twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/17/84)
Pornography as I see it:
There are laws which proscribe violent action, the spread of hatred,
dicrimination, etc. It is generally agreed that these laws are a good thing.
It seems to be quite reasonable to have the law also proscribe the advocacy
of these things. This is the realm of criminal law. (I see various forms
of Inhumanity as criminal acts, as well).
It is clear to me that erotica is a legitimate phenomenon, both from
personal experience and others' experiences. Some way is then needed to
distinguish erotica from pornography. Or is it?
Let us judge the desirabilty of writings, films, etc. not on the
amount of flesh shown, or whether or not penetration is graphically depicted;
let us instead judge on the basis of what is being advocated. The advocacy of
a criminal act should be seen in the same light as the criminal act itself.
Stag films portraying rape as a valid way for men to obtain sexual enjoyment
is clearly advocacy of rape. A film of a couple making love (no matter
how graphic) is advocating something many of us quite rightfully enjoy.
Note that this solution is open to abuses in judgement. I feel that
any method of limiting communication will have that problem. This method
is, however, clearly tied to criminal law: a more enduring standard than
``current morality''. This proposal completely short circuits the various
definitions of ``pornography'', and manages to admit the existence of valid
erotica. In fact, let's call the phenomenon "Advocacy of Criminal Acts or
Inhumanity." That's a more useful thing to talk about than pornography.
Since people are objecting to the *influence* of ACIA on society, it
makes sense to prohibit those things which would have undesirable influences.
This stands in stark contrast to common current practice in which a priori rules
which describe what may or may not be depicted are used as censorship guides.
It's obvious that what should be legislated is not what may not occur, but
what may not be advocated.
``Morality is an issue for the individual, criminality is
an issue for society.''
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730
PS. The goals (and hence the advocacy) of a work are not something
that can be considered in a vacuum. The goals of the people
who produced it, as well as the people who consume it, must be
considered. There seems to be a tendency in Ontario to ignore
these principles and evaluate works without considering their
context.twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/17/84)
Pornography as I see it:
There are laws which proscribe violent action, the spread of hatred,
dicrimination, etc. It is generally agreed that these laws are a good thing.
It seems to be quite reasonable to have the law also proscribe the advocacy
of these things. This is the realm of criminal law. (I see various forms
of Inhumanity as criminal acts, as well).
It is clear to me that erotica is a legitimate phenomenon, both from
personal experience and others' experiences. Some way is then needed to
distinguish erotica from pornography. Or is it?
Let us judge the desirabilty of writings, films, etc. not on the
amount of flesh shown, or whether or not penetration is graphically depicted;
let us instead judge on the basis of what is being advocated. The advocacy of
a criminal act should be seen in the same light as the criminal act itself.
Stag films portraying rape as a valid way for men to obtain sexual enjoyment
is clearly advocacy of rape. A film of a couple making love (no matter
how graphic) is advocating something many of us quite rightfully enjoy.
Note that this solution is open to abuses in judgement. I feel that
any method of limiting communication will have that problem. This method
is, however, clearly tied to criminal law: a more enduring standard than
``current morality''. This proposal completely short circuits the various
definitions of ``pornography'', and manages to admit the existence of valid
erotica. In fact, let's call the phenomenon "Advocacy of Criminal Acts or
Inhumanity." That's a more useful thing to talk about than pornography.
Since people are objecting to the *influence* of ACAI on society, it
makes sense to prohibit those things which would have undesirable influences.
This stands in stark contrast to common current practice in which a priori rules
which describe what may or may not be depicted are used as censorship guides.
It's obvious that what should be legislated is not what may not occur, but
what may not be advocated.
``Morality is an issue for the individual, criminality is
an issue for society.''
