pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/15/85)
}[from Marcel Simon:] }You must start by defining pornography. Your posting does no such thing. }You should also be more convincing of the necessity to ban pornography }once you have defined it. Again, you do no such thing. No, I don't think I do have to start there. The fact that we are even talking about porn assumes that we have a general idea of what it is. To discuss it it only has to be an observed part of people's experience. This observation is enough to decide whether or not something needs to be done about it. I agree that a more precise definition has to be made for legal purposes if, and when, people decide to actually do something about it. But that does not have to be done at the outset. It has not been my purpose to legally define pornography. I have only given my opinion and observation of its effects in support of my view that *something* should be done about it. I have also tried to expess my feeling that a workable legal definition *can* be produced. I recognise the problems with defining porn for legal purposes. But the main hinderence to coming up with such a definition is that people insist that it be defined so as not to exclude what they like. This is not a definition in the normal sense of the word. What it reduces to is to say that nothing can be banned because some people want it and like it. This notion seems absurd when applied to other proscriptions in society. Another thing that hinders is the impression I get that many people don't want a definition of pornography. If you even come close to providing an objective basis for its definition, any combination of the following reactions usually result: 1) People will point out the casualties of the definition saying "this will also ban X, which is a good book". But as I said before, every law has casualties that make it seem unfair. The best we can to is to reduce them. 2) Something that amounts to saying, "No one can tell me I can't have this if I want it. I enjoy it.". But that same principle is not universal. I amounts to saying that something someone is doing and wants to do can't be banned. 3) The "slippery slope" argument that says if pornographers loose their right to publish we will lose our freedom of speech. Some people have related this to freedom for the expression of political ideas. I see one difference that I think is significant: With political, philosophical, and religious ideas there are a plurality of views. The only thing that counters the message of porn (it's not "speech" if there is no message) is its absence. It either exists or it doesn't. More on this below. }> 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.<...> } }Community standards are vague because communities are vague. If you cannot }get your community to agree on what is permissible and what is not, }then how can you justify banning or allowing ANYTHING? But the point is that things are banned and allowed in all communities on different grounds. Things from traffic laws to drug abuse laws are not dependent on the nebulous "community standards" concept. They are legislated and enforced without polling the community for their standard. Why is porn singularly different than every thing else in this respect? Do we have to "get" our communities to ban cock fights, open gambling, drug abuse or prostitution? Why aren't first amendment freedoms invoked in these areas? And in the area of publication, why has the line been drawn so rigidly at kiddie porn? That law has had its casualties. For example, the owner of shoe store chain here in Columbus was asked to cover the bare bottomed toddler on his billboards with a diaper. It is the state legislatures that are reacting against kiddie porn, not any effort based directly on community standards. }> I think that concept was a cop out by the Supreme Court when the legislature }> tossed them that "hot potato". } }Absolutely. This was a recognition by the S. C. that since they could not }think of a universal legal valid definition of porn, and since they did }not wish to be bombed by anti-porn advocates (:-) they would let the }community decide. You are saying that you cannot decide and you blame the }S. C. for not doing the job. You are evading the issue, Paul. No, I'm blaming the Legislature for passing the buck to the Supreme Court. By virtue of its judicial function the S. C. cannot invoke a definition of pornography. That would be writing laws into effect; which is the job of our legislature. The Court interprets the laws in specific cases and sets precidents for their application. With no law to work from the Court could do nothing. That is what "community standards" amount to: nothing. Porn peddlers are under no constraint to defend their trade against any community standard. They appeal to law (1st Amendment). Community standards mean substantially nothing; even when the community is marshalled to give them content. That is why if anything is really going to be done about porn it must be done on some objectively based law. True, that objective basis is going to cut across what some people like, but what people *like* is not the basis for any effective laws. }> if your last statement is true the First amendment is meaningless. If }> you mean the we must accept the good with the bad, then that is 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. As