rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/23/86)
In article <1558@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> Not sure I caught that, could you also please include (briefly) how the >> *Miller* standard differs from the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. Just >> so we know what is being recommended. (If you said earlier, I forgot it). > >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, the Supreme Court declared that >there *were* materials which, by nature of a combination of obscenity and >lack of ``ideas'', the dissemination of which are protected by the First >Amendment, could (but did not have to be) subject to restriction by the >States. Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with the "porn". >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little: Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect and furthermore polarized the porn market. >3.4 *The Risks of Abuse* > >Although we are satisfied that there is a category of material so >overwhelmingly preoccupied with sexual explicitness, and so overwhelmingly >devoid of anything else, that its regulation does no violence to the >principles underlying the First Amendment, we recognize that this cannot be the >end of the First Amendment Analysis. There is also material so overwhelmingly preoccupied with violence, and so devoid of anything else, that it might merit regulation as well. Unfortunately, only "sexual" material seems to merit censorship. >We must evaluate the possibility that in >practice, materials other than these will be restricted, and that the effect >therefore will be the restriction of materials that are substantially closer to >the the First Amendment ought to protect than the items in fact aimed at by the >*Miller* definition of obscenity. Worse, the possibility that because of restrictions, such as the current "rating system" for films, the "milder" forms of "porn" might go the way of films, either "all sex" or "nothing". The guidelines in the film industry have lead to complete absence of plot in "XXX" rated movies, and complete absence of nearly all sex in "R" rated movies. "R" rated movies have been dominated by progressively more "anatomically accurate" violence. There is little "grey area" where sex (even simulated) or sexually arousing material may be presented in the context of a well developed plot. >We must also evaluate what is commonly >referred to as the "chilling effect," the possibility that, even absent actual >restriction, creators of material that is not in fact legally obscene will >refrain from those creative activities, or will steer further to the safe side >of the line, for fear that their protected works will mistakenly be deemed >obscene. Worse, in there may be a tendency to further polarize the industries involved, leaving "very dirty" and "kissing only", with no "normal" middle ground for depiciton of normal sex and tame variations. >And finally we must evaluate whether the fact of restriction of >obscene material will act, symbolically, to foster a "censorship mentality" >that will in less immediate ways encourage or lead to various restrictions, in >other contexts, of material which ought not in a free society be restricted. Such a mentality already exists in the film industry. The polarization has reached the point where many past "R" rated movies have gone up to "X" today. Others have been suitable for television unedited "PG" based on todays standards. >We have heard in one form or another from numerous organizations of publishers, >booksellers, actors, and librarians, as well as from a number of individual >book and magazine publishers. >Although most have urged general anti-censorship >sentiments upon us, their oral and written submissions have failed to provide >us with evidence to support claims of excess supression in the name of the >obscenity laws, and indeed the evidence is to the contrary. There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink". >The president of >the Association of American Publishers testified that to his knowledge none of >his members had even been threatened with enforcement of the criminal law >agains obscenity, and the American Library Association could find no record >of any prosecution of a librarian on obscenity charges. >Other groups of people >involved in publishing, bookselling, or theatrical organizations relied >exclusively in examples of excess censorship from periods of time no more >recent than the 1940s. Ah, yes, remember the "Hayes Commission", they prevented the release of films because married couples shared the same bed, because a man took his foot off the floor before the cut, and other "obscene" acts. But for 1 penny, you could watch a "peep show" at an amusement park featuring full nudity (and little else). >We wish that >many of these people or groups had been able to provide concrete examples to >support their fears of excess censorship. History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing effect of censorship. > Yet when we do our own researches, we discover >that, with strikingly few exceptions, the period from 1974 [42] to the present > >[ 42: 1974 seems the most relevant date because that was the year in which the >Supreme Court, in *Jenkins v. Georgia*, 418 US 152 (1974), made it clear that >the determinations of obscenity were not primarily a matter of local >discretion. ] > >is marked by strikingly few actual or threatened prosecutions of material that >is plainly not legally obscene. Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores. >that mistakes *can* be made. But since 1974 such mistakes have been extremely >rare, and the mistakes have all been remedied at some point in the process. >While we wish there would be no mistakes, we are confident that the application >of *Miller* has been overwhelmingly limited to materials that would satisfy >anyone's definition of "hard core." Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned entirely, while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent "moderate" publications from competing. >Even absent successful or seriously threatened prosecutions, it still may be >the case that the very possibility of such action deters filmmakers, >photographers, and writers from exercising their creative abilities to the >fullest. It is not only the fear of basic "banning" but also the possiblity of losing marketing outlets, changing of regulatory acts, and other "scare tactics" which result in the "black/white" market that have caused further polarization and lack of moderation. This does deterr creative people from either "adding spice" to an otherwise "clean" production, or "developing characters" in a pornographic production. >Once it appears that the likelyhood of actual or seriously threatened >prosecutions is almost completely illusory, however, we are in a quandary >about how to respond to these claims of "chilling." We are in no position to >deny the reality of someone's fears, but in almost every case those fears are >unfounded. Where, as here, the fears seem to be fears of phantom dangers, we >are hard pressed to say that the law is mistaken. It is those who are afraid >who are mistaken. Ironically, a woman wearing a bikini might be suitable for children under 16, but the same woman wearing panties and a bra (fully opaque) is not. The same woman covering more of her body with a corset, silk stockings, and high heels, might be unsuitable for people under 18. Since the biggest market is the 13-18 market, economic factors are important. >At least for the past ten years, no serious author, >photographer, or filmmaker has had anything real to fear from the obscenity >laws. The line between what is legally obscene and what is not is now so far >away from their work that even substantially mistaken applications of current >law would leave these individuals untouched. In light of that, we do not see >their fears, however real to them, as a sufficient reason now to reconsider our >views about the extent of First Amendment protection. Those people who are pleading the loudest are not the extremists, but those who are moderate. They are the ones who get stretched out of the market. >Much more serious, much more real, and much less in our control, is the extent >to which non-governmental actions or governmental but non-prohibitory actions >may substantially influence what is published and what is not. What television >scriptwriters write is in reality controlled by what television producers will >buy, which is in turn controlled by what sponsors will sponsor and what viewers >will view. Screenwriters may be effectively censored by the extent to which >producers or studios desire to gain an "R" rating rather than an "X", or a >"PG" rather than an "R", or an "R" rather than a "PG." >Book and magazine >writers and publishers are restricted by what stores are willing to sell, and >stores are restricted by what people are willing to buy. Writers of textbooks >are in a sense censored by what school districts are willing to buy, authors >are censored by what both bookstores and librarians are willing to offer, and >librarians are censored by what boards of trustees are willing to tolerate. Many states have restrictions on what reading materials may be sold to minors, in some cases, by definition, including the Sears Catalogue. >In all of these there have been excesses. But every one of these involves some >inevitable choice based on content. We think it unfortunate when *Catcher in >the Rye* is unavailable in a high school library, but none of us would >criticize the decision to keep *Lady Chatterly's Lover*, plainly protected by >the First Amendment, out of junior high schools. If "Lady Chatterly's Lover" were put in junior high schools, many students might take a deeper interest in literature. I read Lord Byron in 7th grade, and Catcher in the Rye in 9th. These sparked an interest in romance, liturature and the "eros" of reading. >We regret that legitimate bookstores have been pressured to remove from their >shelves legitimate and serious discussions of sexuality, but none of us would >presume to tell a Catholic bookseller that in choosing books he should not >discriminate against books favoring abortion. So long as it is the owner making that decision, this is perfectly reasonable. When the state attempts to regulate where literature may be displayed, how it should be packaged, and who may purchase it, there is a problem. >Motion picture studios are >unable to support an infinite number of screenwriters, and their choice to >support those who write about families rather than about homosexuality, for >example, is not only permissible, but is indeed itself protected by the First >Amendment. There are two extremes here, the author/screenwriter is forced to make that choice. There are markets for writers to support homosexuality, but they will not be interested in his ability to express feelings poeticly. >Where there have been excesses, and we do not ignore the extent to which the >number of those excesses seems to be increasing, they seem often attributable >to the notion that the idea of "community standards" is a carte blanche to >communities to determine entirely for themselves what is obscene. > In a world without >obscenity law, television producers, motion picture studios, public library >trustees, boards of education, convenience stores, and bookstores could still >all choose to avoid any mention or discussion of sex entirely. They might however be more inclined to conclude the climax of a romantic plot with