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730
PS. The goals (and hence the advocacy) of a work are not something
that can be considered in a vacuum. The goals of the people
who produced it, as well as the people who consume it, must be
considered. There seems to be a tendency in Ontario to ignore
these principles and evaluate works without considering their
context.mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (02/17/84)
Tracy Tims has an interesting idea: don't ban pornography that depicts graphic sex, ban films that promote rape and/or other crimes. This would give a much more objective and workable guideline. Unfortunately: 1) which crimes are not to be shown? If it is the glorification of crime that we object to, then a lot of very good movies are in trouble. A lot of movies show people getting away with murder; The Sting certainly glorified fraud. If someone makes a movie that depicts littering (and creating a nuisance) will he be fined 50 dollars and made to pick up the garbage? 2) XXX-rated movies (so I'm told) often depict adultery, fornication, incest, and Infamous Crimes Against Nature -- activities which are still illegal in many places. Porno movies without such activities would be even more boring than they currently are. 3) Restrictions could be easily circumvented. For example, I could make a movie that graphically depicts a man raping and murdering many women. I would draw this out for about 90 minutes -- especially the sex scenes -- to emphasize the brutal and inhuman nature of this man. Then I would show him arrested, tried, and put behind bars. I would make this part last about five minutes, to show the swift application of justice. Voila! a morality play, suitable for schoolchildren: If You're Mean, You'll Go To Prison. I could argue my artistic vision in court for years, and I probably would win. And if the prosecution wants to argue the influence my movie has, they'll have to find someone who saw my movie and was thus motivated to commit a rape he would not otherwise have committed. Tracy admits that there are problems with any attempt to restrict forms of communication. I agree. That is why there should be no restrictions at all, unless a clear and present danger can be shown. The way to prevent rape is to find out why some men are mentally ill. Censoring movies will not work. -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/20/84)
This is my (Tracy's) response to Jon Mauney's criticism
of my original article.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Mauney (mcnc!ncsu!mauney):
Tracy Tims has an interesting idea: don't ban pornography that
depicts graphic sex, ban films that promote rape and/or
other crimes. This would give a much more objective and workable
guideline. Unfortunately:
1) which crimes are not to be shown? If it is the glorification
of crime that we object to, then a lot of very good movies are
in trouble. A lot of movies show people getting away with murder;
The Sting certainly glorified fraud. If someone makes a movie
that depicts littering (and creating a nuisance) will he be fined
50 dollars and made to pick up the garbage?
Tracy Tims:
That's a very good question. I feel that it would be
important to make a distinction between crimes of
property (theft, fraud, etc.) and crimes against people
(murder, rape, assault, spreading hate, discrimination).
Crimes against people are the target. The prohibition of
this class of crime is a much more universal social norm
(and goal) than the prohibition of littering.
2) XXX-rated movies (so I'm told) often depict adultery, fornication,
incest, and Infamous Crimes Against Nature -- activities which are
still illegal in many places. Porno movies without such activities
would be even more boring than they currently are.
I am not talking about banning the advocacy of all criminal
activity. I am only talking about banning the advocacy of
criminal activity where such advocacy is strongly suspected
of having undersireable effects (increasing violence, crime)
on society.
3) Restrictions could be easily circumvented. For example, I could
make a movie that graphically depicts a man raping and murdering
many women. I would draw this out for about 90 minutes --
especially the sex scenes -- to emphasize the brutal and inhuman
nature of this man. Then I would show him arrested, tried, and
put behind bars. I would make this part last about five minutes,
to show the swift application of justice. Voila! a morality play,
suitable for schoolchildren: If You're Mean, You'll Go To Prison.
I could argue my artistic vision in court for years, and I probably
would win. And if the prosecution wants to argue the influence
my movie has, they'll have to find someone who saw my movie and
was thus motivated to commit a rape he would not otherwise have
committed.
But as I said in the footnote to my original article, one
has to evaluate the film on the presumed intended effect.
One has to take into account the audience reaction, and
the intent of the makers. A difficult job to be sure.
Also, the question of what is suitable for children is
one that I am intentionally not addressing.
Tracy admits that there are problems with any attempt to restrict
forms of communication. I agree. That is why there should be
no restrictions at all, unless a clear and present danger can be
shown.
This is an attitude I respect. I will explain below.
The question is ``is there a clear and present danger?''
As I said above, I would only ban under the same circum-
stance.
The way to prevent rape is to find out why some men are
mentally ill. Censoring movies will not work.
I am not sure I agree with you on this point. Yes, find
out why there is violence. Also, like any disease, prevent
it's spread. It's a matter of survival.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A longer explanation (me (Tracy) again):
I think that society has a right to ensure it's own survival,
and to attempt to create a safe environment for the individual. I want
to live in a society where others will not think it acceptable to commit
violent or inhuman acts. That's a purely personal idea. If it is at
all acceptable to perform those acts, then my security is threatened,
and society isn't working the way I think it should.
