gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/01/70)
-- [I said, in response to Frank Silvermann] > > Sorry, you can't simply define away the problem [porn]. The fact is > > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does > > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize > > their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > > pornographers responsible for their actions. [Evelyn Leeper] > Oh, does this mean that men who feel they are defamed by feminists > who claim "all men are rapists" can sue them and expect to collect? > > Evelyn C. Leeper Sorry for the oversimplification. First off, there's a difference between having status to sue and expecting to collect. Second, having status to sue (in US law, anyway) is predicated on the notion of real (i.e., monetary or reducable thereto) damages. It's not a matter of feeling one is defamed--you have to be able to show how you, personally (or as a class, I suppose), were materially wronged. Some types of published material are already subject to such law. Who was it (Liz Taylor?) who took the National Enquirer to the cleaners? This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights". (It's under- standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.) And thus legal responsibilities, which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but certainly ought to, derive from moral responsibilities. Responsibility is not proscription. I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, libelous. I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights, my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any analogous responsibilities. I thought that ethical egoism (the notion that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101. Now, these folks have almost no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they don't know. Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it false. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 17 Sep 85 [1ier Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
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."
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (09/03/85)
Todd argues against a ban on pornography for the following 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. I disagree strongly with this position, popular as it is among the white liberal males of my acquaintance, and some of the women. First of all, Todd reveals that he has already formed certain opinions about the "religious zealots" and "enraged feminists" which make him believe they are unfit to judge pornography, or to ban certain allegedly pornographic materials. I think this is unfair both to concerned Christians (or members of other religions, like me) and to feminists, some of whom neither rage nor foam at the mouth. Todd is not making a fair judgement here. Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; Todd seems to feel that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only to sick people. Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy (any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and ashamed, for him. Ellen Eades -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/04/85)
> Ellen Eades: > Todd [Jones] seems to feel > that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue > with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one > who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* > material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly > any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only > to sick people. > Child pornography is illegal, not as pornography, but as kidapping and child molestation. Snuff films are likewise illegal as kidnapping and first degree murder. Incidentally, despite much searching, snuff films have never been proven to exist or to have ever existed. > To me, the fact that the > institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children > daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against > weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient > interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, > The "violent thought and actions" argument is as much a value judgement on your part as the "religious zealots and enraged feminists" you deplore. The data on the effect of pornography on violent tendencies is inconclusive at best. Viewing violence, whether in pornography or in "The A Team" may well induce violent actions and thoughts. Viewing non-violent pornography has *not* been shown to increase violent or aggressive tendencies. > Were I to find that an otherwise kind, > intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography > or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman > and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on > those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, > spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and > whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his > deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to > death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and > ashamed, for him. > While I appreciate and respect your feelings on the issue, they do not carry much weight in the context of banning pornography. Before any discussion of a ban or restriction can even begin, it is necessary to define pornography. Such a definition must be more precise than "I know it when I see it and most people would agree with me." It must be the kind of definition you can hand to a police officer and reasonnably expect to be carried out in *unbiased* manner. If you are able to arrive at a definition of pornography that is not impossibly vague and at the same time does not include, say, Cosmopolitan magazine, "Lady Chatterley's Lover", or Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons (unless you wish to ban these too, in which case Todd's First Amendment argument becomes powerful indeed) you will have done a better job than the Supreme Court, which threw in the towel on defininig pornography with the "community standards" decision. That pornography is generally available in most places in this country should tell you that there is no consensus on obscenity, except at the very local level (where intimidation by a vocal minority is more effective) If you are unable to come up with a reasonable, legal definition of pornography, you have no business advocating its ban, no matter what your feelings on the subject may be. The very intent of freedom of the press is for me to be able to say what you do not want to hear, and vice versa. If your feelings are able to dictate what I should be able to see or read, *both* our freedoms will be imperiled. Having lived in places where freedom is non-existent, I can assure you that the lack of freedom is far worse than the availability of pornography. Marcel Simon
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/04/85)
In article <691@rduxb.UUCP> sja@rduxb.UUCP (Sam J. Anastasio) writes: >> > > Subject: DON'T TRY TO BAN PORNOGRAPHY!! IT WON'T WORK!! >> > I whole-heartedly AGREE!! >> Just to balance things out, I disagree. >NOT JUST TO UNBALANCE THINGS: I A G R E E (no ban man!!!) Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. Frank Silbermann
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/04/85)
I think Ellen Eades' reply to an article full of emotion-laden terms like "enraged" or "self-righteous" feminist showed commendable tact and restraint. I'll try to be equally civil in disagreeing with her. >> 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. > >I disagree strongly with this position, popular as it is among >the white liberal males of my acquaintance, and some of the >women. First of all, Todd reveals that he has already formed >certain opinions about the "religious zealots" and "enraged >feminists" which make him believe they are unfit to judge >pornography, or to ban certain allegedly pornographic materials. I'm willing to concede that those who would ban certain types of literature have nothing but good intentions. But whether you think of censors as narrow-minded bigots or crusaders for a better world, they are arrogating to themselves a decision that I feel is rightfully mine: what I may read, see or hear. I judge *no one* to be better qualified than I in judging what I shall read and see. >Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically >to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as >obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; Todd seems to feel >that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue >with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one >who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* >material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly >any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only >to sick people. I still question the idea of anyone saying it should be censored. If you're talking about films showing real, not play-acted, criminal behavior, I would assume that purveyors of such films might be chargeable with conspiracy in commission of the crimes depicted. Such a tactic is not censorship, and I don't disapprove of it, though it can be misapplied. I heard, recently, about charges of pandering being brought against the producers of hard-core (but not necessarily kinky) films, the logic being that buying or selling sex is illegal, the actors and actresses are paid, therefore the producer is a pimp. Actually, the logic seems sound; my problem with this reasoning is that I don't think buying or selling sex should be illegal. But I digress. >Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of >the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the >institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children >daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against >weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient >interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, >which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy >(any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can >be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. You start out saying "the fact that", but present a series of value judgments, not facts. No one has ever established any causal link between the reading/seeing of pornography and the commission of anti-social acts. As for pointing out that freedom of the press gets violated in cases unrelated to pornography, how does this argue for censorship? Freedom doesn't just crumble everywhere because it's been violated a few times, but that does not make the violations any less odious. >And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted >for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, >intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography >or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman >and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on >those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, >spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and >whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his >deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to >death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and >ashamed, for him. ...and a personal response in return. I take censorship personally. If I hear of a book being banned, I take it as someone telling *me*, *personally*, what I may and may not read. It doesn't have to even be something I'd want to read, I just don't think anyone has the right to forbid such things to me. It is my personal *opinion* that a strong predilection for the kind of extremely sadistic material you describe is probably symptomatic of something wrong. But since that is in no way the same thing as saying exposure to such stuff *causes* violent behavior, and is, moreover, only a personal opinion unsupported by hard evidence, I would not feel justified in giving my opinion the force of law. I grant, though, that if I were a woman, and knew a man such as you describe, I would feel very uneasy. But, how broad do you intend your attack to be? Judging by your article, your definition of "pornography" is quite narrow, and only covers extreme sadism and sexual exploitation of children. If so, we're not too far apart. It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status of simulated violence and sadism. But, if you're also against all portrayal of sex that has the "suggestion" of dominance or submissiveness, or the "implication" of exploitation in a sexual situation, then I'm afraid that you're one of those very well-intentioned people who want to limit my choices in reading material for my own good. Thanks but no thanks. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/05/85)
> [Ellen Eades, in an argument against tolerating pornography] > And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted > for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, > intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography > or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman > and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on > those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, > spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and > whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his > deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to > death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and > ashamed, for him. ----- Much (perhaps most?) pornography does not depict torture, mutilation, or rape, but non-violent behavior of consenting adults. Your remarks are understandable and valid as far as they go, but only against that subset of pornography depicting such acts. Your posting fails to make the distinction. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/05/85)
In article <1870@reed.UUCP>, ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: [edited slightly] > Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of > the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the > institution of ________ maims the lives of women and children > daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against > weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient > interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press... > > Ellen Eades Alright, class, what is it that Ellen wants to censor? a. Literature about contraception. b. Literature about homosexuality. c. Comic books. d. Rock music. e. Pornography. f. Gambling Publications. g. Ads for alcoholic beverages. h. "Druggie" publications. i. Pro-nazi works. j. Anti-nazi works. k. Socrates. Ellen's argument still has power, in spite of having been used hundreds of times before, against a myriad of "social evils" ranging from women's suffrage to ragtime music. In all these cases, the people pushing censorship were absolutely convinced that it was necessary, and that society would come crashing down if the evil influences of the powers of darkness weren't suppressed. The people who judged Socrates believed it. The Spanish Inquisition believed it. The nazis believe it. For my part, I have my doubts. To the cries of "No! Wait! IT REALLY IS A WOLF THIS TIME!!" I turn a deaf ear. I hope you understand. -- "We don't serve their kind here!" "Huh?" "Those 'droids! They'll have to wait outside!" Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (09/05/85)
In article <1870@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >> >> Face it, pornography is a pretty small price to pay >> for something as important as freedom of the press. > >I disagree strongly with this position, popular as it is among >the white liberal males of my acquaintance, and some of the >women. First of all, Todd reveals that he has already formed > I agree with the importance of freedom of the press. I also agree that there can be a lot of harm done by pornography. However I wonder if banning it might just be counterproductive. When laws against selling pornography were abolished in Scandinavia, at first there were large sales. Later the sales dropped to almost nothing except to foreigners, mostly from the US and Germany. I wonder if a much more important source of the dehumanizing of our society is not commercial TV which so often displays in effect the same attitudes as hard core pornography ie: women are sex objects to be exploited. This portrayal in a much more culturally acceptable manner, I believe effects many more men and allows them to exploit women with peer approval. Some of this exploitation turns to violence perhaps because many males can't get the big cars etc that TV says are the way to get to exploit women. I suspect that if the majority of TV programs showed male female relationships as wholsome, healthy, joyfull, mutual etc., the sales of pornography would drop to essentially zero.
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (09/05/85)
In article <1870@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically >to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as >obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; Todd seems to feel >that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue >with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one >who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* >material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly >any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only >to sick people. If I put all this together, I get the assertion that .05% of the population is sick and presumably should be cured, or locked up, or executed, or *something*. Saying "child porn is obscene" is probably missing the issue; I would say something like "child porn is wrong, because children are incapable of informed consent in sexual matters". Personally, I find fundamentalist religion obscene, but there's little hope that it will be banned (sigh). >Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of >the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the >institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children >daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against >weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient >interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, >which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy >(any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can >be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. Do you *really* want to be "weighing ideals" against each other? According to the Soviets, the "good of the state" outweighs the freedom of the individual... >And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted >for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, >intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography >or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman >and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on >those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, >spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and >whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his >deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to >death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and >ashamed, for him. This is "hard" pornography, which is quite different from "soft" pornography (Playboy). What do you think about women who read "Playgirl"? >Ellen Eades stan shebs
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/05/85)
