Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!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: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <1597@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 04:53:33 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1597 Posted: Fri Oct 10 04:53:33 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:03:55 EDT References: <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <782@mtund.UUCP> <1562@mtx5a.UUCP> <1172@oliveb.UUCP> <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> <41@oliveb.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 338 Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:634 net.legal:5366 soc.singles:498 > > ... > >It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and > >esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes > >[we see most clearly happened] since 1962, ... trying to do both at once > >is preventing us from evaluating ... either. ... the second cannot be > >stopped ... I would argue for a slowing ... of the first ... > > You are welcome to argue, but I'm glad you are not in a position to dictate. > And I do not understand you saying "slowing and stabilizing", when you *seem* > to be implying a need for radical backtracking. Since you haven't clearly > stated what you *are* arguing for, it is easy to read into your arguments > either what one hopes or fears. *VERY* important. This whole subject is terribly laden with values, fears, and personal vendettas, mixed (unfortunately) with some very real harms. Even the dissenting member of the AG's Commission agreed on these harms. I will soon post the dissenting sections, along with an apology for the delay. It is *not* a small file. > ... I fear repression such as is happening now in (No. or So.) Carolina. > Felony status for "pornography" sale, minimum 3 year sentence, and no-one > knows what is legal and what is not! Even the DA's don't know! ... it is > having a definite "chilling effect" (according to the MacNeil-Lehrer program > last Friday, ...) on ... art galleries and college courses on foreign film. > ... they said that Sears, the head of the porn commission, was responsible ... I dearly hope that a bunch of good constitutional lawyers get involved here soon. I more dearly hope that it proves to be unnecessary. As far as knowing what is legal: if it doesn't fall within the *Miller* standard, it cannot be banned outright, but if you are worried that some people may sit on the appeal for several tens of weeks, I fear that you may be right. The Chairman of the AG's Commission was Henry E. Hudson. The other Commissioners were Judith Veronica Becker, Diane D. Cusack, Park Elliott Dietz, James C. Dobson, Edward J. Garcia, Ellen Levine, Tex Lezar, Bruce Ritter, Frederick Schauer, and Deanne Tilton -- 11 in all. Alan E. Sears served as the Executive Director. His influence appears to be small indeed on the Commission if this is truly what his position is, since the Commission appears to have repudiated this position. Note, I said ``appears to have''! Clearly the presence of a someone with the views and agendas that you are attributing to him would lead anyone to ask if the Commission was a whitewash. But there is a difference between asking if it was a whitewash and concluding that it was. Now, Alan Sears is a criminal lawyer (government/prosecuting attorney) and he ought to have understood what will and will not stand up in a court of law and under a Constitutional challenge. Practicing trial lawyers, for better or worse, do not make law; legislators do. This causes a great deal of judicial effort to be spent determining ``legislative intent''; it also probably causes more Constitutional challenges than might otherwise occur. These are costly, but in the long run they contribute to the growth (up, not out, we may hope!) of our legal system. I *do* hope that the open issues get resolved. If the law was written by legislators on a hometown bandstand, it should get the shakeup it deserves if/when it comes to a proper challenge. The really unfortunate part is that the challenge will be funded by the commercial money -- the mass market sex industries -- rather than the people who are really concerned with the political, literary, scientific, and educational values that are supposed to be protected. But remember, the state XYZ Carolina has the right to ban certain things, liquor included. And some southern states do have ``dry counties.'' I don't see this as such a bad thing, *so long as it is done within the requirements of the Miller standard* or whatever refinement of it the Supreme Court develops after the next serious challenge, and so long as it really does reflect local mores. My recollection is that the M/N News Hour, while a very good program, does drift to a liberal viewpoint, and this seems to be a subject upon which moderation and reason are difficult. I second your call for solid information. > Two questions... > > To the net, incl MT: Does anyone have more precise info on this bill, and/or > first-hand observation on how much "chilling effect" is happening? (I'm not > sure whether it was No. or So. Carolina, please adjust as needed) > To MT: Care to clarify whether this (No. or So.) Carolina bill corresponds > to what you mean by "slowing and stabilizing"? Or simply use it as a starting > point; no need to defend the bill's implementation just because I assume that > you approve of its intent.... A bill such as you describe probably does not. The combination of ``dry county'' status for material not protected under a standard a little bit looser than *Miller* might be. Again, I second your call for information. Other topic: > >Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to > >testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean > >that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? . . . > > Your phrasing is based on complete negation of the point I had made, to which > you had otherwise seemed to be responding quite reasonably. I did not > and do not believe that these things (porn) "lead to the abuse". The first > half of your sentence does not fit the second half. ``Lead to'' was a poor term. Insofar as there are some offenders who use certain material in patterns of abuse, I think it