pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/09/85)
OK, I'll offer my opinion on the issue:
Yes, I think pornography does degrade women. But why do women
pose for it? Maybe because many of them are in financially
degrading situations? I don't know. But I do think that women
spread that degradation to other women (In the eyes of their
beholders) when they pose for porn. *Who* the woman is doesn't matter,
what she looks like does. Much of this stuff is what might be called
"gynaecologically explicit" reducing the worth of the subject
to the stimulation value of viewing her sexually stimulating
body parts.
It is also my opinion that porn exploits a male weakness. A
capacity for sexual pleasure is certainly nothing to be ashamed
of, but I think porn takes advantage of the male sex drive--exacting
a price for the service to boot. Natually, I think porn with
male subjects is degrading to men. Can some of the men out there
imagine how they feel about photos that encourage others to size
them up like a piece of meat--placing value on the ability of
their bodies to stimulate?
Generally speaking, I can't help but believe that porn ("hard core"
porn, especially) has a real connection with the incidence of rape,
incest, and child molestation in our society. I have read studies
cited that seem to indicate that the sexual stimulation produced
indirectly stimulates the tendancy toward violent acts. The theory
is that there is a connection between these two sections of the
brain and that somehow sexual stimulation lowers the threshold for
stimulation to violent acts. I'm sure other factors contribute,
but the seemingly high incidence of many rapists and child molesters
turning out to be "porn addicts" makes me wonder if it isn't a significant
factor. It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the
nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women
generally desire sex. The expression on the woman's face (if her
face is shown at all) is always inviting. There isn't any hint
that the woman minds men taking in her sexually sugesstive pose.
You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present
she would love to jump in bed with you. These woman have no
real identity. No emphasis is placed on *who* the woman is personally,
just her looks. Also, the impression gained is that it doesn't
really matter to the woman who is looking at her, receiving her
"invitation". My point is that I think it is easy porn users to make
degrading generalizations about about the sexual temperment of women.
I think the original assertion that porn does not degrade women
was made by a man and I haven't seen any women disagree. I would
like to see a woman give an argument as to why porn isn't degrading
to them (preferably from a woman who has examined some of the stuff
at your local "adult" book store). How many wives/girlfriends feel
OK about their husbands/boyfriends reading this stuff?
Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech
and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms.
All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a
justification by men for their own use of the stuff. Are these
freedoms absolute? Not many people believe they are. Witness
the outrage agianst "kiddie porn". Yet why is there such a demand
for that stuff? Sure using kids as subjects often requires other
kinds of abuse done to them. But those abuses are "necessary"
(e.g. kidnapping) in large part because the activity is illegal.
If it were legal you would probably get some families making porn
with their own kids (adopted?) to make money. The children would
probably suffer much less physical abuse generally (in the hands of
people they know rather than strangers), but would that make kiddie
porn more acceptable?
Freedom of speech and the press is essential to our civil liberties,
especially where the freedom to express political, philosophical,
and religious thought are concerned. A slippery slope argument
is often given that if porn it banned this other, more essential,
type of expression will eventually be stultified also. I don't see
the direct causual link, though I do agree that there is a danger
in going too far. One objection to anti-porn laws says that some
legitimate and valuable works will unjustly fall under the ban.
That's probably true. But it is also true for any general proscription.
There are always tough cases that make the law seem unfair. Human
systems of justice always have their casualties, but this is not
a good argument against the law. The best we can do is to work out
a system that minimises the casualities as much as possible. What
real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have
an essentially free press without it.
What should be done about porn? I'm not exactly sure. I'm not
familiar with the specific ordinance being discussed so I can't
say that I'm in favor of it. But I don't think porn should be
protected. I do think that something should be done to significantly
curb its publication. (It will never be wiped out totally). I don't
think that the obvious difficulty of the legislative and executive
task is a valid excuse for neglecting that task.
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmdmfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/10/85)
Your points are well thought out, and reasonnable. The only problem with them is that there is no valid legal definition of pornography. The Supreme Court agreed when it offered the "community standards" concept. Now some communities are homogeneous enough to agree on one standard of what constitutes pronography, but cities, where most of the so-called adult stores are, certainly are *not* homogeneous. So what you have is the imposing of the views of a few on the rest. Therein lies the problem. Sure, most sensible people can agree that Big Bertha does the Los Angeles Rams (:-) or some such title has no value except to stimulate sexually. But what about DH Lawrence or Erica Jong books? You will, I am certain, find people who object to Lady Chatterley's Lover and want it banned as pornography (remember, pornography is legally what the community decides it is). WHich is where you run into problems. On a related note: several small towns have refused to stock Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer in public libraries, on the grounds that the book is racist and should not be accessible to children, who could be harmed by it. Do you agree? Do you see the analogy? I am afraid that in the case of the first amendment, you have to take the bitter with the sweet. One possible compromise that will satisfy no one is to zone adult stores in so called "red light districts" or "combat zones", etc. The question there is "in whose neighborhoods?" Well I did say this would satisfy no one What does the net think? Marcel Simon
edb@akgua.UUCP (E.D. Brooks [Emily]) (01/10/85)
Re: >How many wives/girlfriends feel OK about their husbands/boyfriends >reading this stuff? > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Personally, I have never cared one whit what my husband reads/thinks/fantasizes - his mind is his own. It is the way he treats me that is important. And THAT is just fine! If pornography is degrading, then I agree with whoever it was that stated that it is our societal ATTITUDE toward sex that promotes this "degradation" not an innate property of pornography. Emily Brooks akgua!edb
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (01/11/85)