I said before, I think this makes a mockery of free speech, }> especially considering porn's probable effects on society. } }The first amendment says that you and I will not be restrained from }saying or writing whatever is on our minds by the arbitrary edicts of }governments, "moral" citizens, etc. You can express disagreement by arguing, }e.g. this net, or by not listening to/reading the opinion. If you are offended }by pornography, don't read it, don't go into the adult store, etc... This }is the very essence of free speech, not a mockery of anything. But here you avoid the issue of its probable effects on society. Political views are multiple and they counterbalance one another. Also particular political (religious or whatever) views may be debated on their merits and compared with one another. The message of pornography has no competitor except a higher view of sexuality that implys its absence. There is no pluralism here, only a duality. I think this is because the message of pornography strikes at something that is universal and also deeply personal with all human beings: their sexuality. It is possible to separate people from their particular ideologies and not take anything away from their personhood. It is not similarly possible to separate people from their sexuality and leave their personhood intact. As an illustration: I can say to the woman who embraces Nazism that I oppose her ideology (it is possible for her to embrace another) but still recognise her right as a human to embrace it. Yet it is much harder to separate her person from her sexuality. If I accept the degrading impression that porn conveys of human sexuality, I cannot, at the same time affirm a person as being distinct from what that message conveys. The woman cannot help but be a woman and have her own sexuality inherent in that. Pornography that is geared toward men does not emphasize the personality of the individual subjects. It coveys a *general* impression about all women. I have contended that this impression is degrading. I can create a disjuction between a person and his/her political or religious beliefs but I cannot do so with regard to their sexuality. I beleive that the duality inherent in the message of porn and the fact that it takes advantage of an intrinsic, universal human characteristic (sexuality) set it apart from the essential forms of expression. }> The presence of porn is associated with some ill effects in most people's }> minds if they don't want it in *their* neighborhood. } }I don't want a trucking company to set up shop in my neighborhood either }(because of noise, put down those flamethrowers) but that does not mean }trucking companies are detrimental to society You are shifting the analogy to your advantage by changing the reason for not wanting something in our neighborhood. Read my analogy between two types of book stores again. I maintianed that there is more general opposition to a porn shop than a family type bookstore. That opposition is often reflected in zoning codes. But if people do not see porn has having any more harmful effects than the family bookstore, why the difference? Do porn shops bring more noise into the neighborhood than other bookstores? Why do you think people would make a distinction? In summary I concede that the task of defining pornography is a difficult one. But the issue of whether or not it is harmful (which may be discussed based on a more general idea people have of what porn is) has to be dealt with first before the task of developing a difficult legal definition can bear any fruit. Nothing is going to happen if people aren't conviced that something needs to be done about it. Also, the task of defining porn for legal purposes needs to be a concerted effort. I recognise that such a task needs to incorporate more than one person's viewpoint if it is to have a sufficiently objective base. So defining porn for the legal purpose of banning it is not something I have undertaken to do. In my view that is fruitless without the cooperation of people who already recognise the need to do something about it. That recognition needs to come first and it doesn't need a precise legal definition of porn to come about. I have limited my comments to presenting what I feel to be porn's harmful message and the unique characteristics of that message that may allow us to single it out from other, essential form of expression. Were I to attempt a legal definition of porn on my own, it would probably reflect too much of my own personal bias and not have a sufficiently objective base; which I contend that we need. Also, I think that trying to legally define porn for the purposes of proscription before establising its merits (or lack thereof) is counterproductive. If my efforts here have convinced some to personally shun their own use of porn and encourage others to do the same, that consititutes a much more ideal remedy for the problem than proscription up front by law (In practice it is propably insufficient, however). We generally applaud the efforts of government to raise the dignity and moral treatment of women through legislation and the institution of affirmative action programs. Protecting porn with similar means seems counterproductive. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/17/85)
