Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!ucla-cs!cc
From: cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Message-ID: <1444@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 01:54:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: curly.1444
Posted: Fri Sep 12 01:54:30 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 20:59:00 EDT
References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP> <1505@mtx5a.UUCP> <1115@oliveb.UUCP> <1519@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: oac6.oleg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev)
Distribution: net
Organization: Right down the hall, on your left (UCLA Computer Club)
Lines: 167
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:71 net.legal:3537 net.singles:10276

In article <1519@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>The conclusions of the 1970 study may or may not be valid; only an examination
>of what we now know can determine that.  This Commission undertook such an
>examination.
 
You have previously claimed that the comission mainly made a recommendation
of further study and research. That involves obtaining scientific data,
something sorely lacking from the present report. I also fail to see how
outrageous generalizations, calls for bans and black-listing qualify as
valid conclusions of an "unbiased" examination.

>Yes.  In examining *any* activity, it is relevant to bring up an example,
>particularly one as extreme and heinous as a rape on film, sold and viewed
>by millions of people (making them accessories).

"MILLIONS"? That is an interesting figure. I would like you to site a document
that confirms such magnitude. A market study or # of copies made would be 
adequate. 

Also, I suggest you check distribution and quantity of copies printed for most 
"hard core" porn magazines and compare them to the figures for major "soft
porn" rags -- I assure you the proportions are not in favour of "hard core"
material. And far fewer people read them. Extrapolation of effects on a small
segment of population on the population as a whole is not valid in this case.

>Scientific data is of use in determining fact, not in applying