poli-sci@ucbvax.UUCP (09/20/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 20 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 89
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Porn
Freedom etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 September 1984 01:30-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: "Violent Porn"
From: WDOHERTY at BBNG
... even if we accept that words and pictures can lead someone to
violent action in exceptional cases, does that mean that we should
try to ... ban the literature involved? I believe the answer is
no.
The benefits achieved by the free exchange of words and pictures
far outweigh the deficits of violent action that occurs partially
as a result of such words and pictures.
I see that you have adopted a different standard here than the one you
advocated in the discussion a few months ago. Now you are balancing
the benefits against the "deficits." Earlier, you said, in effect,
that nothing that does not pose a "clear and present danger" should be
banned.
Assuming that the balancing standard is the correct one, why doesn't
it prohibit, say, pictures depicting violence against women? I'm sure
we're agreed that such pictures, in and of themselves, are of no
benefit to society, and possibly of some definite harm. Maybe you
will claim that, while there would be no harm in banning just those
pictures, it might "open the door" to banning all sorts of other
things in which various people saw "no benefit" to society. In other
words, where would we draw the line? The answer to that is, of
course, that the existence of twilight doesn't deny night and day.
Just because some pornography would fall in the "twilight"
category--that is, it could be subject to legitimate dispute--doesn't
mean that other pornography would not be clearly acceptable or
unacceptable. And we're only talking about banning what's clearly
unacceptable, what no reasonable person could defend--for example
pictures depicting women being raped or beaten.
- James Cox
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 13:13:42 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Subject: speak for yourself...
I believe that we don't know how much such materials can affect the
individual.
Except I've never heard anyone claim that such materials affect him in any
way; we're always quite prepared to claim that porn affects the other guy,
or the nameless "individual", but it never, but never, affects me.....
Phooey. If porn doesn't incite violence on a regular basis among real
people, as opposed to the nameless "individual", then it's harmless, and
your claim is bogus.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Sep 1984 07:34:50-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Freedom, etc.
THe problem with the neo-nazis at Skokie was not really one of freedom
of speech, but rather a deprivation of the right of the residents of
Skokie to quiet enjoyment of their property.
If they had been allowed the freedom to determine absolutely who can
enter their (perhaps collectively owned) property, the n-n's would
simply have been guilty of trespass. Very few people, even in Skokie,
to believe the reports, had any intention of trying to muzzle the n-n's.
Freedom peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress
of grievances does not, or at least should not, imply the right to
assemble on someone else's property.
Therefore, rather than even consider abridging the concept of freedom
of speech, it would be preferable to allow neighborhoods to buy their
streets, et cetera, and incorporate them into a (perhaps nonprofit)
corporation which could vote to exclude neo-nazis, left-handed Latvians,
blonds, senior citizens, and/or Jews.
And before anyone starts flaming about what a horribly remark that last
sentence was, let me say in passing that although an entire side of my
family was annihilated by the nazis, I'd rather allow bigots to hang
signs on their establishments (public or private, as long as they don't
get gov't money) saying, "no Jews or dogs," than have the gov't abridge
their freedom to do so. (Also as an aside, I have, in fact, been turned
away from places because of my fairly obvious Jewishness, so I know
what that experience feels like.)
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 22:18 EDT
From: Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Stomping extremists
"... some ideas--like those of the Nazi and Communist parties--
simply have no right to win out in the free market of ideas,
because they are utterly incompatible with the principles of
justice at the root of society."
I believe Mr. Cox is ignoring part of the purpose of the process
of free speech, which is to protect even those ideas which part
or all of the surrounding society would like to express.
Admittedly, it is extremely difficult to argue the case of a
handful of hateful old Illinois racists, *but* there are often
extremist groups whose actions become the basis for the very
systems of justice and freedom Mr. Cox would seek to protect.