> Todd argues against a ban on pornography for the following > reasons: > > blah blah blah (edited for minor breivity) > I disagree strongly with this position, popular as it is among > the white liberal males of my acquaintance, and some of the > women. First of all, Todd reveals that he has already formed > certain opinions about the "religious zealots" and "enraged > feminists" which make him believe they are unfit to judge > pornography, or to ban certain allegedly pornographic materials. My point is: NO ONE is fit to judge allegedly pornographic materials. Not you. Not me. Not Jerry Falwell. > I think this is unfair both to concerned Christians (or members > of other religions, like me) and to feminists, some of whom neither > rage nor foam at the mouth. Todd is not making a fair judgement > here. I'm not trying to pass off Christians and feminists as unreasonable, I'm trying to point out that the extreme factions of these two groups will be the ones pushing for legislation and attempting to be the judges. > Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically > to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as > obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; I did refute this argument and will continue to do so. What is your general population consensus percentage that is necessary to ban a piece of information? Obviously the general population cannot scrutinize every piece of literature and photography in their comm- unity, so you will have to have a government sponsored committee. Yuch! > Todd seems to feel > that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue > with that; It's not just obscene, it is hideous, but that is not the issue nor is it the reason it should be banned. It involves taking indecent liberties with a minor and should be outlawed on that basis. > I feel that snuff films are hideous and obscene, and know no one > who would argue with me. Again, I feel the obscenity is moot. The point is that actual snuff films require rape and murder and should be outlawed on that basis. > The point I wish to make is that *some* > material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly > any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only > to sick people. This is *highly* subjective. I doubt you and I would disagree over what is and isn't sick, obscene, etc... but as soon as someone attempts to draw the line, someone else will attempt to draw it more strictly, and before long many cherished pieces of literature and photography will be outlawed. > Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of > the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the > institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children > daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against > weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient > interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, This has not been proven. Do you really think that if perverts never had access to pornography there would be no violent crime against women and children? I try not to be so naive. Even if it were so, just because one individual reacts in a certain way to a piece of information, does this justify the withholding of that information from everyone? Think about the implications of an affirmative response. If I read the Bible and am inspired to kill my brother as Cain did to Abel, should we ban the Bible or edit it so that others will not follow my lead? > which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy > (any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can > be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. This doesn't compromise my position. > And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted > for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, > intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography > or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman > and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on > those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, > spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and > whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his > deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to > death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and > ashamed, for him. I think this is reasonable, assuming the viewer was viewing pornography of this sadistic nature. > Ellen Eades Ellen- I am not promoting pornography or presenting it as a wholesome pursuit. I am respecting the rights of citizens to produce erotica (as long as all parties are consenting adults) and to consume it. I am very afraid that censorship is like nuclear war: it is nearly impossible to keep it limited. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (09/05/85)
> And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted > for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, > intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography > or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman > and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on > those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, > spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and > whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his > deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to > death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and > ashamed, for him. > > Ellen Eades > And here's where the meaning of the word "pornography" becomes really important. How would you feel if you found him reading the morning paper? This morning we had articles about a weapons lab and bondage palace, the Night Stalker, Cape Town violence, and anti-satellite weapons among other things. Tonight on tv he can watch Convoy or Inside the 3rd Reich or Strangers on a Train. Or he can watch after school cartoons - He-man, Batman, Superfriends, Voltron etc. Do you allow the possible existence of "erotica"? Is it violence or sex that is the problem? Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) (09/05/85)
> Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically > to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as > obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; Todd seems to feel > that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue > with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one > who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* > material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly > any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only > to sick people. Child porn and snuff films are (already) illegal to produce because they require rape (including child molestation) and murder to be made. The issue that I believe Todd is trying to address is whether or not sexually explicit materials legally made by consenting adults should be banned. > Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of > the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the > 1) institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children > daily, 2) promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against > weaker persons, 3) and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient > interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, > > Ellen Eades > tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen Re 1) No, not the "institution of pornography" (whatever that is). It's the porn producers that use rape and murder to make their product that maim the lives of women and children. Not all sexually explicit material is made this way (i.e. illegally). Re 2) This is not fact. Some sexually explicit material can actually help some people learn how to make better love. Re 3) Not all sexually explicit materials resort to "flaunting degradation" to arouse the consumer. The point is that some pornography is legally produced and depicts "normal" or, at least, non-abusive sex acts. The problem is that one person's definition of "normal" and "abusive" may be quite different from another's. I share Ellen's concern about illegally produced porn. It is very difficult to weed-out because it's practically impossible to trace how such material is made, under what circumstances it is made, and who's responsible for making it. But to attack the problem by banning sexually explicit materials altogether is not a good strategy for the following reasons: o The "obscene" label is very subjective when applied to sexually explicit material that is legally produced (i.e. did not involve rape, murder, assault, etc.). No persons or body of persons can definitively say what is dangerously lewd and deviant and what isn't among much of the material that is currently clumped together and classified by many as pornography. o Sexually explicit material that helps people make better love, either by education or stimulation, could be subject to banning. o Many people would lose their jobs or, worse yet, would resort to following the once legal sex industry to the gutters of the black market. We'd also be giving more business to the mob. (They already have enough of it!) o An attempt to enforce a ban would require millions of (tax) dollars and would probably fail. o It would be a dangerous and precedent setting encroachment of the First Amendment. -- Ned Robie
scott@scirtp.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (09/06/85)
> o o o Pornography is any literature > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression and > defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > Frank Silbermann That helps a lot !! The definition of 'pruriant (sp?)' interest has been debated in the courts for 30 years and is still controversial. Solve that and you'll have a definition of pornography. (the above comment was not intended to imply that UNC , where Frank works/studies , does not have the best basketball team in the world) -- Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC The views represented may or may not be those of my employer.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/07/85)
>> o o o Pornography is any literature >> or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual >> excitement, i.e. designed to appeal to the prurient interest. >> Oppression and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. >> Frank Silbermann: >That helps a lot !! The definition of 'prurient interest' has been debated >in the courts for 30 years and is still controversial. >Solve that and you'll have a definition of pornography. > Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp > SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC I don't pretend to be able to deliniate between what is and what is not obscene. My point is merely this: The feminist claim that pornography is by definition insulting and degrading to women is ridiculous. Indeed, "erotica" _IS_ pornography (not that I'm necessarily against it). Frank Silbermann