REFERENCES: <243@looking.UUCP>, <11300010@smu.UUCP>, <4560@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) says: > I think the original assertion that porn does not degrade women > was made by a man and I haven't seen any women disagree. I would > like to see a woman give an argument as to why porn isn't degrading > to them (preferably from a woman who has examined some of the stuff > at your local "adult" book store). How many wives/girlfriends feel > OK about their husbands/boyfriends reading this stuff? I don't think pornography degrades women and I can give you two unrelated reasons (one relatively trivial, the other more serious) why not: 1) Network TV doesn't degrade the actors (of either gender)--they know what people want and make money by giving it to them. If anyone is degraded, it's the viewer. 2) Most pornography/erotica (and I have not yet seen any distinction between the two other than "Erotica is what I like; pornography is what I don't like") is degrading only to the extent that you think most sex is degrading. (See D. Skran's posting on this.) And I *have* examined this stuff, both books and films (videotapes, actually). I have no objection to any adult that I know (including my husband) reading/seeing this stuff (as long as I get to read/see it also). (Only half :-) ). Further comments: > *Who* the woman is doesn't matter, > what she looks like does. What the woman looks like is immaterial--I find many porn actresses to be less than beautiful. Considerably less. > It is also my opinion that porn exploits a male weakness. A > capacity for sexual pleasure is certainly nothing to be ashamed > of, but I think porn takes advantage of the male sex drive--exacting > a price for the service to boot. This is a truly sexist comment; Paul speaks as though women have no sex drives or capacity for sexual pleasure (else it would be a "human weakness," not a "male weakness"). > It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the > nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women > generally desire sex. The expression on the woman's face (if her > face is shown at all) is always inviting. There isn't any hint > that the woman minds men taking in her sexually sugesstive pose. > You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present > she would love to jump in bed with you. Well, women *do* desire sex. We can argue about just what is meant by "generally," but it certainly sounds as though Paul is unaware of the fact that women enjoy sex. John Houseman is always ready to pontificate in his roles--that's part of the role. That's why they're called "actors." The role here calls for sex appeal. You can't fault the actor for playing the part called for. > Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech > and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. > All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a > justification by men for their own use of the stuff. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I find Nazi propaganda more offensive (by several orders of magnitude) and demonstrably more harmful in the long run than pornography, but I would not ban Nazi propaganda. > What > real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have > an essentially free press without it. The same could be said for Nazi propaganda. My support of its right to be heard still stands. But have you ever thought that porn might be trying to tell you that sex is enjoyable? Maybe that's what so many anti-porn advocates are afraid of. Evelyn C. Leeper ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/12/85)
>[From Marcel Simon in response to my article] >Your points are well thought out, and reasonnable. The only problem >with them is that there is no valid legal definition of pornography. As I said, I don't think the difficulty of the task should keep us from doing something positive to curb porn production. What is to keep us from coming up with a workable definition? I have the feeling that we don't necessarily have to accept the conclusion that there can be none. >The Supreme Court agreed when it offered the "community standards" concept. >Now some communities are homogeneous enough to agree on one standard >of what constitutes pronography, but cities, where most of the so-called >adult stores are, certainly are *not* homogeneous. So what you have >is the imposing of the views of a few on the rest. Therein lies the >problem. Sure, most sensible people can agree that Big Bertha >does the Los Angeles Rams (:-) or some such title has no value >except to stimulate sexually. But what about DH Lawrence or Erica Jong >books? You will, I am certain, find people who object to Lady Chatterley's >Lover and want it banned as pornography (remember, pornography is legally >what the community decides it is). WHich is where you run into problems. Very good point. But the community standards concept has never worked anyway. Porn shops regularly violate zoning regulations that don't get inforced. For example there is one in the OSU area (calling itself "The Daily News" or something like that). Zoning laws require that before an "Adult" book store and set up shop they have to notify all residents within 500 yds. to see if they object. This particular shop didn't bother (the neighborhood contains transient students anyway). But try getting them out once they're in. Appeals to First Amendment protection are always made to combat any attempt to invoke the community conscensus against porn. I sat in one area commission meeting that was called to debate the porn issue in the OSU (Ohio State University) community (My community borders that one.) On the pro-porn side of the debate was an ACLU Lawyer that did nothing but talk about the first amendment, the content of the porn was irrelavent and so were the community standards. Community standards are a vague, nebulous concept. It is much harder to prove and define workable community standards than it is to come up with a legal definition of what is pornography. That is a point for the pornographers. Nothing significant will be done about porn as long as the virtually contentless concept of "community standards" is used as a standard. I think that concept was a cop out by the Supreme Court when the legislature tossed them that "hot potato". As an alternative to leaving everything to "community standards" we are going to have to have some objective standard as a base, perhaps to be "fine tuned" by an improved definition of what constitutes a community standard and how it is to be obtained (I think this standard needs to be actively sought after.) If some objective standard is not included nothing will carry any weight. Pornographers will always be able to include token scenes that give it "redeeming social value" or whatever. As I said before, some "casualities" will always unjustly fall under the ban. But those few shouldn't provide blanket protection for porn. At least if their was some kind of definite standard (objective base) authors and movie producers could get some definite idea of what they can and can't do. This doesn't have to be viewed as a clamp on their creativity. I have several friends who are artists and I'm pretty sure they would agree that a certain amount of constraint is required to spur creativity. Where there are no constraints, anything can pass for "art". If an artist or author truly has talent they should be able to show it within a certain set of constraints. To wipe away all constraint only offers false credibility to those with no talent. I say this only to illustrate that contraints are not inherently evil, not to say that all constraints are good. >On a related note: several small towns have refused to stock Mark Twain's >Tom Sawyer in public libraries, on the grounds that the book is racist >and should not be accessible to children, who could be harmed by it. >Do you agree? Do you see the analogy? I am afraid that in the case >of the first amendment, you have to take the bitter with the sweet. Keeping it out of public libaries seems too extreme a measure. When I was in junior high school "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was required reading in English class. I think something else has been substituted since, for the reason you mentioned. That seems fairly reasonable since other books could be used just as well. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. The only analogy I see here is that an objective element needs to be included if we are to define what constitutes racism. Such a standard would help curb excesses in banning "legitimate" material as much as it would help curb the publication of "illigitimate" material. (Whatever those terms come to mean under the standard.) With the fuzzy concept of "community standards" you are really open to both accesses. It seems to me that if your last statement is true the First amendment is meaningless. If you mean the we must accept the good with the bad, the right with the wrong, then it seems to me that that is another way of saying that there is nothing that we can say we will not accept. In the case of pornography this reduces, in practice, to a statement that nothing can be banned. (Which, incidently, is the exact position some of the Supreme Court Justices [e.g. Douglas] have taken.) As I said before, I think this makes a mockery of free speech, especially considering porn's probable effects on society. (Such as I stated in my last article.) >One possible compromise that will satisfy no one is to zone adult stores >in so called "red light districts" or "combat zones", etc. The question >there is "in whose neighborhoods?" Well I did say this would satisfy no one >What does the net think? Combat zones and red light districts tend to form naturally anyway. Zoning laws prevent putting adult book stores just anywhere, usually. This is one thing that makes me think that most people believe porn has an unhealthy effect in society. Otherwise, why would there be more objection to putting a porn shop in their neighboorhood than family-type bookstore? The zoning rules are usually different for one than the other. The presence of porn is associated with some ill effects in most people's minds if they don't want it in *their* neighbor- hood. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/12/85)
A response to Evelyn Leeper's response to me: }pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) says: }> I think the original assertion that porn does not degrade women }> was made by a man and I haven't seen any women disagree. I would }> like to see a woman give an argument as to why porn isn't degrading }> to them (preferably from a woman who has examined some of the stuff }> at your local "adult" book store). How many wives/girlfriends feel }> OK about their husbands/boyfriends reading this stuff? } }I don't think pornography degrades women and I can give you two }unrelated reasons (one relatively trivial, the other more serious) why not: } } 1) Network TV doesn't degrade the actors (of either gender)--they } know what people want and make money by giving it to them. If } anyone is degraded, it's the viewer. This reason seems unrelated to pornography. } } 2) Most pornography/erotica (and I have not yet seen any distinction } between the two other than "Erotica is what I like; pornography is } what I don't like") is degrading only to the extent that you think } most sex is degrading. (See D. Skran's posting on this.) To what extent do I think sex is degrading? None. I'm not talking about sex being intrinsically degrading. What makes it degrading is its context. I think that when sex is reduced to a performance done for entertainment of onlookers it becomes degraded. } }And I *have* examined this stuff, both books and films (videotapes, actually). }I have no objection to any adult that I know (including my husband) }reading/seeing this stuff (as long as I get to read/see it also). (Only half }:-) ). As long as you get to see it also? Why that requirement? } }Further comments: } }> *Who* the woman is doesn't matter, }> what she looks like does. } }What the woman looks like is immaterial--I find many porn actresses to be less }than beautiful. Considerably less. Who's talking about beautiful, necessarily? All that's necessary it the fact that she's physically undressed, her pose, and what she is doing. Porn isn't heavy on stressing personality. Porno actresses can often be less beautiful than picture models because the action in movies makes up the "stimulation value" that is lost in her physical charactistics. The bottom line is that the emphasis is all on the physical and the value is placed on how well those physicall actions and looks stimulate. } }> It is also my opinion that porn exploits a male weakness. A }> capacity for sexual pleasure is certainly nothing to be ashamed }> of, but I think porn takes advantage of the male sex drive--exacting }> a price for the service to boot. } }This is a truly sexist comment; Paul speaks as though women have no sex drives }or capacity for sexual pleasure (else it would be a "human weakness," not a }"male weakness"). Truly not a sexist comment. Perhaps you can explain to me why the vast majority of pornography produced is geared toward men. My saying that men have a sex drive in no way implies that I think women don't. I think you just want to see sexism in my remarks. }> It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the }> nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women }> generally desire sex. The expression on the woman's face (if her }> face is shown at all) is always inviting. There isn't any hint }> that the woman minds men taking in her sexually sugesstive pose. }> You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present }> she would love to jump in bed with you. } }Well, women *do* desire sex. We can argue about just what is meant by }"generally," but it certainly sounds as though Paul is unaware of the fact }that women enjoy sex. Think for a second about what I might mean, Evelyn, will you? By "generally" I mean desire it without regard to partner. I thought it was plain enough. You know, an example would be men who like to harass women and think the women love it no matter how much they show their displeasure. Where in the world do you think they get that idea? Wouldn't you think that the regular viewing of many nameless, personality-less, even faceless women in such suggestive poses would tend to reinforce the idea greatly? }John Houseman is always ready to pontificate in his roles--that's part of the }role. That's why they're called "actors." The role here calls for sex appeal. }You can't fault the actor for playing the part called for. An actor is not responsible for his acts? Regardless of what they are? Are they justified because someone else wants him to do them and pays him for it? Neil Postman coined a word for this: Eichmannism (Probably not spelled right. See the chapter by that name in "Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk"). }> Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech }> and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. }> All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a }> justification by men for their own use of the stuff. } }Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I find Nazi propaganda more offensive }(by several orders of magnitude) and demonstrably more harmful in the long run }than pornography, but I would not ban Nazi propaganda. I used the example of kiddie porn. May I replace "Nazi propaganda" in your statement with that and you would still agree? I did recognize that freedom for expressing political ideas is essential in my article. But you're obviously not reading it very carfully anyway. }> What }> real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have }> an essentially free press without it. } }The same could be said for Nazi propaganda. My support of its right to be }heard still stands. Kiddie porn too? If not, why the difference? Please read my comments on that again. }But have you ever thought that porn might be trying to tell you that sex is }enjoyable? Maybe that's what so many anti-porn advocates are afraid of. I see you've saved the most disgusting dig for last. If this comment means what I think it means, I think it stinks. Really Evelyn, I've been married five and a half years and haven't found out yet that sex is enjoyable. I don't need porn to figure out that sex is enjoyable. I pity the man (or woman) who does. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/13/85)
Another thing to consider is the attitude that ``if it is illegal then it must be pretty good!''. Or didn't you sneak into restricted films just because you knew that whatever it was, must be really something? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
draves@harvard.ARPA (Richard Draves) (01/14/85)