Consider a few historical examples:
(1) During the late 1850's, a new political party appeared in the
northern, industrialized states. Fueled by the hatred of the
machine operators for their more civilized neighbors, this party
openly advocated expropriation of a large part of the American
population. Through demagoguery and political subterfuge,
including the undermining of the esteemed Democratic Party, this
organization successfully captured the Presidency, after which
time it proceeded to act so abominably that the South was forced
to exercise its constitutional right of secession. Not satisfied
with merely stirring up hatred against the new Confederacy, the
Northern radicals refused to vacate military bases in Confederate
territory, and eventually used the Confederacy's legitimate
response to this act of war as an excuse to carry out their plan
to utterly destroy the economy and infrastructure of the southern
states.
(2) The 1770's saw the rapid rise to power of a group of
disgruntled intellectuals who proposed to replace the rightful
authority of Parliament and the King, by violence if necessary,
with a system of unfettered mob rule. Although not an immediate
physical threat to the Empire, this organization engaged in an
active campaign of suborning military officers, inciting the
public to riot, terrorism, and committing high treason by
colluding with foreign enemies of the Crown. At a cost of
thousands of lives, these radicals succeeded in permanently
disrupting the Pax Britannia which had kept the violent forces of
the world in check since the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
These examples are not isolated; indeed, it would not be
difficult to argue that much of modern history has been carried
through by extreme and sometimes violent organizations. In many
cases this does not produce a positive effect (e.g., Nazi Germany
or Soviet Russia). But by suppressing fringe elements because
they threaten the current theories of rights or justice, one
commits a greater crime than hypocrisy; one dooms oneself to a
possibly undesirable status quo which continues because only
extremists are capable of seeing its faults.
--Jim Aspnes (Aspnes@MULTICS.ARPA)
------------------------------
Date: Wed 19 Sep 84 14:55:56-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
"Freedom lies in the absence of coercion"
Josh
This is pleasant, poetic nonsense. Social interaction does
not exist without coercion. It's just that at the lower/more subltle
end of the scale we call it "persuasion" or "social pressure". If you
know how to push someone's psycological buttons, you can coerce them
just as surely as if you had a gun at their head. The former is called
"persuasion". They are morally equivalent.
TCS
[If you believe that persuasion and what I call coercion, ie pointing
a gun at your head, are morally equivalent, do you feel that you have
the right to shoot me because I try to persuade you otherwise?
(Which I am indeed trying...) --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 13:17 EST
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Internal conflicts in Liberal-Libertarianism
Let me identify two strains of Libertarianism:
1) existential-Libertarianism:
According to Sarte - I am always completely free no matter what
laws/regulations society makes. My freedom is never Maximized... It is
always maximized, I only limit it when I don't recognize my inherent
freedom in every situation. This sort of Libertarianism is not
threatened by the questions I posed earlier.
2) Liberal-Libertarianism:
In this system I ask others in society to act in a way I feel increases my
autonomy and choices.
I think people missed the boat on the conflicts I presented that occur
within this system.
When people claim that seat-belt laws are an encrochment by goverment,
but laws against violent ponography are not - you are not making
NECESSARY objective compromises, you are applying a personal standard.
you happen to feel that rural zoning is useful, I happen to think not.
These things tend to come to a head in cases such as biblical creation
and abortion. Here is the case that is made: "I have the freedom to
think the thoughts I wish and to teach them to my children: how dare
you tell me that I cannot teach them the world is flat and was created
in 6 days. Where is your tolerance? It only appears when the item under
question is part of the liberal agenda. But if I turn around and try
and call your abortion murder, you talk about personal rights."
Cuomo really presented a perspective that really makes the discussion
more confused. He basically said that: "sure, I have the right to
restrict your freedom of abortion, but I only push for such limitations
of freedom when there is a consensus". Do I also kill myself (euthenasia)
when there is a consensus that it would be best?
A story from the Wall Street Journal: "A student turns in a paper about
ethical relativism. The teacher gives him an "F". The student complains:
"was not the paper a good paper". Teacher: "I thought it deserved an "F".
<In my value system system it is an "F"> Student: "You can't do that!!!"
(what happened to the student's tolerance of other's freedom to choose
their value system).
- Steve Gutfreund
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------