gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) (09/27/85)
Just a couple of thoughts:
Thought 1:
=========
There are people who are bothered by pornography, and there are people
who are not. There are good arguments both ways for censoring or not
censoring. It is an issue which may never be resolved because it can be an
extremely personal one. Hence, I won't even touch it.
This still leaves a problem: the pervasiveness of pornography. People
who would rather not have anything to do with pornography can very easily
wind up having the offensive (i.e. -- it offends them) material staring them
in the face at their local corner store, bookstore, etc. Putting magazines
6 feet up (so that kids can't paw through them) has the effect (often) of
just making the magazines more visible -- essentially drawing attention to
them, whether you like them or not.
What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where
"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the
*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such
items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography
would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not
have their supply cut off. Comments?
Thought 2:
=========
It has been suggested about that pornographic pictures of adults are
fine because they are obviously consenting adults.
Recently, there was a case here in Toronto where a man somehow got nude
pictures of a woman (ex-girlfriend). He threatened to send the pictures to
one of the various magazines unless she had sex with him. Fortunately for
her, police caught the man (and the negatives) before he could do anything
of the sort.
In an interview some time back (I have no reference, sorry), a top
photographer for a "men's" magazine said that his "best" picture came about
at a time when he was very mad at his ex-wife. He clipped her face out of
a picture he had of her, attached to a body shot of someone else, did
various other cutting and clipping and pasting, and wound up with a picture
which totally demeaned his ex-wife. (Similar to an episode of "That Girl"
[remember that show?] in which the heroine was shocked to find that she
was the centerfold for some magazine that she had never posed for. Turned
out that the photographer had done a little bit of creative cutting and
pasting.)
Finally, on an episode of "WKRP in Cincinatti" (sorry, no "real-life"
story here), a photographer had a peephole into his models' dressing rooms
so he could take pictures of them while they changed. Seems he had a neat
little release form which stated that *any* pictures taken on the premises
were his and could be used in any way he saw fit.
Now, I am not saying that this sort of thing is the case for all nude
pictures. It's just instructive to note that in some cases (with regard
to adults), it is *not* a case of consenting adults.
--
Geoff Loker
Department of Computer Science
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON
M5S 1A4
USENET: {ihnp4 decwrl utzoo uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!gkloker
CSNET: gkloker@toronto
ARPANET: gkloker.toronto@csnet-relaymfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (09/29/85)
> Geoff Loker: > > Thought 1: > [ A proposal to limit pornography sales to "specialty" stores located in > a specific area and providing only porn ] I understand the city of Boston did something similar, with its Combat District/Red Light Zone. Any residents of that area have any comments on the results of that experiment? Generally, the only problem I see with this approach is: where to put them? Places like New York have Times Square. What to do with the small town where the only "porn" is Playboy at the drugstore counter? Do we force some entrepreneur to go into a socially castigated business? > Thought 2: > It has been suggested about that pornographic pictures of adults are > fine because they are obviously consenting adults. > [ Some examples where pictures where doctored or obtained illicitly ] Unless the person in question is a public figure, publishing someone's picture without approval is cause for a libel suit, regardless of doctoring, so long as the person in question is clearly recognizable. If the person is a public figure, it gets tougher, as Henry Kissinger found out when a magazine (The National Lampoon, I think) published a nude picture of a man with Henry's head pasted on. The satirical context, plus the fact that the picture was an obvious hoax may have had something to do with the fact that Kissinger did not sue. Likewise, a model release for a picture taken without prior approval is not worth much. A photographer friend has told me of shooting a woman he saw in the street, then approaching her with a model release form. She sued him for invasion of privacy, and won. The point is valid, though farfetched. Linda Lovelace has claimed she was forced to "perform" in "Deep Throat." I don't know how, or whether this imbroglio was legally resolved. Marcel Simon
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (10/01/85)
