todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/29/85)
All Discussion, Flaming, etc... encouraged!! Subject: DON'T TRY TO BAN PORNOGRAPHY!! IT WON'T WORK!! It seems there is a recent push by an unlikely coalition of Fundamentalist Christian and liberal feminists to outlaw the sale, production and posession of obscene materials. The FCs (Fundamentalist Christians) want it banned because it's flesh worship. The feminists want it banned because it infringes on the civil rights of women. While I find erotica (I define erotica to be literature or or art concerning sexual arousal) non-offensive and healthy, I agree with the FCs; pornography *is* flesh worship. I agree with the feminists to the extent that pornography certainly can depict women in a way that generally degrades the image of women in the eyes of the pornography consumer. But I strongly disagree with any movement to ban pornography (except for child pornography, so flame me on that if you are so inclined) for several reasons. 1. The practicality of enforcement. Who decides what is obscene? A council of religious zealots? A panel of enraged feminists? 2. The practicality of exemptions. Who decides what isn't obscene? the above groups? What if I want The Bible banned for its graphic depictions of lust, adultery, sodomy, etc...? 3. Orwellian approach to literature. Take both of the above reasons, add one part self-righteous feminist and two parts Liberty Bible College hit squad, stir over low flame and voila! You've got someone else telling you what to read and think. NO THANKS!!!! There is no solution to the "problem" of pornography that will leave freedom of the press intact. Don't give me mumbo jumbo about applying "community standards," this is as vague as anything else. Face it, pornography is a pretty small price to pay for something as important as freedom of the press. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
scott@scirtp.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (08/29/85)
Todd includes these among his reasons for opposing a ban on pornorgraphy: > > 1. The practicality of enforcement. > Who decides what is obscene? A council of religious zealots? > A panel of enraged feminists? > > 2. The practicality of exemptions. > Who decides what isn't obscene? the above groups? What if I > want The Bible banned for its graphic depictions of lust, > adultery, sodomy, etc...? > I don't have a stand on the broader issue of porn bans, but concerning these two points I will take exception. Every community has (often broad) standards of morality and taste. What causes Todd to later write that he wouldn't approve of child pornography ? Why would most people be repulsed by ,say, photos of dogs being chopped up (yuck)? Obviously most people feel that these are obscene and their distribution would be detrimental to society as a whole . We can set standards. And we do. Obviously , everyone is not going to be happy with any standard. But the ones we have , although not explicitly stated, do work. I suspect that only a small minority activelly disagree with them. It seems as though the right want newer, narrower standards. That's where the problems arise. In matters of personal taste, the broader the standards , the better. And the happier most people are. -- (Scott Crenshaw @ SCI Systems , Inc.) {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!scott The views expressed are my own, not necessarily those of SCI Systems, Inc., or Monty Python.
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/01/85)
> I don't have a stand on the broader issue of porn bans, but > concerning these two points I will take exception. Every community has > (often broad) standards of morality and taste. What causes Todd to later > write that he wouldn't approve of child pornography ? Why would most > people be repulsed by ,say, photos of dogs being chopped up (yuck)? > Obviously most people feel that these are obscene and their distribution > would be detrimental to society as a whole . We can set standards. > And we do. Obviously , everyone is not going to be happy with any > standard. But the ones we have , although not explicitly stated, > do work. I suspect that only a small minority activelly disagree with them. I thnk that the difference here is that the children and the dogs are not in a position to give any kind of informed consent. The adult men and women who appear in magazines and films are expected to *know* what they are doing. The real problem is not pornography in particular - the type of porn in question is only a symptom of a society-wide attitude that regards women (and sometimes men) as objects. There are types of erotica that are very enjoyable that do not degrade or objectify individuals and it's unfair to lump them all together. -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
waltervj@dartvax.UUCP (walter jeffries) (09/15/85)
Both Todd and Scott, in his follow up, are right. This is why it is so important
that people speakup and voice their opinions about things such as porn, freedom
of the press, etc... Each community will make up its own rules governing the
morality, or lack there of, of their members. If people do not speakup and vote
on these issues we will be controlled by the loud voiced minorities that do so.
Having said that I shoud now add that I am against banning pornography for the
reasons that Todd mentioned, because it could all too easily lead to a stifling
of other forms of expression, and most of all because I do not think that outlaw-
ing porn will lead to better relations between those people who don't respect
each other now. The denegretory (sp?) aspect of porn is a symptom of a sickness
in some people, it's not the cause. If we sweep it under the rug then it will
just become more desirous for some as it gains more of the quality of a forbidden
fruit.
-Walter.
"Never get the mistaken belief that Life is fair, it isn't.
Yet never stop trying to make it so."
***** CLAIMER: all of the above is the opinion of the author but we make no
guarentees as to authors saneness of body or mind.