a sexual climax, or at least a sexual encounter, as well. >And in a world >without obscenity laws, all of these institutions could and would still make >censorious choices based on their own views about politics, morals, religion, >or science. Indeed, there might be a wider market for a much wider range of choices. Disney studios has chosen to remove much of the violence from it's older films, but not because of regulations. With regulations, it might have chosen to cut minutes of "tender moments" instead. >Thus the link between obscenity law and the excess narrowness, at >times, of the choices made by private industry as well as government is far >from direct. It is difficult enough to make creative decisions without having to be concerned about whether the result will be "legally restricted" or not. This has no connection with whether it should be "legally prohibited". Conversely, if a producer WANTS an "R rating", writers may go to extremes in adding violence or sexually implicit scenes. If the producer wants an X rating, he may not even bother with a script, costumes, scenery, lighting, plot, or mood. >Although the link is not direct, we are in no position to deny that there may >be some psychological connection between obscenity laws and their enforcement >and a general perception that non-governmental restriction of anything dealing >with sex is justifiable. >We find the connection unjustifiable, but that is not >to say that it may not exist in the world. But just as vigorous and vocal >enforcement of robbery laws may create the environment in which vigilantes feel >justified in punishing offenders outside of legal processes, so too may >obscenity law create an environment in which discussions of sexuality are >effectively stifled. There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others from purchasing that magazine. >But we cannot ignore the extent to which much of this >stifling, to the extent that it exists, is no more than the exercise by >citizens of their First Amendment rights to sell or make what they wish. They also have the right to buy what they wish. The issue comes when, through whatever mechanism, one person is prevented from purchasing liturature he wants to buy by someone who does not feel he should be able to buy it. >Choices are not always exercised wisely, but the leap from some unwise choices >to the unconstitutionality of criminal laws only remotely related to those >unwise choices is too big a leap for us to take. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Although I oppose regulation of the distribution, I do agree with the premise that those who film crimes should be accountable for those crimes. If someone filmed the beheading of a hostage, I would hope that the people who committed the crime would be convicted, including the film itself as evidence. This by the way, has happened in cases of criminally negligent acts involving stunt men.
rynes@cwruecmp.UUCP (Edward M. Rynes Esq.) (09/24/86)
In article <391@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >Although I oppose regulation of the distribution, I do agree with the >premise that those who film crimes should be accountable for those crimes. > >If someone filmed the beheading of a hostage, I would hope that the >people who committed the crime would be convicted, including the >film itself as evidence. This by the way, has happened in cases of >criminally negligent acts involving stunt men. I don't mean to pick nits but there is a flaw in the way this is worded. There is a very famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot to death. "Murder is serious crime, Max." Is the man who took this picture guilty of a crime? Should the picture be banned? Should anyone looking at the picture be locked away to protect society? <It doesn't take any research to see that anyone who acts in the manner portraed in this picture would cause great harm to society> The picture is not the crime. The photographer is not the criminal. (unless they were involved in the crime) The criminals should be punished, not the photgrapher, not the witnesses, and not the people who watched it on the 11 o'clock news! The same is true for pornography. If no crime is commited in the production of a film, then why should we stop people from seeing it? ______________________________________________________________________________ Edward Rynes Facilities Manager | "The next time, I dedicate Dept. of Computer Eng. and Science | My life's work to the friends I make. Case Western Reserve University | I give them what they want to hear. Cleveland, Ohio 44106 | They think I'm up to something weird. ...!decvax!cwruecmp!rynes | And up rears the head of fear in me." rynes@case.csnet (216) 368-6471 | Kate Bush ______________________________________________________________________________
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/27/86)
In article <1577@cwruecmp.UUCP> rynes@cwruecmp.UUCP (Edward M. Rynes Esq.) writes: >In article <391@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >> >>Although I oppose regulation of the distribution, I do agree with the >>premise that those who film crimes should be accountable for those crimes. >> >>If someone filmed the beheading of a hostage, I would hope that the >>people who committed the crime would be convicted, including the >>film itself as evidence. This by the way, has happened in cases of >>criminally negligent acts involving stunt men. > >I don't mean to pick nits but there is a flaw in the way this is worded. > >There is a very famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot to death. >"Murder is serious crime, Max." Is the man who took this picture guilty >of a crime? Should the picture be banned? Should anyone looking at the >picture be locked away to protect