In article <732@utai.UUCP> gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) writes: >Just a couple of thoughts: > >Thought 1: >========= > What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where >"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the >*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such >items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography >would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not >have their supply cut off. Comments? I think adult bookstores already fulfill this function. The problem, as usual, comes down to drawing a line in the gray area of what is and isn't pornography. I don't think anyone would disagree that the contents of an adult bookstore is pornography. That's the business they're in. On the other hand, is Playboy pornographic? How about a coffee table type book of nude photography? How about Degas' "Naked Maja" painting? Who decides? By what right or authority? A friend of mine once went into an adult bookstore and asked for a copy of Playboy. The proprietor was actually insulted! He replied rather haughtily to the effect that "... we don't carry that sort of stuff here.". In fact, I've never seen a Playboy, or any other "news stand" type nudie magazine, in an adult bookstore. One person's porn is another person's art. >Thought 2: >========= > It has been suggested about that pornographic pictures of adults are >fine because they are obviously consenting adults. > [ Examples of pictures of non-consenting adults finding their way > into publication.] > Now, I am not saying that this sort of thing is the case for all nude >pictures. It's just instructive to note that in some cases (with regard >to adults), it is *not* a case of consenting adults. This sort of thing is grounds for _major_ legal action. Awards have been known to run into the $millions. Even a model release isn't good for much if the person who signs it claims they were coerced. (Needless to say, one should _never_ voluntarily sign such a release, or anything else, without first reading, understanding, and agreeing to _all_ of what it says). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/12/85)
In article <732@utai.UUCP> gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) writes: > What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where >"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the >*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such >items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography >would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not >have their supply cut off. Comments? Sounds fine to me so long as you mean that people would never have to go LOGICALLY near these places, rather than PHYSICALLY, if you know what I mean. Staying five miles from an army camp that sends out crazed killers, you might feel physically distanced from the military training, but you might still end up dead. If violent pornography is distributed five miles away, you might not see it, but you still might end up raped & cut up in some alley. Happens. What you have to do is transport the people who like pornography to a different PLANET, more than 100 light years away, to totally prevent the possibility of anything they do influencing the people who are scared of or don't like pornography, like me. Alan J Rosenthal decvax!utzoo!utcs!flaps (I hope no one minds me responding two weeks late to this, if there is duplication, but I think that what I have to say is fairly interesting.)
mce@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Mark McEntee%CGL) (10/14/85)
In article <909@utcs.uucp> flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >> What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where >>"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the >>*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such >>items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography >>would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not >>have their supply cut off. Comments? > (Alan's reply) >Sounds fine to me so long as you mean that people would never have to go >LOGICALLY near these places, rather than PHYSICALLY, if you know what I >mean. Staying five miles from an army camp that sends out crazed killers, >you might feel physically distanced from the military training, but you >might still end up dead. If violent pornography is distributed five miles >away, you might not see it, but you still might end up raped & cut up in >some alley. Happens. What you have to do is transport the people who like >pornography to a different PLANET, more than 100 light years away, to >totally prevent the possibility of anything they do influencing the people >who are scared of or don't like pornography, like me. > >Alan J Rosenthal decvax!utzoo!utcs!flaps > >(I hope no one minds me responding two weeks late to this, if there is >duplication, but I think that what I have to say is fairly interesting.) No, Alan. What you have to say is not interesting in the least. It is just a rehash of the old anti-porn fantasy ... violent porn is the DOMINANT reason for some people going out and raping and cutting, or cutting and raping as the case may be (heard about a weird, grotesque case in W. Germany in which the order mattered. Write to me for details.). Anyhoo, outlawing porn is not going to solve the matter ... the sickies will not settle down with suits and ties in the suburbs. The people who have to go to the different planet are those who can't handle reality ... what you have to do is appoint yourself spiritual leader of a flock of sheep ... like Jimmy Jones ... you'll need them, what use is there in having your way the RIGHT way if you can't share it with others? ... and head for your favorite life-supporting solar system. Then you'll enjoy life ... until the Outworlders come.
