rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski) (02/16/84)
Since when is sexual harassment ``speech'' ? I'm afraid that the soi-disant ``liberal'' interpretation of ``speech,'' which has been over-extended to things like occupying other peoples' land without asking them, has finally backfired. As far as child pornography goes: I don't claim to have a totally coherent position on the rights of children, but I doubt that most children would either voluntarily participate in the making of such material, nor would they understand the consequences. Child pornography, as I understand it, as bad because its child participants are too immature to make a choice, to make an uncoerced decision. If someone could come up with ``synthetic'' kiddie porn, maybe that would be a different story. What I am getting at here is, I don't consider sexual harrassment a free speech issue: it is clearly a kind of coercion in which one's sexual ``space'' is being invaded. Therefore, this reasoning: Sexual harrassment is bad speech. [I'd say is a bad *action*.] Pornography is bad speech. Sexual harrassment is against the law. [And quite rightly so.] Therefore, pornography is sexual harrassment, and should be against the law. is consistent, but the premise that holds it all together is *WRONG*. Pornography, no matter how disgusting to onlooking parties, does not have the same effect: I challenge anyone on the network to give evidence that pornography *causes* sexual harrassment or sexual violence against women. Please note, too, that many European countries, are very lax about pornography, and these governments are of the enlightened socialist ilk, where they probably bravely championed the cause against stodgy Old Guard types. There's a grievous legal danger in the ``civil rights'' (oh the doublespeak !) attack on pornography: by claiming that the mere availability of certain materials actually violates rights, without legally being required to show the cause and effect relationship (and prehaps impugning bad faith on the pornographer's part), a successfull attack would expand the bounds of legal reponsibility to unmanagable frontiers. -- ``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski) ARPA: RpK@MC MIT Local: RpK@OZ UUCP: genradbo!miteddie!rpk or genradbo!miteddie!mitvax!rpk
akt@mcnc.UUCP (Amit Thakur) (03/26/84)
consider the following: if computer graphics technology were to advance to the point where "life-like" movies could be created, (where one could not tell if a real or computer-drawn person was on the silver screen), should computer produced kiddie-porn be legal? right now the best argument against kiddie-porn is that kids do not know enough to make uncoerced decisions about participation in pornographic movies. akt at ...decvax!mcnc!akt