society? <It doesn't take any research >to see that anyone who acts in the manner portraed in this picture would >cause great harm to society> > >The picture is not the crime. The photographer is not the criminal. (unless >they were involved in the crime) The criminals should be punished, not the >photgrapher, not the witnesses, and not the people who watched it on the >11 o'clock news! The same is true for pornography. If no crime is commited >in the production of a film, then why should we stop people from seeing it? > Well, we have three issues here. I originally meant when someone "stages" a crime for the purpose of filming it, not a newsman lucky enough to film a crime. There is a side issue of how to draw the line. Second, use of the film in criminal prosecutions. It should be easy to prove that a sex-crime such as rape was committed. The testimony of the victim, combined with full-color videos, should be enough to get a sentence. In the case of "snuff movies", the issue of "is it real or is it staged" could actually be the burdon of the producer. Third, the continued distribution and marketing of the film. Proceeds to the victim, anyone who felt they were underpaid could file a complaint. Proceeds to the perpetrator? He sits in jail while he collects the profits? In addition, the question of filmed crimes for the purpose of entertainment in spite of the source. There are reporters who listen to police calls in hopes of getting a good picture of grizzley, maimed bodies of murder victims, and publishers who print them. There are video tape prints, 8mm prints, and photographs of the Kennedy assasination which are considered pornographic. They show his brains scattering in 3 different directions. Censorhip? Pornography? or News?
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/27/86)
There's a lot here; I will skip a lot of the points made to answer the big ones. > >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, the Supreme Court declared that > >there *were* materials which, by nature of a combination of obscenity and > >lack of ``ideas'', the dissemination of which are protected by the First > >Amendment, could (but did not have to be) subject to restriction by the > >States. > > Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with > the "porn". Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court, under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out. Under previous laws, a lot of abuses took place; *Roth* ended most of them, and was a first cut at definin a standard that would be fair in the face of about 60 years of unfairness. > >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little: > > Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect > and furthermore polarized the porn market. The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole. If there is serious literary, etc, value, even to the extent of generating controversy among ``experts'' in the field, it seems unlikely that a work could be considered to be without merit. > >We must evaluate the possibility that in practice, materials other than > >these will be restricted, and that the effect therefore will be the > >restriction of materials that are substantially closer to the the First > >Amendment ought to protect than the items in fact aimed at by the > >*Miller* definition of obscenity. > > Worse, the possibility that because of restrictions, such as the current > "rating system" for films, the "milder" forms of "porn" might go the way > of films, either "all sex" or "nothing". The guidelines in the film industry > have lead to complete absence of plot in "XXX" rated movies, and complete > absence of nearly all sex in "R" rated movies. "R" rated movies have been > dominated by progressively more "anatomically accurate" violence. There > is little "grey area" where sex (even simulated) or sexually arousing material > may be presented in the context of a well developed plot. The government has no hand at all in the MPAA rating system. It's true that today's movies are audience targeted, as are many of today's books. The stuff that qualifies as real literature usually isn't. (I don't consider 3/4 of today's novels to qualify, but then I also believe in Sturgeon's Law.) ... It is now necessary to warn the writer that his concern for the reader must be pure: he must sympathize with the reader's plight ... but never seek to know his wants. The whole duty of a writer is to please and satisfy himself, and the true writer always plays to an audience of one. Let him start sniffing the air or glancing at the Trend Machine, and he is as good as dead, although he may make a nice living. E.B.White, in the conclusion to Strunk and White, *The Elements of Style* The curious problem that better informing people about ``literature'' (here include films, sound recordings, etc) allows them to better exercise their prejudices, and reduces the types of material available is hardly caused by government regulation, although you may reasonably argue that we don't need to add even one more possible source ... Did *I Claudius* appeal to a prurient interest in sex? Doubtful. On the other hand, I would have felt many of the explicit depictions in poor taste were it not for the overall quality of the work. There are many people who would not even consider the latter. And in no way could *I Claudius*, taken as a whole, be considered legally obscene. (In fact, even *Caligula*, when it came before the Supreme Court, was declared to have serious value and therefore protected from obscenity statutes.) But the fact that many or most people would not choose to view *I Claudius* because it either had too much explicit sex or not enough reflects on commercial tastes and not on either censorship questions or literary