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/18/85)
> In article <732@utai.UUCP> gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) writes: > > What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where > >"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the > >*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such > >items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography > >would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not > >have their supply cut off. Comments? YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY, FRIENDS! ||||||| what can't i read today? || || / [ @-@ ] Todd Jones \ L / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | o | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/21/85)
> > In article <732@utai.UUCP> gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) writes: > > > What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where > > >"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the > > >*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such > > >items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography > > >would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not > > >have their supply cut off. Comments? > > YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY, FRIENDS! > It's in the dictionary, look it up. If porn was not defined, then it wouldn't be in the dictionary, in fact, it wouldn't be a word. All this talk of porn being in the bible and if you censored porn most of the bible would be censored as well is pure unintelligible garbage. Porn is porn is porn period. As you can see, I don't feel like playing semantics today.
lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty) (10/22/85)
> > In article <732@utai.UUCP> gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) writes: > > > What might be a good idea is setting up some central locations where > > >"dirty" magazines, movies, etc, are available. These locations would be the > > >*only* places where they would be sold, and they would sell *only* such > > >items. This plan has the virtue that people who are offended by pornography > > >would never have to go near these places, and people who like it would not > > >have their supply cut off. Comments? > > YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY, FRIENDS! "The depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement." That's from Webster's--hope it helps.(8-) Lee
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/24/85)
>> >It's in the dictionary, look it up. If porn was not defined, then it wouldn't >be in the dictionary, in fact, it wouldn't be a word. All this talk of porn >being in the bible and if you censored porn most of the bible would be censored >as well is pure unintelligible garbage. Porn is porn is porn period. As you >can see, I don't feel like playing semantics today. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: pornography n. Written, graphic or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings. By whose lascivious feelings shall we judge? What if your favorite book or movie excites lascivious feelings in me? Shall we ban it? I don't feel like "playing semantics" either but the problem that you and many others seem eager to ignore is that this is *just* such a semantic[1] problem. *Whose* meaning do we accept? This (or any other) definition just doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. It is certainly not an adequate criterion for banning a book, photograph, painting, motion picture, sculpture ... ---------- [1] "It's in the dictionary, look it up." -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/25/85)
> > > > YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY, FRIENDS! > > > It's in the dictionary, look it up. If porn was not defined, then it wouldn't > be in the dictionary, in fact, it wouldn't be a word. All this talk of porn > being in the bible and if you censored porn most of the bible would be censored > as well is pure unintelligible garbage. Porn is porn is porn period. As you > can see, I don't feel like playing semantics today. This is the second posting I have seen suggesting that the dictionary definition of "pornography" be used. This won't work. What is needed is a legal definition, carefully worded to include what you want and exclude what you don't want. The English language contains many ambiguous and vague words, because English (and all other human languages) are about life, which can't be precisely understood. But laws in the United States are required to be precise and unambiguous. I have a project for you, Ray. Write a law outlawing pornography, where the definition of pornography reads "porn is porn, period". Then try to get it passed through the legislature. If by some miracle you manage to get it passed, then see how long it lasts before the court declares it unconstitutionally vague. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/25/85)
> > YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY, FRIENDS! > >"The depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement." That's > from Webster's--hope it helps.(8-) OK, great. Now tell me, what's wrong with that? (Mr Frank?) There's nothing like getting back to basics... Jeff Winslow
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (10/25/85)
In article <385@dsi1.UUCP> lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty) writes: >> YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY, FRIENDS! > >"The depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement." That's >from Webster's--hope it helps.(8-) > Lee I guess that means, if we ban all "porn", we have to ban the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman."-- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john ^^^^ note new path-------------||
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (10/27/85)
>>It's in the dictionary, look it up. If porn was not defined, then >>it wouldn't be in the dictionary, in fact, it wouldn't be a word. Charlie Sorsby: >From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: > pornography n. Written, graphic or other forms of communication > intended to excite lascivious feelings. In other words, "pornography" is a synonym for _erotica_. I can see why religious people have long tried to ban pornography. Pornography make living a holy lifestyle more difficult. It demeans women by insinuating that they enjoy the same evil animal desires as men. On the other hand, magazines like "True Detective" (with cover photo of a psychopath holding a knife to the throat of a bound and gagged young woman) is OK. After all, these were around even before pornography was legalized. Sarcasticly, Frank Silbermann