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (09/07/85)
Ellen Eades (arguing for the banning of pronography): > ... the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically > to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as > obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; If an adult chooses to watch, in private, certain acts involving other adults with their (implicit) informed consent, everyone involved in the transaction is acting within their rights. Everyone concerned is fully aware of what they're doing, and consenting to it. Moreover, they aren't infringing on the rights of anyone who isn't similarly inclined. What does it matter, then, what 99.95% of the populace think of it? Or are we to try and legislate purity of thought? > The point I wish to make is that *some* material is *so* outrageously > offensive that there can be hardly any argument that it damages our > humanity and is appealing only to sick people. In Europe, during the Inquisition, some thoughts and opinions were thought to be so outrageously offensive that there was hardly any argument about burning people at the stake for them. The point I wish to make is that absolutes are hard to come by in matters that are essentially subjective. > Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of > the press" does not seem valid to me. It might mean more, perhaps, if you'd experienced, first-hand, censorship of the press (I have, through two wars and a period of "national emergency" in my native country). It's hard to appreciate a full belly until you've been hungry. > To me, the fact that the institution of pornography maims the lives > of women and children daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent > actions against weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy > prurient interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, ... I share your concern about the possible effects of pornography. It disturbs me, though, that movies like "Rambo", that essentially glorify orgies of violence, gross millions in the box office ... and as long as we're talking of violence, how about that uniquely American institution, the football game? Or hockey? Or pro wrestling, which has become so popular lately? I'm suggesting that this society actually craves violence, and it's not clear that pornography is the leading contributor here. > ... which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy > (any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can > be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. While your frustration is understandable, I'm not convinced that that two wrongs can really make a right. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/09/85)
> Were I to find that an otherwise kind, > intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography > or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman > and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on > those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, > spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and > whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his > deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to > death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and > ashamed, for him. > > Ellen Eades > It is a jungle out there, Ellen. It may well be that ALL otherwise kind, intelligent, sensitive etc. males in this country (and many others) both read pornography and seen porno films. It just happens that somebody is not loosing his/her kindness, sensitivity, intelligence etc. by a contact with porn. You are disgusted because I happen to subscribe to Playboy for a year, a fellow from net.politics is disgusted because I read Galbraith. I think that this fellow was more right than you: while I never imagined any women being trused-up, whipscared etc., I indeed share certain views of Galbraith which are genuinely disgusting for him. There are countries with hardly any pornography, like USSR. What happens? If someone wants to be a pig toward women, he may easily reinforce himself with the use of numerous misoginistic jokes. I read complains about the look of women in Playboy. In my local K-Mart there is a large section of romance novels. Guess how do women look there? Always in arms of powerfully looking men, thrilled with inexplicable passion, obviously ready to a passionate intercourse (those covers are not sexist however, men look equally idiotic). The view of hundreds of such covers could convince someone gullible that the main reason in life is finding a sexual partner with ever desired characterictics of All-American-Man (or All-American-Woman). God forbid any individual features! One does not need to ban stupidity, this is hopeless. One rather needs positive examples, like examples of joys of kindness, sensitivity, and, not least, intelligence and individuality. Be more optimistic, Ellen! We are not beast (we who watched porn), and may keep imroving in spite of an occasional porno-flick or a stupid romance novel. Piotr Berman
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (09/09/85)
> > And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted > for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, > intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography > or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman > and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on > those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, > spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and > whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his > deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to > death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and > ashamed, for him. > > Ellen Eades > It seems to me that you know very little about "pornography." There are a wide range of degrees of hard and soft porn. Some are pretty tame (PLAYBOY) and some are way off on the fring (child-porn and human-animal sex). Before you dismiss it ALL as being abusive to women, I think you better educate yourself a little bit. My dictionary defines pornography as that which is obscene. I looked up obscene and found it defined as "causing or intended to cause sexual excitement or lust." Nowhere in that definition does it say anything about abusing/mutilating anyone. While I agree that there is a lot of porn that depicts things like that, not all of it does. I, personally, have seen quite a few books and movies that simply depict one, two or more adults enjoying sex. There have been a lot of them that showed some rather odd, sensual acrobatic acts that were far from abusive. I, for one, am not afraid to say that I enjoyed them and (in the right company) found them rather stimulating and exciting. I'm sorry if that offends you. Maybe if you tried to open your mind a little bit, you wouldn't respond so rabidly to things which you don't understand. Go ahead. Flame at will. -- Sarah E. Dugan "Easy Does It, But *DO* It" ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (09/10/85)
> [quotes from Kenn Barry] > I take censorship personally. If I hear of a book being banned, I take > it as someone telling *me*, *personally*, what I may and may not read. ---------- Absolutely correct. Most of the people who would censor things are taking the position that the rest of the world is incapable of making an informed decision on what to read. That's blatantly paternalistic. If there are people who will have an antisocial response to some particular kind of material, fix them, they're broken. ---------- > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status > of simulated violence and sadism. ---------- Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should not be illegal to sell or possess them. ---------- -- scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (09/11/85)
In article <1204@ihlpg.UUCP> sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) writes: >depicts things like that, not all of it does. I, personally, have seen quite >a few books and movies that simply depict one, two or more adults enjoying >sex. There have been a lot of them that showed some rather odd, sensual >acrobatic acts that were far from abusive. I, for one, am not afraid to say >that I enjoyed them and (in the right company) found them rather stimulating >and exciting. > >Sarah E. Dugan Thank you for your courage and honesty. Richard Foy
jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (09/12/85)
> I wonder if a much more important source of the dehumanizing of our society > is not commercial TV which so often displays in effect the same attitudes > as hard core pornography ie: women are sex objects to be exploited. This > portrayal in a much more culturally acceptable manner, I believe effects > many more men and allows them to exploit women with peer approval. Some > of this exploitation turns to violence perhaps because many males can't > get the big cars etc that TV says are the way to get to exploit women. > > I suspect that if the majority of TV programs showed male female > relationships as wholsome, healthy, joyfull, mutual etc., the sales > of pornography would drop to essentially zero. > I read the September issue of _Interview_, about movies, recently. One of their writers talked with Gloria Leonard, "porn actress" and publisher of _High Society_ magazine. She was asked if porn degraded women. Her response, paraphrased: No. What really degrades women is those commercials where they can't decide between the potatoes or the stuffing. I'm not a fan of Ms. Leonard, but she, and the poster above, have a good point. I've always believed that the way I saw women portrayed on TV, ads and entertainment, during the 50's and 60's (and 70's and 80's) has had a more insidious effect on my attitudes than any other societal influence. -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (09/12/85)