worth. > There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or > regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such > as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared > and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink". Believe it or not, I agree that this is unfortunate; I don't think that the older stuff is much likely to be harmful to anyone, even most adolsecents, and I *do* happen to enjoy some of it. I also admit to enjoying an occasional nude, but I don't enjoy the cruder stuff. Am I arguing for the legitimacy of my own preferred vices? It's possible, I suppose. But the changes happened because of increased willingness of people to print the cruder stuff, and of people to buy it, coupled with the fact that people are allowed to distribute the raw stuff where postal censorship (ugh! one area that ought *not* be subject to regulation except where there is clear intent to distribute as an *enterprise*) once prohibited it. If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available. > History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing > effect of censorship. True, because the censorship was broad and rarely included the balancing third requirement of the *Miller* standard, nor the objective second requirement. I think that by making these a well-understood part of the law the abuses of personal offensensitivity can be avoided, and evidently the courst think so, too. > Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which > resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed > in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores. I agree wholeheartedly that overzealous prosecution of people without the resources to handle lengthy appeals has been a problem. But the meanings of the decisions are getting clarified and where once an appeal might have been lengthy, such an appeal now would often result in the conviction being thrown out summarily. Where lower courts have respected this, and made it clear to prosecutors that they will observe the judgement of the higher courts, there is less margin for abuse. The margin can never be eliminated in obscenity law, nor in zoning and public nuisance law (witness one poster on another group who was served with an order to patch up his house with a coat of paint rather than give it the lengthy and temporarily unsightly restoration it requires ...). Does this mean that we should discard all law? Or does it mean that we should attempt to report abuses through the Press and to elect just and fairminded officials? > Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned entirely, > while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent "moderate" publications > from competing. The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws. Essentially, there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene) from being sold in convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder racks'' covering the lower 2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other remedies against accidental exposure to minors is taken, unless zoning laws explicitly limit the area in which such things may be sold. I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications that do not make the convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would not (and could not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions as an ``adults only'' store. The Court has also held that zoning regulations and display-limiting provisions may not be used to limit the rights of people to do business: you cannot limit distribution to ``selected downtown areas'' and then only select 1 downtown block in 15 square miles of city! You can limit the area somewhat, though, just as you can limit where large department stores may be built, and you can also prevent clustering by requiring a minimum distance between such establishments. > > . . . . . We think it unfortunate when *Catcher in > >the Rye* is unavailable in a high school library, but none of us would > >criticize the decision to keep *Lady Chatterly's Lover*, plainly protected by > >the First Amendment, out of junior high schools. > > If "Lady Chatterly's Lover" were put in junior high schools, many students > might take a deeper interest in literature. I read Lord Byron in 7th grade, > and Catcher in the Rye in 9th. These sparked an interest in romance, > liturature and the "eros" of reading. I also read CitR in ... 10th, I think. What the heck. But there is a world of difference between that and LCL. As to a deeper interest in reading ... well, I found LCL a boring and unrewarding book a few years ago, and I had a lot more stamina then than I did in HS. I also think that there is a big difference between the maturity of most JHS students and most HS students, no? It's unfortunate that we can't better ``track'' students as to maturity, but even tracking them academically causes an uproar in many circles. Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of Playboy? Hustler? I'm not referring to the case of one issue that some teacher requested be shelved for a feature it carried, but rather of carrying them on the same basis that such a library might carry Time or USNews&WR. > It is difficult enough to make creative decisions without having to be > concerned about whether the result will be "legally restricted" or not. > This has no connection with whether it should be "legally prohibited". > > Conversely, if a producer WANTS an "R rating", writers may go to extremes > in adding violence or sexually implicit scenes. If the producer wants > an X rating, he may not even bother with a script, costumes, scenery, lighting, > plot, or mood. Neither the R nor the X ratings carry any force of law whatsoever; they are private ratings. As far as making creative decisions, see the remark by E.B.White above. As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller* decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary. There is a difference between decency and morality. If my neighbor wanted to walk out of her house naked to get the paper in the morning, it would probably not be very immoral (except insofar as it was a affront upon the tastes of her neighbors) but is would undoubtedly be indecent if her walk carried her into clear view of a large part of the street. > There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he > considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others > from purchasing that magazine. The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting. It is only where the law is ignored or abused that the term ``vigilante'' is appropriate. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/01/86)
In article <1577@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >There's a lot here; I will skip a lot of the points made to answer the big ones. >> >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, >> Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with >> the "porn". >Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court, >under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out. Often, was because the materials in question had educational value. Birth control, impotence, precautions for sex, and other articles were included for the protection under the "socially redeeming value" clause. Other material included political viewpoints, news, and information not often given exposure elsewhere. >> >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little: >> Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect >> and furthermore polarized the porn market. >The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole. This is true, but the Miller case does not require that a work have literary merit. >> Worse, the possibility that because of restrictions, such as the current >> "rating system" for films, the "milder" forms of "porn" might go the way >> of films, either "all sex" or "nothing". >The government has no hand at all in the MPAA rating system. This is true, but the MPAA rating system is used as a statutory rather than advisory guideline in most, if not all states. In Colorado, to view a "X rated" materials, you must be 18. In New York, you must be 21. You must have proof of age as well. >The curious problem that better informing people about ``literature'' (here >include films, sound recordings, etc) allows them to better exercise their >prejudices, and reduces the types of material available is hardly caused by >government regulation, although you may reasonably argue that we don't need to >add even one more possible source ... It is the option of a store owner to order and sell, whatever material he wishes. With porn, however, the owner may have to go "all or nothing", with zoning ordincances, appropriate markings, paint over windows to obscure view, and other "nuisance law" requirements. >> There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or >> regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such >> as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared >> and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink". > >Believe it or not, I agree that this is unfortunate; I don't think that the >older stuff is much likely to be harmful to anyone, even most adolsecents, >and I *do* happen to enjoy some of it. I also admit to enjoying an occasional >nude, but I don't enjoy the cruder stuff. Am I arguing for the legitimacy of >my own preferred vices? It's possible, I suppose. It sounds like we have similar goals. Most fetish, "cheesecake", and "lingerie" material has gone into the "bondage", S&M, and Transexual markets. In fact, some materials don't even depict full nudity, just fetish clothing. The fact that the models are tied up, or holding whips, paddles, and similar "props" is a way to incorporate two markets with one publication. If you were to attempt to perchase "cheesecake" materials based on the covers however, you could be quite shocked to discover that a $17.00 magazine with cheesecake on the cover contained full nudity, men torturing women, and/or women torturing men, but no other "cheesecake". One magazine actually shows what appear to be beautifully dressed women, and inside is all men dressed as women, with genitalia showing. >But the changes happened because of increased willingness of people to print >the cruder stuff, and of people to buy it, Often, people do not know what they are buying until after they've bought it. The only current postal restriction I know of is unsolicited mailing of sexually explicit materials. >If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and >making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not >among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of >enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available. In a sense, I agree. By establishing degrees of "obscenity", and providing wider distribution channels to less "obscene" materials, the amount of "softer porn" would increase. Perhaps film rating systems (if statutes are to use them as guidelines) which encourage a wider range of age brackets, or advisory, rather than compulsory ages, could aid in a more "normal" presentation of sex, love, and commitment. The current MPAA ratings also give very little information about content. The same rating is given "Nightmere on Elm Street" that is given to "Bachelor Party". While I might even want 15 year olds to see "Bachelor Party", I wouldn't want to see "Elm Street" myself. The advertising for these movies is better than most. At least they reflect the content of the films. In some cases, such as "Angel", what appears to be a mildly erotic film is actually an excessively violent film with little erotic content. Having worked in the industry myself, and being aware of the legalities and "nuisance" issues involved, it is interesting to note that ratings had a very important impact on distribution channels. >> History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing >> effect of censorship. > >True, because the censorship was broad and rarely included the balancing >third requirement of the *Miller* standard, nor the objective second >requirement. I think that by making these a well-understood part of the >law the abuses of personal offensensitivity can be avoided, and evidently >the courst think so, too. > >> Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which >> resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed >> in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores. > >Where lower courts have respected this, and made it >clear to prosecutors that they will observe the judgement of the higher courts, >there is less margin for abuse. The lower courts, however support the "Adult" vs. "Minor" distinctions, with no sort of intermediate class. In some states, a person under 21 is considered a "minor". The irony here is that the most lucrative "soft porn" markets are in the 14-21 age brackets. Look at the types of porn, and their target audiences. These target audiences are the age groups most interested in this type of material, rather than a factor of advertizing targets. Most sexually descriptive materials are targeted slightly above their target audience. "Unporn". I almost forgot about this category. This is material where women or men are shown, not nude, but in situations that could be arousing to a young people just becoming aware of sexuality. Pantyhose wrappers, clothing catalogues, bathing suits, underwear, shoe ads, almost any material showing reasonably attractive people in poses or with facial expressions that are attractive. Even Barbie Dolls, cartoons, or Comic books. Children as young as age 5, to as old as age 12, may find even this material sexually arousing. In fact, this material is most likely to influence sexual preferences in the future. My son has had a thing for women's shoes since he was two years old. He couldn't talk before then. "Marshmellow porn" (my term for things like "Teen Beat", "True Romances", and personalities like Madonna, Prince, and Boy George", is a very large market in the 13-15 bracket. This is typically things like sexually suggestive "street suitable" attire, bikinis, leg and occaisional breast. Some sexually suggestive situations. This could be expanded to include lingerie, cheesecake, and "strip tease". In films, the amount of this content is less than 1% of the movie. This 1% could be expanded to as much as 10% or more. The same is true of printed material. Soft porn, such as Playboy, Playgirl, Cosmopolitan, and New Look, is more popular with the 15-17 group. Here, more nudity, lingerie, and fetish material is mixed in with the "fluff". Characters actually have sex, but seduction, birth control, and emotional factors are not well emphasised. In the bulk of the material couples are not often shown, or are shown in "intimate" but not "explicit" sexual situations. Some areas restrict sales of this material through "nuisance laws", designed to make informed purchases impossible or inconvenient. Mild porn, such as Hustler, Leg Show, Variations, and Pillow Talk begin to discuss "kinks" like oral sex, fetishes, fantasies, gentle bondage, group sex, and occaisionally anal sex. This is most popular (when available) among the college group, 18-21 years. Birth control and "safe sex" are seldom, if ever discussed. It is assumed that the reader understands these things. Stores which carry this type of material seldom advertize it. Most "general merchandise" stores don't even run the risk. General porn, films especially, contain episode after episode of oral and vaginal sex, fully naked partners, and usually one or two minutes of something unusual, either anal sex, fashion, or gentle bondage. "Sensations", for example, has a woman tied up with ribbon (several of which break during the scene). Adult soft porn, such as Spikes, Vibrations, and others focus on fetishes directly. Women are often shown with props such as paddles, riding crops, and/or whips of various types. Corsetry, high heels, stockings, garter belts, leather, and other "exotic fashions" are also featured, usually in combination with either dominant or submissive female themes. Restraints, are usually silk ties, stockings, or soft rope in soft porn, Text and/or dialogue includes "rules of the game" for those who wish to experiment with bondage. This is popular in the 25-30 bracket. There is also the "young girl" market, featuring shaved pubic regions, pony tails or pig tails, bobby socks, saddle shoes, and other "young look" fashions. This, strangely enough, is popular in the 30-50 market. This group often includes "spanking" themes as well. Hard Core, such as "Reflections", features detailed descriptions and pictorials of painful acts for sexual pleasure. Costumes include rubber and leather. Restraints are usually leather or metal cuffs, attached to chains. Settings are often dungeons. Models range in age up to 60 years old. "Mistress Antoinette", publisher and model of several such publications is over 60 years old. This is popular in the 30-70 age bracket. Films in the "hard core bondage" market are often simply films a dominatrix takes of her clients, often filmed by another dominatrix. In many cases, the victim is set free of all restraints, put in different restraints, and so on. Often the victims are males with enough strength to break chains (some victims do), put into one helpless