In the interest of BREVITY, I will not quote from your article, for those interested, it is number 1355 in net.abortion. How can you discuss the merits of anything that you have not defined? I hope you don't solve work projects in the same way. Your approach is even worse from a legal standpoint. It is of supreme importance to have specific laws, unless we trust that its enforcers, i.e. government and the police, to be consistently enlightened. You will agree that they don't have a good track record in this area. Kiddie porn is illegal, not as pornography, but as statutory rape and/or child molestation. The visual representation of consenting adults having sex is not illegal. If one of the adults is not consenting, the laws covering coercion, kidnapping and rape can and do deal with that. A definition of porn is not needed because it is irrelevant in these cases. This net, which I take to be representative of the country (a probably bad assumption), has seen a lively debate of erotica vs porn. This debate has been inconclusive because every opinion has been sufficiently different from every other. So saying that we "have a general idea of what [porn] is" is not only insufficient, but dangerous. It invites tyranny from those vocal enough to pressure legislators and executives into accepting *their* version of it. Something like that has been tried. It was called Prohibition and failed. If you are only looking to stimulate discussion and convince others of porn's alleged harmful effects, you can do so. Your postings, however, have been strongly tinged with the desire for legal action. I do not, BTW, expect that a legal definition will be universally accepted. Only that one will be accepted enough that its supporters will be able to elect those who will codify it into law, which will withstand the scrutiny of the courts. You seem dangerously casual about curtailing the first amendment. By your reasoning, it is OK to curb freedom a little to achieve a "greater" good. But where does "a little" stop? Today DH Lawrence, tomorrow Dan Rather (viz Jesse Helms' campaign to buy CBS), maybe? And then what? What if I say, "you hate X, therefore you banned Y; I hate Z, so I should be allowed to ban A", is that OK? Yes, we have to get communities to ban cock fights, gambling, etc, because a consensus exists that their monetary (tax, tourism) advantages are outweighed by their handicaps: cruelty to animals, crime, traffic, etc There is not necessarily a moral consensus, just a practical one, which can change: casinos in Atlantic City, jai alai in Connecticut, state lotteries etc. You are pushing are exclusively moral reasons to back your point of view. Since morals are a subjective legal matter, hence the need for a community consensus BEFORE legal action is taken. The legislatures, at the state level at least, did write obscenity laws that covered porn. These were mostly struck down by the courts, mostly for being unconstitutionally vague. Maybe no greater efforts have been made since because the legislature sense the lack of consensus on the issue. This is politics, which is inextricably tied to democracy. I have saved the great pseudo-issue of porn's effect on society for last. WHAT effect? Where are your facts? For every study that on por inciting to rape, there is a counter-study that shows the opposite. I think there is a mixup between violence and pornography. The two are often intertwined, but are *not* the same. Don't give me the "pornography is degrading" line. There has been plenty of excellent rebuttal of it on this net. Other than one generation always saying that the next is taking the world to hell in a handbasket, there is *no* visible ill effects on US society of pornography. I fail to see much convincing information in your personhood/sexuality point. If sexuality is so inherent in a human (you spend a lot of time on female sexuality. Are men not sexual beings also? Or are only women "degraded" by porn?), what's wrong with its display? What is a "family" bookstore? A place where you can get "food" full of chemicals, cancer causing cigarettes, contentless magazines and books (the illustrious Silhouette Romance, for example), and other nefarious artifacts. I once lived in abuilding next door to a "family" food store (a pizzeria). I had to deal with teenagers playing car radios and ghetto blasters at top volume at three AM, empty pizza boxes in the lobby of my buiding the next morning in winter, my door blocked by large menacing looking young people. I'll tell you, never again. I'd rather walk or drive a distance than have that in my neighborhood again. So nothing is resolved, I am afraid. Since you are the concerned party, we are still waiting for an attempt at defining porn, coupled with some convincing data on how it harms *me and mine*, that will at least stand up to the scrutiny of the net. Marcel Simon
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/17/85)
OOPS!! I said that Paul's article was 1335 in net.abortion. This is wron. It is 1331 in net.books. Marcel
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/18/85)