In article <1775@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> Were I to find that an otherwise kind, >> intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography >> or watched pornographic films... >> >> Ellen Eades >> > It is a jungle out there, Ellen. It may well be that ALL otherwise >kind, intelligent, sensitive etc. males in this country (and many >others) both read pornography and seen porno films. This is certainly false. Although it is rather immodest, I would protest that I am kind, intelligent, sensitive, etc., and I am certainly male, and I do not read or watch pornography. Some kinds of erotica, yes. Of course, I have no idea if what I do view would be considered pornographic by Ellen. > I read complains about the look of women in Playboy. In my local >K-Mart there is a large section of romance novels. Guess how do >women look there? Always in arms of powerfully looking men, thrilled >with inexplicable passion, obviously ready to a passionate intercourse >(those covers are not sexist however, men look equally idiotic). >The view of hundreds of such covers could convince someone gullible >that the main reason in life is finding a sexual partner with ever >desired characterictics of All-American-Man (or All-American-Woman). >God forbid any individual features! This is not sexist? Sounds horribly sexist to me. Making women look like helpless fools, and men look like idiotic muscle machines whose job is to protect them only perpetuates sexist streotypes. Just making sure that both men AND women look like cardboard cutouts does *not* make something *not* sexist. Ken Arnold
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/12/85)
> > > [quotes from Kenn Barry] > > I take censorship personally. If I hear of a book being banned, I take > > it as someone telling *me*, *personally*, what I may and may not read. > ---------- > Absolutely correct. Most of the people who would censor things are > taking the position that the rest of the world is incapable of making > an informed decision on what to read. That's blatantly paternalistic. It's also true of a very large segment of the population. If you doubt that large segments of the "adult" population I can only suggest watching the behaviour of drivers (speeding, illegal/unsafe passing, discourteous behaviour, DWI, etc.) and people in a variety of locations such as bars, and perhaps court cases. > If there are people who will have an antisocial response to some > particular kind of material, fix them, they're broken. Preferable but not likely to happen in our lifetime (besides if you aren't willing to decide what reading material is appropriate how are you going to take responsibility for "fixing" them?). Controlling the access of emotionally unstable or immature people to "inflammatory" reading (or viewing) material may well be a necessary part of "fixing" them (to stretch an analogy, you don't give uncontrolled access to drugs to someone who is trying to kick the habit). > ---------- > > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for > > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without > > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status > > of simulated violence and sadism. > ---------- > Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should > not be illegal to sell or possess them. To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and possess it? > ---------- > > -- > scott preece > ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/13/85)
-- > Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the > definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression > and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > Frank Silbermann Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem. The fact is that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make pornographers responsible for their actions. I claim that, although you have--and ought to have--the right to stand on a soap-box and exhort all who will listen to beat me up, that I ought to have some legal redress (such as civil suit) against you for your responsibility (admittedly small) in that action should I come to any harm from said mob. Do you have any responsibility in such an instance? Let a jury decide. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Sep 85 [27 Fructidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/14/85)
Those who still read my postings are aware that I've been consistently against censorship of any kind. So, it was a surprise to me while I was composing a followup to John Chapman's article (I was, of course, disagreeing with him), that I found a condition under which I would not be opposed to the banning of some kinds of pornography... In article <2504@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> ---------- >> > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for >> > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without >> > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status >> > of simulated violence and sadism. [Kenn Barry, I think] >> ---------- >> Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should >> not be illegal to sell or possess them. [Scott Preece] > To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust > by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and > possess it? [John Chapman] My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott. But, if child porn was to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to such a ban. If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness of children, I would be opposed. The *reason* *why* a law is made is very important. The same justification can be used again for making later laws. If child porn can be banned because it's disgusting or because it spreads dangerous ideas, then anything "disgusting" (a *very* subjective judgement) can be banned, or anything, such as political writing, that spreads "dangerous" ideas, (where dangerous ideas might be anything the government doesn't like). But banning child porn because a crime has to be committed in order to produce it is different. The government can't use this reason arbitrarily to suppress ideas, so it's not a threat to freedom of the press. And a desire to protect the freedom of the press that we have left is the major reason I've been opposing censorship all along. -- David Canzi ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a justification of ourselves for having wronged him. (Ambrose Bierce) Corrupt Xref line!!! 7190 --> net.politics(1..7177)
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.jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/17/85)
> What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > pornographers responsible for their actions. No, it is a method to try to make pornographers responsible for the actions of people who consume their products. Thus tending to absolve those people of their true responsibility for their own actions. Just one of the many problems with pornography bans. Jeff Winslow "Why do you hate the Socratic method?"
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/19/85)
> > My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott. But, if child porn was > to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing > it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to > such a ban. If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or > that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness > of children, I would be opposed. > How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal? It would have to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting. I would like to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal. ray
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/20/85)
> > Absolutely correct. Most of the people who would censor things are > > taking the position that the rest of the world is incapable of making > > an informed decision on what to read. That's blatantly paternalistic. John Chapman: > It's also true of a very large segment of the population. If you > doubt that large segments of the "adult" population I can only > suggest watching the behaviour of drivers (speeding, illegal/unsafe > passing, discourteous behaviour, DWI, etc.) and people in a variety > of locations such as bars, and perhaps court cases. > > ...Controlling the access of emotionally unstable or immature people > to "inflammatory" reading (or viewing) material may well be a > necessary part of "fixing" them (to stretch an analogy, you don't > give uncontrolled access to drugs to someone who is trying to kick > the habit). The idea that a large segment of the population is unable to make its own informed decisions is certainly not a new one. The incompetent parties and competent parties have been variously called serfs and nobles, slave and freemen, non-Aryans and Aryans, etc. Your solution here is clearly to eliminate the (more or less) free society we have now and replace it with a paternalistic elite that decides what's "best" for the lower classes. That you do this in the name of equality is a sad testimonial to the way the human mind works. "Equality through paternalism! Freedom through class division!" -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/20/85)
In the 19th century, the Post Office refused to mail a number of
feminist writings, because their graphic descriptions of sexual abuse
and violence against women was deemed "obscene."
Things are a lot better now, so much so that some people on the net
think that censorship decisions would be made in a way that THEY
approve of.
How slowly we learn, and how quickly we forget...
