mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/15/85)
> 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. 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. > 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? > 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. > 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. > 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 Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (01/16/85)
On free speech, First Amendment: The argument was made that there really is no right to free speech since one can be sued for damages because of libel and slander. The distinction is that these are civil, and not criminal actions. Passing laws against saying or printing certain materials makes them criminal offenses, and makes the offender liable to prosecution by the state. Herman Silbiger
leimkuhl@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/18/85)
I've read with interest most of the responses to "Pornography degrading to women in this group. But I don't think anyone's pointed out a very important reason why pornography should not (and cannot constitutionally) be banned or controlled. The simple fact is that pornography is expression and expression cannot be censored in the US. Regardless of whether or not you think that pornography is degrading to women, pornography is an exercise of the guaranteed right to free speech. It is not important what the content of the message is, but only that it is a message. The intents and ends of those who produce pornography do not bear on their right to do so. The only exceptions to the right of free speech occur when there is defamation or libel, but these are civil matters--furthermore, they are not class grievances. Only individuals or groups of individuals technically can be libeled, not whole classes. If the courts were to censor pornography because it is "degrading to women," they would be likewise required to censor the newspaper of the KKK for being degrading to jews, but also the organ of the moral majority for being degrading to homosexuals. Where does such censorship end? Is the <<New Republic>> not degrading to conservatives? Isn't <<Huckleberry Finn>> degrading to blacks? Let's stop this foolish censorship nonsense before we completely destroy the diversity that makes our art and culture so unique. -Ben Leimkuhler
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (01/28/85)
I'd like to read about BOOKS here, thank you. Sean Casey
jlg@lanl.ARPA (01/31/85)
I agree, move it somewhere else. net.legal seems the most appropriate place. This discussion never belonged in net.women (unless you want to argue that only women are effected by or interested in the issue). It doesn't really belong in net.books either since most porno. isn't in book form (at least I've not seen any, movies are often advertised and magazines are hard to miss in a large city, but books don't seem to be published by the porno people (not enough pictures I guess)).