Another reply to Marcel Simon: >How can you discuss the merits of anything that you have not defined? >I hope you don't solve work projects in the same way. Your approach is >even worse from a legal standpoint. It is of supreme importance to have >specific laws, unless we trust that its enforcers, i.e. government and the >police, to be consistently enlightened. You will agree that they don't have >a good track record in this area. I am trying to say the the categories of pornography are well enough defined in everybody's mind to discuss it's merits. If I mention the terms "hard core porn", "violent pornography", "soft porn" most people could generally recognise those categories and place different materials consistently within each category even though the lines between them may be fuzzier for some than others. Do you maintain that these distinctions are meaningless? As I recall you made just such a distinction in your first article: 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? I said before, it has not been my purpose to form a legal definition but to point to the need for one. >Kiddie porn is illegal, not as pornography, but as statutory rape and/or >child molestation. The visual representation of consenting adults having sex >is not illegal. If one of the adults is not consenting, the laws covering >coercion, kidnapping and rape can and do deal with that. A definition >of porn is not needed because it is irrelevant in these cases. See my article called "Kiddie Porn". >This net, which I take to be representative of the country (a probably bad >assumption), has seen a lively debate of erotica vs porn. This debate has >been inconclusive because every opinion has been sufficiently different from >every other. So saying that we "have a general idea of what [porn] is" is not >only insufficient, but dangerous. It invites tyranny from those vocal enough >to pressure legislators and executives into accepting *their* version of it. I don't see the logic here. We are talking about the difference between a concept of porn that allows us to discuss its merits (such as you have above) and one that allows a workable legal standard for that which we deem to have no merit. >Something like that has been tried. It was called Prohibition and failed. Banning liquor failed so banning porn will too? Do you think porn is as acceptable and commonplace and indulgence as drinking? Do you consume it at football games or in front of T.V? >If you are only looking to stimulate discussion and convince others of porn's >alleged harmful effects, you can do so. Your postings, however, have been >strongly tinged with the desire for legal action. I do not, BTW, expect >that a legal definition will be universally accepted. Only that one >will be accepted enough that its supporters will be able to elect >those who will codify it into law, which will withstand the >scrutiny of the courts. Is any legal definition of anything universally accepted? You're right I would like to see eventual legal action. Do you think the problem is going to solve itself? >You seem dangerously casual about curtailing the first amendment. By >your reasoning, it is OK to curb freedom a little to achieve a "greater" >good. But where does "a little" stop? Today DH Lawrence, tomorrow >Dan Rather (viz Jesse Helms' campaign to buy CBS), maybe? And then what? >What if I say, "you hate X, therefore you banned Y; I hate Z, so I should >be allowed to ban A", is that OK? I think it was Larry West who agreed with me that the first amendment is not absolute. He qualified that by saying that we must give up that freedom VERY VERY carefully. I definitely agree. I don't think I have advocated wanton disregard for the 1st amendment. I recognise how carful we need to be and I think that we have more of a luxury of being careful than we will if the porn industry grows at the rate it has been. If it becomes so much of a problem that it hits us in the face then any solution may be too little to late. We can't suspend judgement forever. When we do that with teenage drunk drivers so that the problem gets out of hand we get groups that go overboard (many people think) pushing the government to raise drinking ages and such. Reason gets pushed out the door when it gets to that point and those who refused to listen earlier can only complain about the exesses. >Yes, we have to get communities to ban cock fights, gambling, etc, because >a consensus exists that their monetary (tax, tourism) advantages are >outweighed by their handicaps: cruelty to animals, crime, traffic, etc There >is not necessarily a moral consensus, just a practical one, which can >change: casinos in Atlantic City, jai alai in Connecticut, state lotteries >etc. You are pushing are exclusively moral reasons to back your point of view. >Since morals are a subjective legal matter, hence >the need for a community consensus BEFORE legal action is taken. None of the above are subject to the same community standards procedure that porn is. My reasons aren't exclusively moral. By now you've probably seen the "social effect of porn" article I posted at noontime today. A practical element is also present in regulating porn as it is with the other things you mention. > >The legislatures, at the state level at least, did write obscenity laws >that covered porn. These were mostly struck down by the courts, mostly for >being unconstitutionally vague. Maybe no greater efforts have been made >since because the legislature sense the lack of consensus on the issue. >This is politics, which is inextricably tied to democracy. This is oligarchy, tied to the whim of the courts, most notably the Supreme Court. If the courts take a conservative swing during the next 