--
Robert Plamondon
{turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertmfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (09/21/85)
> Ken Perlow: > This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn > leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes > from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights". ... > .... And thus > legal responsibilities, which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but > certainly ought to, derive from moral responsibilities. Responsibility > is not proscription. I disagree. Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a heterogeneous society. The law thus form a "barebones" moral framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own, presumably more restrictive moral codes. It is necessary in a free society that the law not be restrictive of individual morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e. my morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws in order to prevent chaos.) In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the social order is threatened by the continued availability of pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was unavailable. Clearly, we must define what pornography is before we can talk about its putative threat to society. I believe that task is up to those who wish to ban. I don't believe morality is part of this debate at all. > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. I am not sure what you meant, but the term is surely incorrect. You must libel some person, not libel in the abstract, or a class of persons. You may think pornography is offensive, repugnant, or whatever, but libelous does not apply Marcel Simon
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (09/21/85)
> > Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the > > definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature > > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > > ... Oppression and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > > > Frank Silbermann > Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem. The fact is > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize > their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > pornographers responsible for their actions. > > ken perlow Oh, does this mean that men who feel they are defamed by feminists who claim "all men are rapists" can sue them and expect to collect? Thank goodness! For a moment there, I thought that there was (gasp!) discrimination going on. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [Ken Perlow] > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. ------ Ken, could you please tell us why you think so. I'm seriously interested. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/22/85)
> > This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn > leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes > from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights". (It's under- > standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.) And thus > legal responsibilities, which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but > certainly ought to, derive from moral responsibilities. Responsibility > is not proscription. "There is no 'leads to', only 'comes from'"? While I might agree that the "leads to" argument has holes in it, I can't believe that there is no such thing as cause and effect. What's more, it's hard for me to see how you don't believe it either. I think you made this statement only because it was an effective antecedent for the rest of your argument. Pardon me if I find this dishonest. > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights, > my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any > analogous responsibilities. I thought that ethical egoism (the notion > that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally > bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101. Now, these folks have almost > no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even > those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they > don't know. Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry > hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it > false. > -- > ken perlow ***** ***** I am not only against censorship of pornography, I am also against censorship of Nazi hate literature, even though I am Jewish. Please explain to me why I should not find the above argument insulting. One of type of argument commonly used in favor of censorship of pornography goes something like this: "Pornography portrays women in a degrading manner, thus encouraging misogynistic attitudes. These attitudes harm women and society as a whole. Therefore, pornography should be banned, so that people's attitudes towards women might improve." I find this form of argument arrogant. It contains the attitude that no one should be allowed to believe that which I know to be false, and that I have the right to use coercive means to prevent this. There is always the seed of a possibility that one could be wrong. I would like to see the people who advocate a ban on pornography admit this. I agree that the portrayal of women in a degrading manner is immoral (although we might disagree on how much most pornography degrades women), but I don't agree that anyone has the right to ban any sort of expression he or she thinks can lead to attitudes or beliefs that are dangerous. -- 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
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/22/85)
> > ---------- > > > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for > > > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without > > > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status > > > of simulated violence and sadism. > > ---------- > > Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should > > not be illegal to sell or possess them. > To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust > by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and > possess it? > > John Chapman This is not the same analogy. Making angel dust does not directly harm anyone. Violence and sexual abuse of children do. -- 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
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/22/85)
> > My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott. But, if child porn was > > to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing > > it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to > > such a ban. If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or > > that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness > > of children, I would be opposed. > > Ray Frank writes: > How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal? It would have > to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting. I would like > to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal. If it's already illegal, you don't HAVE to ban it -- it's ALREADY BANNED! (Why isn't this obvious?) -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (09/23/85)
> -- > > Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the > > definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature > > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > > i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression > > and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > > > Frank Silbermann > > Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem. The fact is > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize > their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify Much (most?) "hard-core pornography" is simply pictures of people engaged in sex acts. It is utterly symmetrical with respect to sex roles. Which is most demeaning to women, a "made for TV movie" that shows a woman falling in love with her rapist, a popular drive-in movie that shows women being cut up with chainsaws or a picture of people engaging in what appears to be mutually enjoyable sexual activity? The feminists who crusade against "pornography" (i.e. erotica) are way off track. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A {seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al | ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al ------------------------------------------------------------------------
crs@lanl.ARPA (09/23/85)
> How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal? It would have > to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting. I would like > to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal. > > ray How about "because you can't make child porn without using children and it is already illegal to use children for such purposes" ??? I don't think it would be to much of a stretch of the immagination to consider use of children for such purposes *child* *molestation*, do you? There is no way that a child can be considered a "consenting adult"! -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (09/23/85)
There is a short editorial in the Book Review section
of the San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday 9/22/85, on
censorship that might be of interest to some participants in
this discussion.
There is some question among netters as to whether
censorship of pornography might lead to wider forms of
censorship. Well, according to this editorial, it
already has. Even though most of the censorship legislation
on the right-wing agenda has yet to be enacted, there
has been a sharp increase in the incidence of "obsecene"
books being removed from public and school libraries.
Pressure is also being placed on bookstores. The situation
promises to worsen given the current make-up of the
federal judiciary.
There have also been suggestions that some netters
with opinions on the subject need to further their background
reading on the topic of censorship.
James Joyce's "Ulysses" was banned for many years in
this country. Prefacing some editions of the book can
be found the judge's opinion that finally admitted "Ulysses"
to the country. This is an interesting piece of reading
because it gives some insight into how censorship was
implemented not too long ago in the U.S. Worth checking out.
steve popedmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/24/85)
In article <11729@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> >> My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott. But, if child porn was >> to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing >> it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to >> such a ban. If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or >> that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness >> of children, I would be opposed. >> >How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal? It would have >to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting. If I assume that you understood my article, then why would you want disgust to be used as the grounds for banning child porn? > I would like >to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal. I don't feel strongly about whether child porn is banned, as I do about why it is banned. The fact that it involves committing a crime, ie. sexually exploiting children, seems as good a reason as any, and better than the reasons usually given. -- David Canzi Hmmm, folks must not be heavily into freedom these days. -- Garfield
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/24/85)
-- [I said] >> ... legal rights come from >> moral rights ... And thus legal responsibilities, >> which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but certainly ought to, >> derive from moral responsibilities. Responsibility is not >> proscription. > I disagree. Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective > and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a > heterogeneous society. The law thus form a "barebones" moral > framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own, > presumably more restrictive moral codes. It is necessary in a > free society that the law not be restrictive of individual > morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e. my > morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws > in order to prevent chaos.) > In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the > social order is threatened by the continued availability of > pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was > unavailable. I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not necessarily subjective. For instance, I know perfectly well that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder. In fact, I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought his acts were moral. Which is not the same as "acceptable", "defensible", or a host of other excuses. Please don't confuse immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered. Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Why the hell else even bother to have ethical principles? You can keep your own personal code of conduct in your diary. Now, if our ideas of what is moral clash, and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't call a cop. There are no Morals Police. [Me again] >> I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a >> better term, libelous. > I am not sure what you meant, but the term is surely incorrect. > You must libel some person, not libel in the abstract, or a class > of persons. You may think pornography is offensive, repugnant, > or whatever, but libelous does not apply > Marcel Simon That's what I said, "for lack of a better term..." I believe that *some* pornographers bear *some* moral responsibility for *some* crimes committed against women. They themselves may even think so, but they probably don't. In which case, I don't rightly know what I ought to do about it. Note that I speak of my own actions, which I am responsible for. I leave the state out of it, though the state has a way of getting involved when individuals do not act responsibly. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 24 Sep 85 [3 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (09/25/85)
In article <30973@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.ARPA writes: >> ... I would like to see your reasons why child porn should be made illegal. >> ray > >How about "because you can't make child porn without using children >and it is already illegal to use children for such purposes" ??? What about written works? Pornography existed long before the invention of the camera, you know! For one example, the Marquis de Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" contains several explicit descriptions of sexual depravity with pre-adolescents... is it "child porn" or not? AWR P.S.: Q: How do you celebrate the Marquis de Sade's birthday? A: Whip up a cake!
