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: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: All or Nothing? ) Re: Re^5: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Message-ID: <423@cci632.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 16:35:24 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.423 Posted: Mon Sep 29 16:35:24 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:44:44 EDT References: <789@mtund.UUCP> <16@oliveb.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Distribution: net Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 83 Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:438 net.legal:4881 soc.singles:288 Summary: Censorship that is not Censorship. In article <16@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: >In article <789@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: > >>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. How novel, a sane approach to Censorship!! :-). >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). How about some sort of "ID card", which parents, probation officers, spouses, or the person himself could use to identify material which he/she should not be reading. Possibly a picture ID with things that the bearer can watch not punched out. With no record, you can watch anything you want. If you are a minor, your parents can say, "no indescriminate violence, oral sex, beastiality, or ...). If you are a convicted rapist, you might not be able to purchase sexually explicit materials. If you were convicted of a violent (non-sexual) crime, you might not be able to watch/purchase violent materials. Makes some sense. > >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". > Considering the implications of true censorship, and the impact on first amendment issues, it is unlikely that total censorship of any materials will ever become a state practice. Even now, what might currently be called "censorship" is more an issue of restricting distribution. Zoning laws, proof of age requirements, ratings, and other "inconveniences" have been used to restrict where, how, and to whom, sexually explicit materials may be sold, but seldom stop distribution entirely. Under the current laws, sex is the most regulated area. Moves have been made to curb violence, with little success. Material sympathic to racism, ethnic exploitation, and anti-feminine views has come under tighter control. If one considers the basic goal of "censorship" preventing people from being exposed to matter they (or their parents, spouses, doctors, ministers, paroll officers, probation officers,...) consider offensive, there may be methods of achieving these goals without actually Banning of the materials in question. It is unfortunate, but when one considers that a can of soup provides more information about it's contents than a videotape, television listing, film, magazine, or book, it is possible to see that it is possible for someone to pay for the privelidge of being offended. At the very least, it is possible for them to pay for materials which they do not consider entertaining. The existing laws and restrictions are actually counterproductive to the industries involved, the consumer, and the public in general. A sane approach using the goal described above might not only recieve support from the "anti-smut" movement, but from anyone who has purchased materials which did not provide the type of entertainment expected. As to the argument that some people are adversely effected by certain materials, this too may be a valid argument for restricting those people from purchasing those materials. This is not a valid argument for restricting the sale of such materials to "normal" people. A law as simple in principle as one corresponding to the labling of food using relative amounts of contents in the "ingredients list" might provide a useful service which politicians, customers, and suppliers could support. If I want to buy a jar of Apple juice, I can choose between the jar labled "Juice (from concentrate), water, sugar", or the one labled "Juice (from concentrate), water". For myself, I might prefer the sweet stuff, but for a baby, I would probably prefer the tarter product. In the same way, if given the choice between one movie labled "Sex, dialogue, violence" and "dialogue, sex, violence", I might prefer the first for myself, but the latter for me and my wife. I might even let my kids watch one labled "dialogue, music, romance, sexual situations". This could be something like "Can Can" or any number of 30's movie musicals.