastic about Rambo and takes up the invitation to
violence of Clint Eastwood's persona "Make my day", how then can
he criticize the glorification of violence?  Reagan and his regime
glory in violence.  Even after Cory Aquino's remarkable nonviolent
revolution, her success in getting 10,000 Communists to lay down their
arms within months of taking power, her recent peace accord with
Islamic militants, all the bloodthirsty militarists in Reagan's
administration can do is say: "Oh, Cory, you don't understand,
you have to *kill* those Communists like Marcos did"
Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting.
                      tim sevener  whuxn!orb