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/25/85)
> Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps.
Oh, really? Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Now go ask the people
in net.religion. What was that about universality?
Jeff Winslowjchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/25/85)
> > > ---------- > > > > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for > > > > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without > > > > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status > > > > of simulated violence and sadism. > > > ---------- > > > Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should > > > not be illegal to sell or possess them. > > To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust > > by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and > > possess it? > > > > John Chapman > > This is not the same analogy. Making angel dust does not directly harm anyone. > Violence and sexual abuse of children do. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) > "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." Read the original article again. The "same analogy" refers to making the same anaolgy I did before. The point of the analogy (in case you disagree) is this: it is silly to try and control something by making it's manufacture (particularily things which are easily made in a clandestine manner) a crime but making it's possession and sale legal. Just image trying to control smack by saying "well we'll punish you if we happen to catch you making it but if all you are doing is walking around selling to people well that's ok!" > > {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff > {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/26/85)
In article <1186@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >[I said] >>> ... legal rights come from >>> moral rights ... And thus legal responsibilities, >>> which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but certainly ought to, >>> derive from moral responsibilities. Responsibility is not >>> proscription. > >> I disagree. Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective >> and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a >> heterogeneous society. The law thus form a "barebones" moral >> framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own, >> presumably more restrictive moral codes. It is necessary in a >> free society that the law not be restrictive of individual >> morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e. my >> morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws >> in order to prevent chaos.) > >> In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the >> social order is threatened by the continued availability of >> pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was >> unavailable. > >I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not >necessarily subjective. For instance, I know perfectly well >that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder. In fact, I'll >bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought >his acts were moral. Which is not the same as "acceptable", >"defensible", or a host of other excuses. Please don't confuse >immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered. > >Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. > I believe that >*some* pornographers bear *some* moral responsibility for *some* crimes >committed against women. If you want to say the morals are universal, then you can't claim that pornography (by virtue of being pornography) is immoral, because some of us out here don't think it is immoral. Either you're going to have to stick by your morals-are-universal argument and enhance it by showing that we ALL think pornography is immoral, or try a different tack. I actually think this notion of morals being universal and somehow distinct from ill-mannered and ill-whatever is silly. It seems to imply that morals is a well-defined category that exits in Nature, rather than a construct we humans have set up to for the convenience of describing our own behavior and experiences.
crs@lanl.ARPA (09/26/85)
> I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not > necessarily subjective. For instance, I know perfectly well > that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder. In fact, I'll > bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought > his acts were moral. Which is not the same as "acceptable", > "defensible", or a host of other excuses. Please don't confuse > immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered. I'm not sure that I agree with this premise, even within a restricted "universe." First you assume that you know what a "mass murderer" thinks but I doubt that is true. Second, you seem to be neglecting the fact that morality is cultural rather than hereditary. (It is, isn't it?) And, third, *how* do you "know perfectly well" that another's morals don't allow mass murder? Your appear to be assuming, rather, a lot here. > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Why the hell else > even bother to have ethical principles? Morals, in the abstract, *may* be universal but I would be surprised if any particular set of morals, including yours or mine, were universal. > Now, if our ideas of what is moral > clash, I'm afraid this strikes me as contradictory to what I understood you to say earlier. If these morals are universal, how can two individuals "ideas of what is moral clash"? > and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is > another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't > call a cop. There are no Morals Police. ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Thank God, Fate or your favorite deity. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/26/85)
In article <1186@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >For instance, I know perfectly well >that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder. In fact, I'll >bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought >his acts were moral. Adolph Hitler. Charles Manson. Both were maniacal men whose twisted minds developed a morality in which certain people's lives SHOULD (as in morally imperative) end. Not to mention Ayatollah Kohmenhi. There are many moral systems which dehumanize others, thus permitting their slaughter. Morals are simply a codification of the interaction between "what feels right" and "foresight and planning". Since "what feels right" is an entirely personal, subjective concept, each person's concept of morals is based entirely upon subjective claims. Granted that most of us share a great many of those "what feels right" feels, but many others do no. And you can argue until you are blue in the face, its not going to change their minds. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (09/27/85)
the net) being converted to a network wide newsgroup. The formula doesn't work for other cases because it wasn't meant to. As is apparent from reading the article, he is talking about network wide mailling lists. Chuqui, how do you put up with this crap? Terry Poot #! rnews 4931 Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!uw-beaver.arpa!utcsri!mcgill-vision!v-node!webb1 From: webb1@v-node.UUCP Newsgroups: fa.info-vax Subject: article for INFO-VAX Message-ID: <8509271023.AA05981@uw-beaver.arpa> Date: 27 Sep 85 10:23:15 GMT Date-Received: 27 Sep 85 23:43:17 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Reply-To: info-vax@ucb-vax.arpa Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 104 hope this gets through. The last one mailed with To: utcsri!uw-beaver!INFO-VAX@SRI-KL didn't get through Title: mVaxII vs. 11/44 compararison? (Long and Short) Dear . Actually, it seems at least one mass murderer (Son of Sam) knew his actions were *illegal*, but thought of them as *moral*, within his own twisted codes, which held that all women, particularly the ones he killed, were whores not deserving life; or something like that. > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Why the hell else > even bother to have ethical principles? First, how do you know that non-human intelligent beings would have the same morality as you? Beyond science fiction, it is immoral in certain Eastern cultures to save a drowninig man, unless he requests help, because doing so would make him lose face. Even within the Judeo-Christian system of values, the Old Testament morality of "eye for eye" has been displaced by the New Testament's "turn the other cheek". In the face of examples like these and others, I don't see the logic of your conclusion. To go back to the original discussion, then: if there is no universal morality in a heterogeneous society, a ban on pornography is defensible only if the existence and availability of same threatens the social order. Can you show that to be the case? If not, the topic is pretty much closed, isn't it? Marcel Simon
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/27/85)
-- > > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. > > Oh, really? Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Now go ask the people > in net.religion. What was that about universality? > > Jeff Winslow What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 27 Sep 85 [6 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/28/85)
Ken Perlow: >> > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. >What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual >ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, >but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to >apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe >this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. Now that Ken's clarified what he meant by "morals are universal", let's re-read his argument where he first said this. Someone else wrote: > I disagree. Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective > and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a > heterogeneous society. The law thus form a "barebones" moral > framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own, > presumably more restrictive moral codes. It is necessary in a > free society that the law not be restrictive of individual > morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e. my > morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws > in order to prevent chaos.) > In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the > social order is threatened by the continued availability of > pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was > unavailable. And Ken replied: > I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not > necessarily subjective. For instance, I know perfectly well > that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder. In fact, I'll > bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought > his acts were moral. Which is not the same as "acceptable", > "defensible", or a host of other excuses. Please don't confuse > immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered. > > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Why the hell else > even bother to have ethical principles? You can keep your own personal > code of conduct in your diary. Now, if our ideas of what is moral > clash, and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is > another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't > call a cop. There are no Morals Police. Now I understand Ken to be saying this: that morals are codes of conduct one would want everyone to adhere to. And since pornography is immoral by his set of morals, he wants it unavailable to everyone. It is precisely because of this attitude ("I want you to live like I think people should live") that we have Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights. It protects an unpopular belief against the pressure of a conflicting belief held by the majority. It is because some people want to impose their morality on everyone that we need such legal protections.