worthy to consider making it harder to come by that material. Where the material is used innocently by 98% of its users, that may be inappropriate. Where it is used innocently by less than 50%, if such a category exists, we should consider restrictions, if they do not endanger the Bill of Rights. (I think that there was an article in this batch that will lead to a somewhat fuller discussion on this point ...) > >accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased > >openness, but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that > ^^^^^^^^^ > >mean that we should cease [trying to remove encouragement to abuse]? > > I don't claim to know. But I strongly suspect that such abuse (of spouses and > children) is fueled more by authoritarianism than by pornography, and I see > (radically) increased censorship contributing more to the major cause of abuse > than it subtracts from the minor (if even significant!) cause. ... you > probably don't want to think about authoritarianism causing a terrible toll > of suffering, but *please do*. (I have already cited researchers ... I don't recall the citation. Would you mind posting it again? It is harder for me to see the damage done by authoritarianism as it happens than for me to see the damage done by what appears to be lack of concern for the side effects of one's actions (as opposed to direct effects.) Are we in agreement that there is room for damage at both extrema, and that sometimes damage from the extrema may occur no matter how we try to find a safe center? > A case might be made for more moderate censorship, but you have only hinted > at whether you (or the dread Commission) support moderate or drastic or > draconian measures. However, I suggest that non-authoritarian censorship > is a contradiction in terms. I picked up the banner on this topic because of the attitude expressed in ``the dread Commission'', although the fact that we are even *talking* about the matter suggests that we've removed some of the taboos. (Does that sound familiar?) As for the Commission, most of the Commissioners expressed regret at not having the time to come to a better consensus. Perhaps as a result, the document can be read as coming from a range of positions, not all of them radical conservative ones (but some of them, no doubt). I suggest that non-authoritarian liquor laws, zoning and public nuisance laws, and decency laws would be a contradiction in terms if the enforcement agencies could not overlook the adult with a beer in a paper bag sitting in a corner of the park out of general sight, if Waldenbooks was zoned as an adult bookstore because it sells ``The Joy of Sex'' and ``Valley of the Dolls'', if you got a fine when the lid fell off your garbage can one morning, or if you were hauled into court when you forgot to close the drapes when taking off your woolen business suit one Friday afternoon. But such excessive zeal is the exception rather than the rule, and in general these laws and their enforcement reflect a something like a common consensus. Thus they are not viewed as authoritarian. > >[...comparison of unusual sex practices to flying jets...] > >would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that > >encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes? > > Biker magazines encourage lawlessness, sort of, but I see no persuasive case > made that outlawing biker mags would have a good effect. ... warning lables > might be more appropriate; make the *information*, including illustrative > pictures and video, still available, but label it with a warning such as: > > As you no doubt realize, the practices shown in this video are > not to everyone's liking, and so should not be forced on > anyone. Obviously. You might use it to bring up the subject > to a loved one, but beyond that please just enjoy watching. > And remember, we fake a lot of this dramatic stuff, just like > mainstream films do. "Don't try this at home, kids" applies > to some of it, just as it would to car-chase scenes! Why not? ... although there could still be room for restrictions that are both within the *Miller* standard and representative of local mores. This might keep things out of the civil courts; on the other hand where harms *do* occur, it may be easier to get a conviction if the person indicted were to be shown to be using material in clear violation of the manufacturer's recommendations. > Neither authoritarian nor censorship. And much too reasonable for any > government body to approve, I suppose. (btw, the actual publishers > would choose entirely different wording; this is just an example. And > I've actually seen well-thought-out disclaimers in "specialty" magazines... > some worded as if by lawyers, some as an editorial, and some a person to > person plea to be careful with certain potentially dangerous practices). Perhaps too reasonable in the current climate. I'm sure that the current worded disclaimers were designed to protect against *civil* suits, since it's much easier to get a civil conviction (``preponderance of evidence'' rather than ``guilt beyond reasonable doubt'') and the civil courts are both used and misused for that reason. > >The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about > > I suppose I said something about education instead of prohibition. But I > wasn't really talking about "sex education" in the sense of school-board > approved classes for adolescents. I had something more universal in mind, > like prime time television specials, implicite references during sit-coms, > realistic treatment in hollywood movies... no, I don't have a specific > program to lobby for, I think it's already happening voluntarily and will > continue *if they are not scared off by repressive legislation and > hysterical conservative boycotts*. Not that *you* advocate such extreme > measures, MT, but some such suggestions *have* been associated with The > Commission. Your own moderateness is unclear to me. As far as TV specials, fine, although Kenn Barry has an idea that I'll reply to later that I really *do* like. As far as sitcoms, etc, I hold out very little hope that our current crop of shows (with a few exceptions) is capable of teaching *anything* positive. Except for the Cosby Show I've seen little (I'm not a regular viewer of *anything*, so caution here) if anything that triggered as much genuine empathy for conflict as -- watch this, folks, you won't believe it -- *Leave It To Beaver* or the occasional good episode of *Hazel*. I'm not really that moderate, but I'd like to think that I *do* listen to reason, and to alternate proposals. And what I heard on this group about the AG C's Report, before this discussion started, looked like posturing. Now it may not have been. But it certainly got *my* dander up. > >As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there > >is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we > >ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if > >there is. > Yes, you *would*. ... porn is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just > a question of finding a palatable way to prove what you already "know". In > the meanwhile, lets ban it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know > that's not what you think you are saying, but that's how I hear it). Maybe I *am* saying it, although I hope it gets a public airing before we do anything on it! I *do* believe that certain uses of certain type of sexually explicit materials are harmful. Some of these are easy to make a case for, although how well that case will stand will indeed depend upon what *good* research with *representative* subjects will turn up, and some will depend upon what I think are collective societal values (mores) and who agrees with me. Other types will probably be impossible to prove in the short term, and we may decide that the effects of trying to prevent them are more damaging than the harms (my hypothetical harm to interpersonal relationships caused by focusing on *material* rather than on people). But we'll never know until we begin to talk frankly and find out what we think and what we know, rather than just what we think the other fellow is trying to do and what we know we would like to watch tonight. > >But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to > >see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re- > >directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the > >study remains objective and the methods reliable. > > Sorry, I'm not a statistician. Does ".05 level" means 95% certanty and ".005 > level" 99.5% certainty? And if so, certainty of *what*? If it is certainty > that there is *measurable* effect, it is not neccesarily certainty of > *significant* effect, in the sense of significant enough to justify making > the materials in question unavailable (except to experimenters). Ok. Prob and Stat was not my strong area in school, nor is it my bread and butter, so if Adam (or some other personwho *is* well versed in these things) would be kind enough to correct any error or misconception I present, I would appreciate it. Saying that the result is significant at the .05 level is saying that if the trials in the experiment were replaced by random coin tosses, no more than one full set of trials in 20 such sets (.05 in 1) would show as many (heads/tails) as this experiment did. > > [given certain testimonies ] > >... is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that > ^^^^^^ > >for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of > >the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense. > Investigate is nice harmless word, but you *seem* to want to investigate this > possibility by removing an *unspecified* range of materials from everyone's > accessibility. Your reference here seems to be to pedophilia, but you have > said similar things about violent porn, which you shade together sometimes > with so-called "psychologically violent" porn, ... I'm being vague to see if we have a place where we agree. There are some people who can and will use *anything* as an instrument or inspiration to harm, just as there are *some* who will become violent and obnoxious on half- a-can of Bud. On the other hand, many more (though still a small minority in the population) will become obnoxious or violent after two or three shots of whiskey. Is it within the purview of a State Liquor Authority to permit the sales of beer, wine, and ale/stout in many outlets, and to restrict the sale of ``hard'' beverages to a few well-policed outlets? Many states hold that it is. Even the dissenting members of the Commission felt that the ``degrading'' material *might* be involved in harms and that investigation is definately warranted, both to determine what constitutes ``degrading'' material, and to whom, and whether any such material *does* cause harms. > ... which may include Playboy, but you call us overreacting if we mention > Playboy, 'cause the courts have already ruled it OK... can you begin to see > that it might be your responsibility that we are (I am) a little confused > about just what you are arguing for???? Well, I try to respond to what is written! When someone mentions specific anxieties about specific things, even if they seem a little exaggerated for effect, I try to answer them in the current context. In the end, I wholeheartedly agree that what is needed are better public attitudes. In the absence of these, where there is reasonable belief to assume that harms are occurring, we should consider relieving the harms, taking into account the nature of the harms, their severity and the extent to which we can localize them and link them directly to causes, the other harms that may result from the remedies, and a hundred and one other things. In these considerations, there is plenty of room for disagreement, and I think that more than anything we need to start talking, and we need to sift the material we have before deciding that it is worthless. Hell, I posture a lot on a lot of things. I hope that there comes a point where wiser people than me can tell me that the time for posturing is past. > However, you must be making *some* sense, or we (I) wouldn't bother answering > you. Don't take that as *much* of a compliment, just a small one. You are > making enough sense that it would be a shame to give up on you as too vague > to respond to. Actually, given the philosophical gulf between many of the other folk here and me, I think it's a very big compliment. Of course, you are helping! > - Phil -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.