20 years or so I wonder who will be screaming for it not to be voiding the laws of our elected legislators then. Or do you believe the courts represent the consensus of americans better than their own elected officials. Tell me, if there is a consensus against porn how is it supposed to get reflected in our laws? Do we lobby the courts? Vote the judges out of office? Come now. >I have saved the great pseudo-issue of porn's effect on society for >last. WHAT effect? Where are your facts? For every study that on por >inciting to rape, there is a counter-study that shows the opposite. Facts are posted already. But I suppose *absolute* proof will be demanded next without the same standard being applied on the pro-porn side. Just stating that there are counter-studies for every study doesn't support the counter-studies if there are any. You can't support the status quo with just the fact that there is debate. You have to show that the status quo represents the better side of the debate. You don't take the attitude "my country right or wrong" do you? >I think there is a mixup between violence and pornography. The two >are often intertwined, but are *not* the same. Don't give me the >"pornography is degrading" line. There has been plenty of excellent >rebuttal of it on this net. Exellent? Let each reader be the judge of that for themselves, OK? >I fail to >see much convincing information in your personhood/sexuality >point. If sexuality is so inherent in a human (you spend a lot of time >on female sexuality. Are men not sexual beings also? Or are only women >"degraded" by porn?), what's wrong with its display? Again, let others be the judge of what is convincing (or common sense, I think) for themselves. You present no argument here. And you haven't been reading my articles carefully. How many times do I have to say that when I use a female as an example I am not shunning the male and vise-versa. First Ms. Leeper accuses me of being sexist for not mentioning that women also have sexual desire. Now you're acusing me of the opposite. Yes I do think porn degrades men. I said that in other articles. I think you should try and tell me what is wrong with the point of sexuality being intrinsic in personhood rather than twist my position so. > >What is a "family" bookstore? A place where you can get "food" full >of chemicals, cancer causing cigarettes, contentless magazines and >books (the illustrious Silhouette Romance, for example), and other >nefarious artifacts. I once lived in abuilding next door to a "family" >food store (a pizzeria). I had to deal with teenagers playing car >radios and ghetto blasters at top volume at three AM, empty pizza >boxes in the lobby of my buiding the next morning in winter, my door >blocked by large menacing looking young people. I'll tell you, never >again. I'd rather walk or drive a distance than have that in my >neighborhood again. B. Daltons. That's and example of a family bookstore. I don't know what the rest of this paragraph has to do with the subject. >So nothing is resolved, I am afraid. Since you are the concerned party, >we are still waiting for an attempt at defining porn, coupled with >some convincing data on how it harms *me and mine*, that will at least >stand up to the scrutiny of the net. I am not impressed with the scrutiny of the net, personally. I can make my own judgements of whether an argument seems reasonable. I hope you aren't pretending to speak for the net with yours. I realize, though, that I'm spitting into the wind on this issue in this forum. I think this is where I get off. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/20/85)
> >I have saved the great pseudo-issue of porn's effect on society for > >last. WHAT effect? Where are your facts? For every study that on por > >inciting to rape, there is a counter-study that shows the opposite. > > Facts are posted already. There are no "facts" that are not either anecdotes or statistical studies. The former are too sparse and too laced with subjective interpretations to be useful, and as for the latter, > Just stating that there are counter-studies for every study doesn't > support the counter-studies if there are any. You can't support the > status quo with just the fact that there is debate. You have to show > that the status quo represents the better side of the debate. Who among us is qualified to assess the accuracy of these studies? The fact that experts disagree (especially if they seem to be split about 50-50, which is the case when there is a "counter-study for every study") is cause for *extreme* caution when the results will be used to mess with First Amendment rights. You might say that you are qualified, but from reading your postings, I have to say I do not trust you. > >I think there is a mixup between violence and pornography. The two > >are often intertwined, but are *not* the same. Don't give me the > >"pornography is degrading" line. There has been plenty of excellent > >rebuttal of it on this net. > > Exellent? Let each reader be the judge of that for themselves, OK? Give the guy a break, will you? You have made value judgements and presented them as facts (for example, referring to the Supreme Court as an oligarchy). Kindly allow others the same liberties you allow yourself. By the way, I agree with him, not you. One more thing - you have accused people of not reading your articles carefully. I respectfully (really) submit that you could help remedy that situation with a bit more conciseness, leading to a desirable net characteristic - brevity. But then, you said you didn't think much of the net as a forum... Jeff Winslow