> }> Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech > }> and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. > }> All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a > }> justification by men for their own use of the stuff. > } > }Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I find Nazi propaganda more offensive > }(by several orders of magnitude) and demonstrably more harmful in the long run > }than pornography, but I would not ban Nazi propaganda. > > I used the example of kiddie porn. May I replace "Nazi propaganda" in your > statement with that and you would still agree? I did recognize that freedom > for expressing political ideas is essential in my article. But you're > obviously not reading it very carfully anyway. > > }> What > }> real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have > }> an essentially free press without it. > } > }The same could be said for Nazi propaganda. My support of its right to be > }heard still stands. > > Kiddie porn too? If not, why the difference? Please read my comments > on that again. I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and "normal" pornography. I don't think any kind of sex between consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers. The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is lacking in the case of kiddie porn. Rich
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (01/14/85)
[[ This is very long and still not a complete argument. My apologies ]] [[ on both counts, and I hope the compromise is not too poorly made. ]] In article <4560@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > > Yes, I think pornography does degrade women. Okay, that's fine. We all have our opinions. Mine is that television degrades humans, in more subtle and far-reaching ways. I'm not about to suggest censoring it, though. > ... I do think that women > spread that degradation to other women (In the eyes of their > beholders) when they pose for porn. The key here, of course, is that you are the beholder who thinks that other women are degraded. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. > ... Natually, I think porn with > male subjects is degrading to men. Can some of the men out there > imagine how they feel about photos that encourage others to size > them up like a piece of meat--placing value on the ability of > their bodies to stimulate? I avoid imagining how I feel -- gets confusing. My feeling is that people who fall for that are not people I'd have any interest in, anyway. What they do for jollies is their own business. > Generally speaking, I can't help but believe that porn ("hard core" > porn, especially) has a real connection with the incidence of rape, > incest, and child molestation in our society. And what is that connection? Causal? Perhaps indicative? > ... I have read studies > cited that seem to indicate that the sexual stimulation produced > indirectly stimulates the tendancy toward violent acts. The theory > is that there is a connection between these two sections of the > brain and that somehow sexual stimulation lowers the threshold for > stimulation to violent acts. The part about "two sections of the brain" is obviously garbage. I'd be amused to see a reference on this type of thing. Everyone nowadays knows that it's the closeness of the eyes that matters, combined with negative ions (or is it positive?) in the air (-:). > ... I'm sure other factors contribute, > but the seemingly high incidence of many rapists and child molesters > turning out to be "porn addicts" makes me wonder if it isn't a significant > factor. Ignoring the likelihood of this being "folk data", I'd like to agree that playing with statistics can be fun. Consider how many murderers now were raised on television. Easily 90%. Of course, when the question is phrased the other way, it becomes much more difficult to assess: How many people who (read porn)|(watch TV) become child molesters, rapists, murderers? > It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the > nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women > generally desire sex. Well, yes. Being animals, women do "generally desire sex". Or maybe it just seems that way in California? > The expression on the woman's face (if her > face is shown at all) is always inviting. There isn't any hint > that the woman minds men taking in her sexually sugesstive pose. Okay, I have to grant you this: pornography is very very poor at emphasizing the virtues of modesty and humility. > You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present > she would love to jump in bed with you. Actually, I've never gotten that idea. > ... My point is that I think it is easy [for] porn users to make > degrading generalizations about about the sexual temperment of women. Considering how many degrading generalizations about women there are in this world/culture, I don't think you can lay the blame entirely on pornography. Even if you include the Bible as "pornography". > > Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech > and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. How so? Freedom is (in one simple view) part of the implicit cultural contracts made between an individual (or group) and society as a whole. In this context, I'm unclear as to what you consider a mockery. > All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a > justification by men for their own use of the stuff. Say what? This sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me. To wit: "I want to use this material for my own purposes" seems fair (provided no significant harm to others). What kinds of reasons do you use to justify reading anything you read? (Oh, perhaps you were just complaining that you feel suspicious too often??;-) > Are these > freedoms absolute? Not many people believe they are. Witness > the outrage agianst "kiddie porn". Yet why is there such a demand > for that stuff? Sure using kids as subjects often requires other > kinds of abuse done to them. But those abuses are "necessary" > (e.g. kidnapping) in large part because the activity is illegal. > If it were legal you would probably get some families making porn > with their own kids (adopted?) to make money. The children would > probably suffer much less physical abuse generally (in the hands of > people they know rather than strangers), but would that make kiddie > porn more acceptable? Hmmmm? I don't think this is relevant to this discussion. > Freedom of speech and the press is essential to our civil liberties, > especially where the freedom to express political, philosophical, > and religious thought are concerned. A slippery slope argument > is often given that if porn it banned this other, more essential, > type of expression will eventually be stultified also. I don't see > the direct causual link, though I do agree that there is a danger > in going too far. One objection to anti-porn laws says that some > legitimate and valuable works will unjustly fall under the ban. > That's probably true. But it is also true for any general proscription. > There are always tough cases that make the law seem unfair. Human > systems of justice always have their casualties, but this is not > a good argument against the law. The best we can do is to work out > a system that minimises the casualities as much as possible. What > real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have > an essentially free press without it. The "real contribution" is that people have the freedom to buy and sell and view and read what they want, not what you want. Freedoms are, as you suggest, not absolute. But the freedom of speech, for example, serves (speaking metaphorically) as a guarantee to the members of society that no group will control the ideas which can be disseminated. This freedom should be yielded VERY VERY carefully, for it is unlikely to be regained once lost. Would you like to volunteer to surrender your right of habeas corpus? So what is the benefit that banning pornography offers society? Proponents seem to imply that a reduction of the incidence of rape, molestation, et cetera, will obtain when such a ban is in place. Do you really believe this? If so, I suggest you try to find evidence (I mean scientific evidence, not news media reports and editorials) to support this view. If you don't believe this benefit will result, why on earth do you support the ban? What it comes down to is that there is a vocal minority of people who want to control what the (silent?) majority is allowed to read. The classic paradox (I read it first in Mike Royko's column years ago) for people of that persuasion is this: Why do you believe that pornography incites such vile acts? If it doesn't affect you that way, what makes you believe it affects others? If it does make you feel like perpetrating such actions, don't you think you should seek professional help rather than interfering in the lives of others? DISCLAIMER: I find "hard porn" a very sad commentary on our society, and agree there exists such material with no "socially redeeming value". I certainly would not encourage anyone to buy/read/make it. This is much the same way I feel about television and news-magazines. -- --| Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science --| UUCP: {decvax!ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west --| ARPA: west@NPRDC { NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> }
crs@lanl.ARPA (01/16/85)
> Another thing to consider is the attitude that ``if it is illegal then > it must be pretty good!''. Or didn't you sneak into restricted films > just because you knew that whatever it was, must be really something? > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura Another example of this was mentioned a while ago (I'm sorry, I don't recall by whom). Our grand experiment with Prohibition! If what I've read isn't all wet, many people drank then who wouldn't have otherwise -- no, I can't cite references. Paul Dubuc, attempting to rebut Evelyn Leeper's rebuttal of his article arbitrarily decided to substitute "kiddy porn" for his original "porn." This is the real reason for this posting. Children are often distinguished from adults under the law and this is (usually) as it should be. Adults are allowed to buy, use, and, sometimes, abuse alcoholic beverages; CHILDREN ARE NOT. Adults are (sometimes, so far) allowed to buy porn; CHILDREN ARE NOT. Adults are (so far) allowed to act in porn; CHILDREN ARE NOT. This is for the protection of the children, who under the law, are not yet able to decide for themselves. I must say, I agree with Laura and Evelyn. As an aside, I find it incredible that with all this energy directed at porn few have even mentioned the violence that pervades TV and the movies and it isn't even X rated! Now *that* is obscene. Charlie
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/16/85)
In article <4585@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >A response to Evelyn Leeper's response to me: > >Think for a second about what I might mean, Evelyn, will you? By "generally" >I mean desire it without regard to partner. I thought it was plain enough. >You know, an example would be men who like to harass women and think the >women love it no matter how much they show their displeasure. Where in the >world do you think they get that idea? Wouldn't you think that the regular >viewing of many nameless, personality-less, even faceless women in such >suggestive poses would tend to reinforce the idea greatly? > Actually I must disagree, this sort of behavior was around a *long* time before any sort of pornography became prevalent. It is a long standing "myth" or prejudice in our society, probably dating back at least to Elizabethan England! Its prevalence in sexual "literature" is probably caused by the cultural attitude rather than the reverse as you suggest. > >Kiddie porn too? If not, why the difference? Please read my comments >on that again. > But the processing of producing "kiddie-porn" violates many laws already, e.g. child-labor laws and child-mlolestation laws. Why do we need *censorship* to control it. Instead of making a law out-lawing the stuff per se, pass a law making any released film admissible evidence in court. Then producing such a film would be equivalent to convicting one's self of child-molestation. Let us *not* get involved in censorship, when enforcement of laws pertaining to a child's rights will do just as well. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (01/16/85)
In article <4560@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >factor. It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the >nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women >generally desire sex. The expression on the woman's face (if her >face is shown at all) is always inviting. There isn't any hint >that the woman minds men taking in her sexually sugesstive pose. Paul, The phrase that bugs me here is "idea that women generally desire sex" and your implication that it is not true. In my experience women do generally desire sex, of course they want to chose their partners, so do I. I agree that violent pornography is degrading and isn't worth defending with the free speech argument. Is most pornography violent? I don't think so, but I admit it has been 10 years since I saw anything except a Playboy magazine. I don't think that Playboy degrades anyone but it could be an exception. Is pornography a cause or an effect? I think it is an effect and we should look for ways to quell the desire for it, not its availability. Respectively, Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+ :
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/17/85)
In article <354@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I find Nazi propaganda more offensive >(by several orders of magnitude) and demonstrably more harmful in the long run >than pornography, but I would not ban Nazi propaganda. >> ...real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have >> an essentially free press without it. >The same could be said for Nazi propaganda. My support of its right to be >heard still stands. I think that you have stated the fundamentals of the argument right there. *I*, at least, do not think that *totally* free speech is worth another holocaust, or in this specific case, I don't think it's worth the warping of attitudes towards women that pornography involves. (And the attitude has little to do with sex and much to do with relative importance of people as human beings.) The ability of the written and verbal media to inspire people to do things that they would not normally consider is well known (eg Nazi Germany). The matter of free speech is not something that can be considered as something taken for granted. The potential cost of free speech could (and *has*) reached millions of lives. While death is not something that is likely to arise out of pornography, the set of attitudes it puts forward has a higher cost than the the loss of free speech, at least in my opinion. Freedom costs. How much are we willing to pay? In this case (and in the case of hate literature), the cost is too much. As can be seen, this is an issue where there will always be disagreement *even* if we can get *all* the facts. The price of freedom varies between individuals, and there will thus be a wide variety of responses. The best we can hope for is a concensus on what the facts are. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (01/17/85)
Someone out there should do us all a favor and dig last years pornography discussion off of mag tape (in a condensed form) and repost it. Three months out of every year is taken up by rehashing the same old crap. It's true that this new ruling is worth discussion, but the seemingly infinite flow of subject tangents are nothing more than "old news" -- clearly a good candidate for net.flames! "What's the bottom line!" Gary
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (01/18/85)
Tom West, utcsrgv:
*I*, at least, do not think that *totally* free speech is worth
another holocaust, or in this specific case, I don't think it's worth
the warping of attitudes towards women that pornography involves.
