Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!prs
From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re^5: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Message-ID: <16@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 13:36:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.16
Posted: Fri Sep 26 13:36:52 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:08:29 EDT
References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens)
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 46
Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:388 net.legal:4846 soc.singles:211

In article <789@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes:

>IF this hypothesis were objectively shown to be true, a person providing
>fantasy materials to someone with this deficit would become liable,
>under common law, for civil damages in the amount of the harm thus
>caused. It is likely that providers would then require proof of the
>ability to use the materials safely, just as car rental companies
>will not rent a car to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to
>use it without endangering others. I see no constitutional problems,
>and no need for legislation if the testing were done by private firms.

A startling idea, but it makes sense on further thought (*if* the alleged
dangers can be established for some subset of entertainment, and *if* some
way of assessing ability to use responsibly is available).

Automobiles are not the only example already in place; explosives for
construction are *very* dangerous, and some restrictions apply.  Also
guns.  Many areas require attending a class before you are allowed to
legally carry "mace".  Heavy equipment and bus driving have stricter
requirements than passenger sedans etc.  All of these examples are
*orders of magnitude* more dangerous than the *worst* porn.

Oh, those are all *productive* items (except the weapons?  sort of).
How about entertainment?  Fireworks technicians, stuntmen, race car
drivers, animal trainers, acrobatic pilots, high-wire artists...
all are or could reasonably be subject to qualification requirements.
Legalisticly quite reasonable.  Not quite the same, but comparable.

Not that it will happen.  We will either have censorship or we won't.
Hysteria will either prevail or it won't.  "It's that simple".

[question about "degrading enough" being banned...]
>No. The trouble with the "degrading" category is that it is not objective
>(different people experience different things as "degrading") and thus
>fails to meet a civilized society's standard for legal restriction.

Good answer to one of MT's *major* points of contention with (many of)
the rest of the net.  Thanks again, Adam.

>					Adam Reed (mtund!adam)


						- Phil
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Quote: Everybody bops.   _on blackboard or something in "She Bop" video.