Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!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: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <1575@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 01:05:21 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1575 Posted: Fri Oct 3 01:05:21 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 03:01:04 EDT References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 59 Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:417 net.legal:4861 soc.singles:251 > >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in > >the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials > >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare. > >Since that time, they have become far more widespread. > > Do you have a reference for this, or did the Commission say it? This > is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been > tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile > material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had > some effect? ``The Commission said it'' based, I believe, on the testimony of law enforcement officials, and upon the amount of material seized under warrant. Also, a number of the materials which they surveyed contained what appeared to be thinly veiled ads for pedophilic materials; there was apparently no indication that such material had been seen in the 1970 report. As far as harsher laws: do you mean *stricter* laws? If so, there are still some loopholes in what the laws allow prosecuted and where they will allow evidence or testimony to come from. In many localities, there are no laws requiring photofinishers to report materials processed that show children engaged in sex acts. There are the evidence problems that were written of earlier, as well as the personal humiliation suffered by the victim. Finally, prior to the mid-70's, who among us had heard of pedophilia as an activity with active lobbies (NAMBLA, Rene Guyon Society ...)? > >In addition, materials > >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the > >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most > >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims > >have indicated are used by the offenders. > > Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here > is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to > assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be- > cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn- > ography. In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent sexual materials. There was testimony before the Commission; in addition, the Commission found a considerable amount of material available. The 1970 commission found the amount of material of this sort to be insignificant. It *is* reasonable to assume that the materials are not the prinicple ``first cause'' of the paraphelia. On the other hand, by rewarding it, they may encourage it; in addition, there is testimony that some people, at least, have used it to help them prepare emotionally for acts that may reasonable be considered harmful. Here the effect of the material is to help the paraphelic become an ``offender.'' -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.