I have a friend who very effectively argues that the only way to really stop
the spread and appreciation of negative stuff like pornography is to make
the positive ideas that compete as available and as rewarding. Sort of
a Darwinism of ideas. He claims that if you restrict what you think is
negative (and *your* basis for believing them to be negative is quite arbitrary
and non empirical) then you run a high risk of suppressing ideas which may
be able to compete and which may (given the 20/20 vision of hindsight) turn
out to be very successful socially.
I don't think that humans have come near to exhausting the range of social
behavior possible to them. When one looks at society as an organism, one
realizes that it's a organism in the throes of infancy.
...The potential cost of free speech could (and *has*) reached
millions of lives.
It is also possible to argue effectively that it was not the freedom of
speech that cost millions of lives, but was in fact the restraint of ideas
that could compete with the ones that were allowed by the alleged freedom
of speech. To get down to cases, Nazism didn't survive because it was
allowed to be propagated, Nazism survived because the people thought it
to be the best choice at the time. Nazism didn't allow free speech.
Nazism didn't allow competing ideas. Tell me, just how successful is Nazism
today in the US?
Freedom costs. How much are we willing to pay? In this case (and
in the case of hate literature), the cost is too much.
There is a big, big, big, big difference between censorship (applied
automatically before the fact with no peer review) and a judicial solution
where it is possible to bring grave charges of (for instance) incitement
to inhuman or degrading acts. I agree that some mechanism is needed for
evaluating the fringe cases. It cannot operate blindly in a prescriptive
fashion. It must evaluate *after* some effects have been seen. Otherwise
it will prohibit the spread of useful ideas. Do you realize that one of
the obstacles to portraying real, healthy sex on the screen in Ontario
today is that you *cannot* show an erect penis? We are talking about
a phenomenon that practically every one on the planet has experienced (and
perhaps enjoyed!). It's ridiculous not to be able to show it. On the
other hand, we are able to show subtle degradations of women, and subtle
putdowns. That sort of thing is rampant in Hollywood movies. The
Ontario Censor Board is actively working for the detriment of women by
preventing the spread of ideas that may be able to compete successfully
against the negative ones. So much for censorship.
Do you realize that if there was a law prohibiting the social degradation
of women (ie. addressing the real problem, rather than the symptoms) that
most people wouldn't stand for it because (example) I could haul the makers
of _The_Last_Starfighter_ into court for making and distributing a film that
callously contributes to the continued oppression of women? [I'd have to
prove that it actually does that.]
When you talk about censorship, you are talking about a rigid, non-adaptive,
non-learning mechanism for controlling a phenomenon that we don't really
understand. [We don't understand the relative social effects of various
types of information, let alone the actual outcome of the effects on people's
happiness and survival potential. We don't really understand how good ideas
compete against bad ideas. We don't understand how to teach goodness. I
think the best assumption we can make is that if we give all ideas (unless
we discover specific exceptions in hindsight) freedom to exist, that the
healthy ones will survive in the end.] If nuclear plants were designed like
censor boards we'd be extinct by now.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracyben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (01/18/85)
>> Kiddie porn too? If not, why the difference? Please read my comments >> on that again. > >I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and >"normal" pornography. I don't think any kind of sex between >consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what >happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers. >The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is >lacking in the case of kiddie porn. One cannot so easily dismiss what happens between the porn actress/producer/customer. It is an unfortunate reality that ultra-profitable businesses like pornography attract a criminal element that is willing to go to ridiculous measures for profit. Kiddie porn is one result .. but there are others. There is an underground type of film called a 'snuff film'. In these movies, the producers will promise anything to the porn actress to secure her cooperation. At the end of the film, the actress is killed, both on-screen and in real life! Talk about degradation of women! I don't think any of these movies have been made in the US, but they are available in this country through the same channels that distribute kiddie porn. Hence, although I have no moral objection to standard pornography, I would tend to shy away from patronizing distributors of it until it is available through more legitimite channels. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
art@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/20/85)
--------- I strongly feel that pornographic images of women degrade everybody involved, the women that pose and the men that look at the pictures. It degrades the woman by depicting her as body to jump on top of, or a body to harm. It degrades the men who look at the pictures (and this point is made much less often) by having them futiley lust to have their way with naked women. The only winner is the slimeball pornographer who uses everybody involved and pockets the bucks. The pornographer isn't degraded because they have no values to harm, or they have turned porn into a personal philosophy like Mr. Flynt or Mr. Hefner. Porn is mainly about making money. But underneath the profit motive it points to unsatisfied needs of the people involved. I venture that some women pose because they want to be considered attractive and beautiful. Our society does place tremendous and excessive emphasis emphasis on women's appearance. (Even MEN try to make themselves look like beautiful women.) Society also places a great value on men's ability to attract beautiful women. Posing for porn certainly is not a good outlet for women that want to show that they are attractive. Porn points to men's unfulfilled needs for human and sexual contact. In fact, I think that the main need is human contact. It also points to unfulfilled needs for control and power. But looking at pictures doesn't satisfy the needs at all. It simply leaves men frustrated and angry. Rather than banning porn, we should be looking for ways to address these legitimate needs. The real social revolution will be to find better ways to satisfy the needs that porn indicates, hopefully without joining Rev. Falwell. Arthur Goldberg art@ucla-cs
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/20/85)
> The ability of the written and verbal media to inspire people to do things > that they would not normally consider is well known (eg Nazi Germany). Isn't this something of an oversimplification? > The matter of free speech is not something that can be considered as > something taken for granted. That's why Ms. Leeper, and others, are defending it so actively. > The potential cost of free speech could > (and *has*) reached millions of lives. The Holocaust was caused by free speech. Right. And it could have been prevented by laws outlawing Nazi literature. Right. Let me know when you stop dreaming. How about this - the Holocaust occured because the Nazis, once in power, *eliminated* the right of free speech. Still an oversimplification, but closer by a long shot. Jeff Winslow
