Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The Evidence on Pornography
Message-ID: <1557@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 04:02:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1557
Posted: Thu Sep 18 04:02:55 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 20:51:31 EDT
References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <781@mtund.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 36
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:198 net.legal:3621 soc.singles:12

> > > 				. . . The study described above, according
> > > to the Meese commission summary, involved at least 5 contrasts , so the
> > > probability of at least one spuriously significant result is .23, about
> > > one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies cited by the commission.
> > > Not much to go on, is it now?

Adam, you write as one who know something of the matter; I am accepting that
you do.  In this I am admitting that I could be being bulls**tted.  But let
me ask you ... and the rest of the net ... this question:

If the very *best* of the studies that we have (unless you know of a properly
controlled study that attempted to ask these particular questions *after
1976* and using pornographic material *available after 1976*) is hopelessly
inadequate, what of the material upon which the 1970 Commission based its
results?  Surely they did not have anything available which we do not have
now?  (The biggest problem may be that we have *porn* available now which they
did not have available then ...)

The Supreme Court, upholding an obscenity judgement against *Deep Throat*
wrote that the movie was, in their experience, unique; it was sufficiently
devoid of even a pretense of redeeming social value that it could have been
found obscene under the *Roth* standard.  They had not been asked to examine
*any* case under the *Roth* standard that they could find obscene; now under
*Miller* they were presented with a case that would have been obscene under
*Roth*.

(In case you didn't guess, I do not hesitate to argue with those who think they
know better, even when they seem to have grounds for their belief.)
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
					(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
						mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
					(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.