I think that it is possible to teach people that violent or
inhuman acts are acceptable. I think that the prevention of such teaching
is a useful and valid idea given the goals of society.
Here is the problem. As long as we censor, there will
be weaknesses in the laws allowing abuse. Whether or not you agree
with my proposal seems to rest upon whether you think there will be
more harm done by my kind or censorship, or by no censorship at all.
For the nonce, this is a matter of taste and judgement. I respect
both views.
Since censorship DOES exist, and is currently constituted on
specious criteria (see my last article) I feel that an improvement
would certainly be made by making the criteria reflect the actual goals
of society and censorship, rather than the moral norms of our ancestors.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (02/21/84)
I understand Tracy Tims to be saying the following about those
forms of entertainment that could be categorized as "Smut (I love it)".
(correct me if I'm wrong)
Smut is currently controlled by restriction against showing
certain parts of the body, or certain activities, or those
things that are offensive according to "prevailing community
standards.
The current restrictions are suboptimal.
We should attempt instead to restrict those movies, and other
forms of communication, that tend to promote actions which
present a danger to the community. E.g. inciting to riot
is a crime -- inciting to rape should at least be obscene.
Some subtleties are, of course, lost in simplification.
The suggestion is laudable in that it attempts to put a more workable
criterion on what is acceptable. It also takes a more reasonable slant
than the current situation which says that "pubic hair is a no-no, but
axe murders are ok." However, in the end I believe that Tracy's
suggestion falls prey to the same problems that plague any other attempt
to define what is and isn't "obscene":
Tracy is worried about violent crimes, such as rape, and not
about "crimes against nature," such as sodomy. That's fine
(and I agree with her) and that view could be written into the
law. But the Rev. Jerry Falwell thinks that fornication is
a danger to the community; there are, no doubt, people who
believe that fornication is actually *worse* than rape, because
rape only affects the physical body, whereas fornication affects
the immortal soul. By legislating your ideas about violence,
you leave the door ajar for legislation about non-violent
activities that others may not approve of. You may see a clear
line around violence that makes it different, but others may
disagree.
Intended effect is not only difficult to prove (look at libel
cases) but in this case will not get you anywhere. The
intended effect of a porno movie is to separate fools from
money. The effect that patrons are looking for is enjoyment.
I don't have any evidence on this, but I'd be willing to
bet my jar of pennies that those people who are moved to
violence by violent porn do NOT go to the movie for the
purpose of building up their courage to commit a crime.
If studies show otherwise, please let me know.
In any case, for the majority, the intended and
actual effect is quite harmless. Why should they suffer
for the crimes of the few?
There is also the purely pragmatic problem that any reasonable
reading of the proposed restrictions would do away with
mad-slasher movies, which prevailing community standards
inexplicably find acceptable. Opposition to such restrictions
would be tremendous.
I get the impression that Tracy and I mostly agree about censorship
in general, and as it exists today. I am not convinced that Tracy's
proposal would actually work, nor that if it worked, it would make
things very much safer. It is worth discussing, though.
--
_Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney
\__Mu__/ North Carolina State Universitypreece@uicsl.UUCP (02/25/84)
#R:watmath:-691900:uicsl:16400045:000:612 uicsl!preece Feb 24 23:22:00 1984 ...A film of a couple making love (no matter how graphic) is advocating something many of us quite rightfully enjoy ---------- There are still places in this country where fornication is illegal; your approach would make erotica illegal there? The only acceptable restraint on speech is none. If you can ban any idea, no matter how repugnant, then you can ban any other idea as well. It is also, of course, trivial to produce pornography that explicitly states that it is not meant to promote behavior, but simply to report it. Portrayal does not equal promotion. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
y7106@dalcs.UUCP (Rich Johnson) (02/28/84)
a I think that the " crimes against nature " that are been refered to are beastiality (sp?) not sodomy. I believe that sodomy refers to the act of been taken aback ( pun intended Sorry). If I am wrong correct me. Rich Johnson
preece@uicsl.UUCP (03/02/84)
#R:watmath:-691600:uicsl:16400050:000:174 uicsl!preece Mar 1 20:41:00 1984 I am reasonably sure that some states' statutes have defined 'crimes against nature' to include bestiality, sodomy, and oral sex. I'm reasonably sure some of them still do.