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (01/20/85)
Twenty years ago it was not permitted to use the word "pregnant" on television. Does anyone consider that word pornographic today? Does it degrade women? Did it degrade women 20 years ago? George Bernard Shaw created a scandal by using the word "bloody" in his play "Pygmalion". Is that pornographic? Would anyone notice its use today? Is society worse off because the word is no longer taboo? Before you flame that these examples are silly but that the examples given of pornography today are serious, remember that the people who objected to the above words were totally sincere in their belief in the seriousness of their views. The science fiction novel "The Forever War" (I forget the author's name) gives and interesting view into changing morality over time. Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/21/85)
In article <4616@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >B. Daltons. That's and example of a family bookstore. I don't know >what the rest of this paragraph has to do with the subject. > I wonder if Mr. Dubuc counts Waldenbooks as a family bookstore, also? The last time I looked, they were selling Penthouse and Playboy (as well as other less well known and slightly more raunchy) magazines, calenders, etc. I wonder if these are the kind of pornographic shops he wants out of his neighborhood. Oh, I get it... He only wants them to stop selling what he doesn't like. RIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT. Frank Adrian
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/23/85)
}> Just stating that there are counter-studies for every study doesn't }> support the counter-studies if there are any. You can't support the }> status quo with just the fact that there is debate. You have to show }> that the status quo represents the better side of the debate. } }Who among us is qualified to assess the accuracy of these studies? The fact }that experts disagree (especially if they seem to be split about 50-50, }which is the case when there is a "counter-study for every study") is cause }for *extreme* caution when the results will be used to mess with First }Amendment rights. You might say that you are qualified, but from reading }your postings, I have to say I do not trust you. Each may assess the validity of whatever evidence is presented for themselves. If serious flaws are pointed out in a particular study they should be accepted as such. The fact that the results of studies are presented at all implies that they are to be assessed and compared. Studies can be compared. They have to be. On what other basis can we make our decisions? Are you saying that we should do nothing just because there is disagreement without even considering the reasons each side has? Do you apply this principle consistently, or just when the status quo supports your views? }> >I think there is a mixup between violence and pornography. The two }> >are often intertwined, but are *not* the same. Don't give me the }> >"pornography is degrading" line. There has been plenty of excellent }> >rebuttal of it on this net. }> }> Exellent? Let each reader be the judge of that for themselves, OK? } }Give the guy a break, will you? You have made value judgements and }presented them as facts (for example, referring to the Supreme Court }as an oligarchy). Kindly allow others the same liberties you allow }yourself. In presenting my opinions I do not pretend to speak for the whole net. I don't allow myself that liberty. If you read the end of my article you would see that Marcel was doing just that. He made the judgement as to whether an argument stands up to the "scrutiny of the net". As far as I am concerned no one should be able to claim that the readers of this newsgroup agree with his own position. }By the way, I agree with him, not you. I could have guessed. :-) }One more thing - you have accused people of not reading your articles }carefully. I respectfully (really) submit that you could help remedy }that situation with a bit more conciseness, leading to a desirable }net characteristic - brevity. If people do not want to read articles because they are too long, fine. Each person has her own tolerance for that. I did accuse Marcel of not reading my articles because he has been responding to them. I would expect it of him in that case. }But then, you said you didn't think much of the net as a forum... No, I said I didn't think much of the "scrutiny of the net" (as Marcel put it). More brevity could certainly be achieved if people took the time to try and understand what others are saying instead of selectively ignoring peices of an argument to their own advantage. Brevity is certainly a desireable charactistic. I hope integrity whould be even more desirable. I'm used to people disagreeing with me, but I sincerely hope they would at least critique my reasoning and offer their own reasons instead of just saying things like "your argument is so weak" or "don't give me that 'porn is degrading' line". -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/24/85)
I am posting a reply in net.politics Marcel Simon