Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!decwrl!bizet.dec.com!mahoney
From: mahoney@bizet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Preventive Medicine on Porn and Censorship:re to Averack
Message-ID: <5447@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 11:08:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.5447
Posted: Fri Sep 19 11:08:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 01:54:14 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 64
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:193 net.legal:3615

---------------------Reply to mail dated 16-SEP-1986 13:37---------------------

> 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


    I did not see this posted until Tim responded to it.  Tim I think 
    forgot or missed where I stated I will accept that pornography
    may cause others to commit violence.   Going on that premise still,
    I will try to answer your question.

    The problem comes in that we as a people are getting to ready to 
    hand over personal responsibility.  It is still the responsibility
    of that person to control there own emotions.  If pornography can
    push someone to an act of violence then 1) that person needs serious
    help 2) he is still responsible. Society must protect itself this
    is true the question is how far should it go?  I think that the 
    more restrained the better.  Personal freedom must be protected or
    our society will wither away.    

    As Tim said the act of drinking is not against the law it is drinking 
    and driving that is against the law. Drinking makes some people more 
    prone to drive drunk yet we do not outlaw drinking.  We outlaw the act 
    that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with pornography itself.  What is 
    wrong is the acting out of pornography on unwilling people.  There is 
    nothing wrong with owning a gun and using it in sporting events.  It is 
    wrong to use it to kill someone.  Toxic Waste and Work Safety Laws I
    think are somewhat different.  I admit I am probably drawing an arbitrary
    line.  The thing there will always be an arbitrary line drawn.  The
    question is where and why do you draw it.  I draw it here because I see
    it definitely as collective entities.  Toxic Waste effects the 
    environment something that everyone has a right to.  You can not step
    on someone else's rights.  Work Rules are little harder but I think
    the same argument can be used.  Your rights do stop where another's begin.

    There are to many things in this world that can cause one thing or another.
    That it is time for society to say it is up to the person to take 
    responsibility, or we will eventually legislate all our rights away.
    With freedom comes responsibility. If we legislate away responsibility
    we legislate away freedom.

  Brian Mahoney