Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Swinging fists (was AG's Commission ...)
Message-ID: <416@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 14:13:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.416
Posted: Fri Sep 26 14:13:36 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:10:57 EDT
References: <1803@mmintl.UUCP> <1567@mtx5a.UUCP> <354@cullvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 59
Xref: linus net.legal:4847 soc.singles:215

In article <354@cullvax.UUCP> drw@cullvax.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes:
>> > Incidentally:
>> > 
>> > At this time I personally believe that it is anyone's right to view any
>> > kind of flick their little hearts desire, and for anyone to produce or
>> > act in any kind of production they wish, PROVIDED that no exploitation
>> > or coercion is employed in that production.  I make NO distinction in
>> > this regard as to whether the end result is porn or not.
>> 
>> What if it were the case that the production of, say, 65% of some class
>> of material involved either the kind of exploitation that you have named,
>> or else the ``it was that or starve'' question?  Not knowing whether a
>> given film was or was not made under these conditions, could you, in
>> good conscience, view it?
> 
>Hey, if it weren't for "that or starve", would any of us actually
>*work* for a living?
>Dale

Actually, many of us would work for a living.  We might be doing something
other than what we are doing now, but boredom, lonliness, and a desire
for better things (assuming work for pay) would be good motivators.

As to the "that or starve" issue.  There are other alternatives, such as
working at lower paying jobs.  Minimum pay for a film is usually over
$100/day.  With film schedules running several weeks.  Add royalties,
residuals, and side income such as interviews, and you have a tidy sum.
Replace "that or starve" with "that or sell my caddy", and you have a
better picture.

Actors DO risk extended periods of unemployment, even starvation.  This
is a choice, and not necessarily an irreversable one.

If there were still 65% of some material that was filmed coercion, I would
still seek to protect the 35% who do not use coercion.  If that group
was persecuted in the same way as the 65% indiscriminately, the 35%
would go out of business, while the 65% would find a larger market.
In other words, why turn 65% into 100%?

One important issue here.  Neither the federal government nor the
locals are allowed to ban the sale and distribution of pornography
entirely.  It can be restricted to adults, sold only in certain
"red light districts", liscenced, rated, or otherwise regulated.
It is even legal to harass dealers, if there is reason to believe
that other activities (prostitution, public sex, drugs, other crimes)
are also being committed.

If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
The growth of that market might "crowd out" the coercive and unethical
segment of the market.

I saw "Deep Throat" before it became public that the lead actress was
beaten and otherwise coerced into performing in the film.  I didn't
particularly enjoy it then.  I won't watch it now.  The irony is that
this film is available at the suburban video club, while other movies
with willing partners in situations such a bondage, unusual costumes,
cross-dressing, and/or various other themes is only available in a very
"intimidating" part of the inner city.