putnam@steinmetz.UUCP (jefu) (09/29/85)
In article <1186@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not >necessarily subjective. What can morality be but subjective? >Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Huh? Engraved on what stone tablet? Now, on a more sober note. Im really bothered by this whole pornography question. There are a few (ok, maybe a lot of) people out there who are convinced that they know the truth about pornography. They claim that they _know_ something about pornography, and therefore they have the right to make decisions. Actually, they _believe_ something. I, unfortunately, dont happen to have the direct-dial-9600-baud-error-correcting line to Truth (or God, or whatever). This means that i may hold contrary beliefs, or that i may be willing to admit that i dont know something (ok ok, thats rare enough, but it does happen, sometimes, maybe). This puts me at a disadvantage. When the local DAR (:-) decides to ban nude dancing in Half Moon, they all _know_ how horrible it is. Even if i decide to oppose their ideas, i can only admit to _belief_, and clearly that puts me at a disadvantage. I always thought that a good part of the point of free speech is that it implicitly says that nobody _knows_ the truth so nobody should make decisions for everyone else. oh well, just another net.liberal... "The worst are full of passionate intensity..." -- O -- jefu tell me all about -- UUCP: edison!steinmetz!putnam Anna Livia! I want to hear all.... -- ARPA: putnam@kbsvax.decnet@GE-CRD
vause@ncrcae.UUCP (Sam Vause) (09/30/85)
Please remove net.motss from your article header. I believe I speak for several members of this category when I say that the subject matter has strayed from material normally associated as being of general interest to members of this group.
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (up547413042) (09/30/85)
I guess some people didn't take to well to my opinion on pornography. I think already it's been argued that morality is subjective. I think there is no arguing around that point. It is also a basis by which I have formed my veiwpoint. Personally, I really don't think pornography is such a nice thing. I don't care for it too well, anyway. I think it depicts sex in a negitive light. That's just my opinion though, and my opinion, as with everybody's opinion, may be wrong (if there is such a thing). I do believe censorship of pornography *can* lead to censorship in other areas though. For instance, lets assume pornography is banned because we believe it's obscene and leads to immoral attitudes and behaviour. Then, what is to stop big bad Jerry Fallwell from leading a campaign against Gay publications? It is, to him, obscene and leads to immoral homosexual behaviour. We can't have that, can we? It may sound far fetched, but similar things have happened (in Nazi- Germany, for instance). I have no great respect for pornographers or nazis, etc, but I do respect the rights of people to hold views which I disagree with. As long as they don't force them on me. I agree that, if one feels something is wrong and is suffciently moved to do so, one should take action. This would best be manifested in persuasion and the demonstration of alternatives to what one is objecting to. Censorship I feel is unacceptable. Finally, I am not convinced that pornography leads to violence against women. Nobody would buy that stuff unless they already had an attitude which is manifested in the pornographic publication which is degrading to women. It seems to me that such pornography is the *manifestation* of a much more deeply rooted problem. I would therefore suggest that the reason why people buy the stuff be given closer scrutiny. I was talking to a friend a mine, by the way, (I say this because I don't which to attatch myself to this viewpoint, though I'm neither for it nor against it) who felt that pornography actually reduces the amount of violence against women. He said that pornography allows a release of whatever it is that they have inside of them (their fantasies, or whatever), and they then have no impulse to carry their fantasy out in reality. -- Chris Young.
jan@ccice5.UUCP (John A. Nicowski Jr.) (10/04/85)
In article <1195@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. >> >> Oh, really? Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Now go ask the people >> in net.religion. What was that about universality? >> >> Jeff Winslow > >What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual >ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, >but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to >apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe >this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. >-- > *** *** >JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** No. Morals are individual guidelines that we develop through life, and use to guide *OUR OWN* decisions. I have my own set of morals, thank you, and do not wish to apply them to anyone else, and will certainly not allow other people to apply their morals on me, in an attempt to determine how I act or live. John.
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (10/07/85)
-- > Now I understand Ken to be saying this: that morals are codes of conduct > one would want everyone to adhere to. And since pornography is immoral > by his set of morals, he wants it unavailable to everyone. NO, NO, NO!!! All I said was "Morals are universal and morals are for keeps." I've been very careful to differentiate between what is moral and what is legal. Porn is (and ought to be) legal. Some of it is immoral. That which is immoral *still* ought to be available, though perhaps not to everyone. Even if I thought it should be unavailable to everyone *does not mean* there should be laws proscribing it. That's what the "for keeps" is about. Moral transgressions are answerable on some other plane of existence. If you don't believe this, well, you don't--in which case I am appealing to whatever it is inside you that keeps you from being a sadist even in the company of masochists. I can and do differentiate between moral and legal because I find the prevailing belief in utilitarianism (in essence, greatest good for the greatest number) politically expedient and generally beneficial, but morally bankrupt. Anyone who has been involved in actions of civil disobedience has had to come to a similar conclusion. I'm glad to see I've touched a few nerves here, but I'm dismayed at the frequent misinterpretation of my comments. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 07 Oct 85 [16 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***