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/20/85)
> There is an > underground type of film called a 'snuff film'. In these movies, > the producers will promise anything to the porn actress to secure > her cooperation. At the end of the film, the actress is killed, > both on-screen and in real life! Talk about degradation of women! > I don't think any of these movies have been made in the US, but > they are available in this country through the same channels that > distribute kiddie porn. Have you seen any of these movies, or better yet, know of any documented cases where this occured? This sounds like mythology to me - a few years back there was a film (actually called "Snuff", I believe) which purported to be what you say, but was later revealed to be a hoax (a pretty sick one, certainly). There was an article in Playboy about it at the time. They weren't too happy about it, by the way, as anyone who's ever looked at anything but the pictures would understand. I am prefectly willing to admit my ignorance of the facts here, but I suspect (for the time being) the same of you. No offense intended. Jeff Winslow
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (01/21/85)
> I think that you have stated the fundamentals of the argument right > there. *I*, at least, do not think that *totally* free speech is worth > another holocaust, or in this specific case, I don't think it's worth > the warping of attitudes towards women that pornography involves. Tom West free speech didn't cause the holocaust. an unfair an oppressive treaty of Versailles that forced germany into paying all of the war debts and reducing the entire country to poverty level is what sowed the seeds of world war II and the holocaust. While free speech did allow hitler to be heard, it was not free speech that allowed him to come to power. He would probably have been heard then as a raving madman had it not been for the duress the german people lived under and their desperation to gain back not only a standard of living above bare-bones survival, but dignity for their country as well. Hitler fed egos, and that's where he won. it's human nature. but i don't see anyone suggesting we should ban human nature or stop saying nice things to each other and encouraging self-pride. the holocaust went on because no one could believe the atrocities were happening. they were all passed along as rumor, but if there truly had been free speech under Hitler then everyone would have seen him for the madman he was and that would have been the end of that. i wouldn't want the nazis or the born-again's or any oppressive group to stop talking. I want to know what i'm up against. larry... uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA -- This mind intentionally left blank.
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (01/22/85)
Someone out there should do us all a favor and dig last
years pornography discussion off of mag tape (in a condensed form)
and repost it. Three months out of every year is taken up by
rehashing the same old crap.
Gary
There have been new insights produced in the discussion. I am sorry that you
missed them.
Do you think that Usenet discussions are held for your benefit only? Clearly
some people find the porn discussion interesting (while it would take an
extreme imagination to consider your complaints interesting.)
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracymag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/22/85)
> > One cannot so easily dismiss what happens between the porn > actress/producer/customer. It is an unfortunate reality that > ultra-profitable businesses like pornography attract a criminal > element that is willing to go to ridiculous measures for profit. > Kiddie porn is one result .. but there are others. There is an > underground type of film called a 'snuff film'. In these movies, > the producers will promise anything to the porn actress to secure > her cooperation. At the end of the film, the actress is killed, > both on-screen and in real life! Talk about degradation of women! > I don't think any of these movies have been made in the US, but > they are available in this country through the same channels that > distribute kiddie porn. Hence, although I have no moral objection > to standard pornography, I would tend to shy away from patronizing > distributors of it until it is available through more legitimite > channels. > > Ben Broder > ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben The snuff film stuff was big in the news a few years ago. Despite intense efforts by many government agencies, no one has yet actually found a snuff film that wasn't faked -- i.e., the actress was OK. Even the idea of a faked one nauseates me, but this debate is not helped by rumors of this sort being perpetuated. To me, the idea of a snuff film is orders of magnitude worse than kiddie porn(which I loathe the idea of also). To make the bald statement that snuff films are as available as kiddie porn is exaggeration in the extreme! Snuff films AREN'T available. The US government tried to find one for years! All they found were lots of rumors and no celluloid. Mike Gray, BTL, WH *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/22/85)
> I strongly feel that pornographic images of women degrade everybody > involved, the women that pose and the men that look at the pictures. > It degrades the woman by depicting her as body to jump on top of, > or a body to harm. It degrades the men who look at the pictures > (and this point is made much less often) by having them futiley > lust to have their way with naked women. > Porn points to men's unfulfilled needs for human and sexual contact. > In fact, I think that the main need is human contact. It also > points to unfulfilled needs for control and power. But looking at > pictures doesn't satisfy the needs at all. It simply leaves men > frustrated and angry. Well, frustration is not degradation (in fact, I haven't been able to figure out from all this brouhaha just what "degradation" is supposed to be - maybe sort of a cross between "I don't like it" and "My religion says I don't like it"). But the main point is - Maybe it leaves *you* frustated and angry. Maybe *you* lust futilely. Don't generalize. I always felt happy and at peace with the world afterwards. Of course, you have to do more than just "look" at the pictures. Or didn't you know? Maybe it's time for net.men.only, after all. :-) A fantasy a day keeps the frustration away... Jeff Winslow
schmidt@reed.UUCP (Alan Schmidt) (01/24/85)
References: [Something tells me I shouldn't say this] I was chugging along reading net.books, minding a lot of other people's business when something about the subject field "Pornography doesn't degrade women" hit me: Remember that old gun control slogan, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people...." Yes, I know. If I've offended I apologise. -- Alan (..tektronix!reed!schmidt)
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/25/85)
> Remember that old gun control slogan, "Guns don't kill people;
guns that have read pornography kill people!
