Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!think!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!rlk
From: rlk@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Robert L Krawitz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Commission on Pornography -- reply to GWSmith
Message-ID: <1148@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 13-Sep-86 15:11:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1148
Posted: Sat Sep 13 15:11:46 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 01:57:04 EDT
Reply-To: rlk@athena.MIT.EDU
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 95
Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:69 net.singles:16552

In article <1522@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>
>And (PED aside) you and I and the AG's Commission agree this far.  (Would you
>like chapter and verse ...?).  But the Commission is claiming that there is
>evidence that certain types of materials, generally cinematic
>depictions, which are designed to have certain sexually arousing effects,
>may be causing harm.

How does something with "sexually arousing effects" necessarily "cause harm"?
>
>The Supreme Court of this nation, in the *Miller* case, held that when such
>materials do not have any other value for *communication*, they need not be
>given the full protection of the First Amendment.
>
Unfortunate.  Who's to decide what "communication" is?  For five
points, explain how "communication" makes something valid, whereas
sexual arousal doesn't.

>> The alternative is Plato's Republic, where the Guardians of the public
>> welfare ban certain kinds of music, certain kinds of books, and so forth.
>
>The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the
>point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing*
>except sexual arousal.  Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any
>sense related to the purposes of the Constitution.  Or at least it appears
>that the Supreme Court has held this to be the case.

Well, just so it's clear, I'll argue that this line cannot be drawn.
Why is sexual arousal such a bad thing, Mark?  Besides, the
Constitution doesn't state or imply anywhere that I can see that free
speech is limited to "communication."
>
>> I think experience has shown us that the open society is to be preferred.
>> Hence I am lead to the conclusion that pornography should be regarded as
>> innocent until proven guilty -- and where "guilty" must mean shown to
>> be a definite and extreme social liability. The sort of arguments Dr.
>> Dietz gave do not suffice, in my opinion.
>
>Ok.  At least we are talking about issues and principles.  Let me ask you
>then about specifics.

OK.  Since it's clear that banning pornography in a general sense is
ridiculous, let's take some more extreme circumstances and see if we
can't generalize from them.
>
>Given the allegations made about peepshows, *if* the allegations that *some*
>of these places are littered with semen, urine, and occasionally feces are
>correct, and *if* they are so designed as to allow anonymous sexual contact,
>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 ...)

No.  If people like anonymous sexual contact, it's better that they do
it in these places than out on the street.  At least other people
habituating these places feel the same way.

Now for a change of subject:
>
>Given the claim by law enforcement officials, child welfare agencies, and
>others that pedophiles photograph children in sexual performances and traffic
>in these photographs, and given the fact that large collections of these
>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?

What loopholes?  You don't mean the Exclusionary Cause, do you?
>
>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?

Child pornography is quite a different issue.  Here I think I would
accept restrictions.
>
>In case you are wondering, the questions *are* specifically loaded.

Now the truth comes out :-)
								      While not
>all peepshows are like the ones described, at least *some* are.  Given the
>increasing concern about sexually transmitted diseases, the existance of even
>a few such places would seem to call for no less regulation than, say, the
>restaurant industry.

I'm getting confused.  Are we talking about peepshows with cubicals
strewn with human excretions, or about kiddie porn?
>
>Under the current requirements of evidence under the relevant statutes, all
>the carrier of kiddie porn has to do when carrying it across state lines is
>make a couple of other stops on each side of the line, and the ability to make
>the evidence stand up in court is gone.  The reason is a peculiarity of
>wording in the statute; other interstate commerce statutes do not suffer
>from this loophole.

I don't understand.  Please explain the law.
-- 
Robert^Z