Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!nike!oliveb!prs From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <41@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 16:19:58 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.41 Posted: Tue Sep 30 16:19:58 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:29:32 EDT References: <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <782@mtund.UUCP> <1562@mtx5a.UUCP> <1172@oliveb.UUCP> <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) Distribution: net Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 165 Keywords: not a flame, but long again... Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:463 net.legal:4896 soc.singles:323 In article <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a >good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it. [...oops, my deletion makes 1st, law, and 2nd, social, a bit unclear...] >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 >that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche >since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing >us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot >be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the >first until we get the other stuff straightened out. 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. In my case the latter: 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! I hope the law will be thrown out, but in the mean time it is having a definite "chilling effect" (according to the MacNeil-Lehrer program last Friday, my sole source of information on this law) on not only video rentals but art galleries and college courses on foreign film. I forget the exact link, but I think that they said that Sears, the head of the porn commission, was responsible for this dubious legislation. 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) (You may want to edit subject line in followups) 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.... >It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading [...] >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? I certainly 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. >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 attempting to remove the encouragement so such 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. Being of a "conservative mindset", you probably don't want to think about authoritarianism causing a terrible toll of suffering, but *please do*. (I have already cited researchers on this issue, if I remember correctly). 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. >[...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. The same can be said of High Times encouraging drug use, sort of. You have not shown that a significant percentage of the (millions of??) people viewing "unusual" practices are insensitive and stupid enough to attempt to inflict them on an unwilling loved one, but even if you did, 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! 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). >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 ``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*. (I like Bill T's answer to this paragraph). To you, 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). There is much precedence for this, such as asking acused witches to pass a test that no-one could pass. Rigged data. Only we're much more sophisticated about it these days. >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). >[... the testimony of law enforcement officials ... >... the testimony that certain offenders have large collections ... >when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the >material 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, 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???? > from Mole End Mark Terribile 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. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)