--Cliffwest@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/27/85)
<> me>> I think that you have stated the fundamentals of the argument right me>> there. *I*, at least, do not think that *totally* free speech is worth me>> another holocaust, or in this specific case, I don't think it's worth me>> the warping of attitudes towards women that pornography involves. >free speech didn't cause the holocaust. Of course not! Free speech in itself doesn't cause anything. But it does *allow* for such to occur. >an unfair an oppressive treaty >of Versailles that forced germany into paying all of the war debts and >reducing the entire country to poverty level is what sowed the seeds of >world war II and the holocaust. While free speech did allow hitler to >be heard, it was not free speech that allowed him to come to power. He >would probably have been heard then as a raving madman had it not been >for the duress the german people lived under and their desperation to gain >back not only a standard of living above bare-bones survival, but dignity >for their country as well. True, but it was free speech that allowed him to manipulate the Germans in their desperation. >Hitler fed egos, and that's where he won. it's human nature. but i >don't see anyone suggesting we should ban human nature or stop saying >nice things to each other and encouraging self-pride. It is well known that we humans can be manipulated. We can't change human nature, but we can see if we can stop the worst excesses from being encouraged by others. >the holocaust went on because no one could believe the atrocities were >happening. they were all passed along as rumor, but if there truly had >been free speech under Hitler then everyone would have seen him for the >madman he was and that would have been the end of that. The government can easily keep secrets while free speech prevails (or does the USA have no secrets?) I'm afraid that free speech only occurs where the facts are known by somebody willing to report it. >i wouldn't want the nazis or the born-again's or any oppressive group >to stop talking. I want to know what i'm up against. Different strategies, I guess. I prefer to muzzle dangerous influences before they can badly warp society. > larry... I will state (before I get flamed to the wall) that I believe that any restriction of free speech must be done with *great* care. There is certainly the ability to mis-use such power, however I believe that there are certain cases where restriction of free speech is merited, such as the case of hate literature and pornography (yes, I do see a link, it's just one is a little more blatant than the other). Certainly any such restrictions must be done so that (1) The reason for restriction is given and (2) There is recourse to the courts to lift a restriction. Note that this is just a slight extension of the restrictions already in place. The gov't doesn't allow free distribution of its secrets on the basis that this would harm the country more than the restriction of free speech that stops such secrets from being disseminated. I propose that this principle should be slightly extended. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
crs@lanl.ARPA (01/29/85)
> >> Kiddie porn too? If not, why the difference? Please read my comments > >> on that again. > > > >I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and > >"normal" pornography. I don't think any kind of sex between > >consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what > >happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers. > >The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is > >lacking in the case of kiddie porn. > > > One cannot so easily dismiss what happens between the porn > actress/producer/customer. It is an unfortunate reality that > ultra-profitable businesses like pornography attract a criminal > element that is willing to go to ridiculous measures for profit. > Kiddie porn is one result .. but there are others. There is an > underground type of film called a 'snuff film'. In these movies, > the producers will promise anything to the porn actress to secure > her cooperation. At the end of the film, the actress is killed, > both on-screen and in real life! Talk about degradation of women! > I don't think any of these movies have been made in the US, but > they are available in this country through the same channels that > distribute kiddie porn. Hence, although I have no moral objection > to standard pornography, I would tend to shy away from patronizing > distributors of it until it is available through more legitimite > channels. > > Ben Broder > ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben Two points: Paul Dubuc's point seems to be that we need a definition of porn in order to outlaw it. Someone (I'm sorry, I don't recall who) recently made the point that there are already laws against the things you object to. Murder, child molestation, forcing someone to do something against their will, etc are all against the law *now* -- These crimes are all well defined with (relatively) clear-cut laws proscribing them. If these laws don't work, how can we expect to define and pass laws against, something as nebulous as pornography? Point 1: Enforce the existing laws don't make new, unnecessary laws that won't do what you want and will serve no one but the lawyers that they will enrich. Point 2: If porn is made illegal by whatever ill defined laws its opponents come up with it **won't** become available through "more legitimate channels" it will ****only**** be available through the criminal channels (as was booze during prohibition) and control of methods as well as content will become even less. There is, obviously, a significant market for porn or no one would bother to make it. When such a market exists, it will be serviced, one way or another. None of these ideas are original; I think all have been mentioned here on the net over the months. Somehow they just get swept aside in the fervor and the fury of those with a cause and need to be remembered from time to time. Charlie
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (01/29/85)
...Women degrade women (thank you, NRA, for setting that one straight). Now, can we get on with something else? The horizon of duplication is far behind us.
jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes) (02/08/85)
On the issue of free speech: I think that one of the Supreme court rulings on pornnogrphy (or perhaps some other free-speech or right issue) stated, roughly, that these rights are easy to grant to the poeple whose ideas we condone, but the function of the laws and the duty of the courts was to preserve those rights precisely for those with whom we most vehemently disagree. I beg you to ask yourself, "Why did they say this?"
crs@lanl.ARPA (02/19/85)
> > On the issue of free speech: I think that one of the Supreme court rulings on > pornnogrphy (or perhaps some other free-speech or right issue) stated, roughly, > that these rights are easy to grant to the poeple whose ideas we condone, > but the function of the laws and the duty of the courts was to preserve those > rights precisely for those with whom we most vehemently disagree. > I beg you to ask yourself, "Why did they say this?" An EXCELLENT point! Charlie