situation after another. Finally, we have the "ultra-porn". This material includes actual rape, torture, and even death (actual or simulated) of boundage victims. In many cases, the model is told the film will include some "gentle bondage", and is then bound in hard gear. The bondage often causes pain which is in no way sexual or desired. Little fashion is shown, because the victim would not hold still for it. Beatings involving even 2x4's are included. Rope burns, blood, and expressions of sheer terror on the victims face are common. Seldom is the victim shown "free" after the ordeal. Although it is available, it is extremely uncommon to find material of this sort, even in adult bookstores. One of the best known, "Bondage Classics", was made over 20 years ago. The proceeds from this film do go to the victims. I have never seen pedophile material, nor do I wish to. It is not even available in Adult stores. Appearantly, there is an underground black market. I couldn't tell you anything about it. I simply don't know anything. Transvestite and transexual themes are usually only available at "Adult" stores. They range from very soft, to very hard. The same is true with Gay and Lesbian materials. Loosening of restrictions may be appropriate. One, F.M.I., depicts female impersonators without showing genitalia. In some cases, where both male and female models are shown, it is hard to tell which is which. The fashions look more like something out of Vogue magazine. Women and couples in adult bookstores tend to prefer the various bondage/dominance themes. With women slightly ahead of men in terms of age groups making the transition from soft adult porn to hard porn. Women who patronize adult bookstores often spend as much time looking at the restraints as they do looking at the magazines. It is important to note that Adult store patrons represent a small segment of the population. It would not be safe to say *most* women are into bondage :-). Adult bookstores do little to inform customers as to which material is moderate and which is "hard core". The covers provide little informaton, and the contents are sealed in plastic wrappers. Most of my exposure to "hard core", and "ultra-hard core" has been because of this. Unfortunately, most Adult stores have a "no refund" policy. They also have a "no browsing" policy. >Does this mean that we should discard all law? No. It means we should have sensible guidelines which match appropriate material to appropriate ages. Notice that the 15-21 market is often only available to people over 21, depending on the state. It means that Adult stores should not have "no refund, no browsing" policies, or the less offensive material should be marketable in areas where shoplifting is less common. I know of a few stores in Colorado, located in the suburbs, where browsing is allowed (for a nominal admission fee of 25 cents). There was much less "hard-core" and almost no "ultra-hard-core" material. >Or does it mean that we should attempt >to report abuses through the Press and to elect just and fairminded officials? In the cases of ultra-hard core, you could even encourage laws that would allow the victim to come forward, using the film as supporting evidence, and allow subpoena of all roughs, rejects, and cutting room extracts. You could even encourage prosecutors to find the models of such films to determine if they were in fact non-consenting adults. >> Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned entirely, >> while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent "moderate" publications >> from competing. > >The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws. Essentially, >there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene) from being sold in >convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder racks'' covering the lower >2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other remedies against accidental exposure >to minors is taken, unless zoning laws explicitly limit the area in which >such things may be sold. Would you buy a book, a magazine, a can of food, or a car without knowing what you were about to buy. There are those who do so. This actually makes the problem worse. After a few attempts a purchasing material which does not prove to be worth the money, the frustrated customer is often tempted to patronize more exotic retailers. Though he/she might find something that appeals, the combination with other factors such as dominance or whatever, may either offend, or arouse, causing even more complex fantisies to evolve. >I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications >that do not make the convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would >not (and could not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions >as an ``adults only'' store. Much of this is political. A friend of a friend on city council might be able to sell adult soft porn, while a franchise owner might not be able to sell even very soft porn. >The Court has also held that zoning regulations and display-limiting provisions >may not be used to limit the rights of people to do business: you cannot limit >distribution to ``selected downtown areas'' and then only select 1 downtown >block in 15 square miles of city! You can limit the area somewhat, though, >just as you can limit where large department stores may be built, and you >can also prevent clustering by requiring a minimum distance between such >establishments. However suburbs are not required to allow such places if there are stores downtown. In moderate sized cities, trade may be restricted to the core city. >I also read CitR in ... 10th, I think. What the heck. But there is a >world of difference between that and LCL. As to a deeper interest in >reading ... well, I found LCL a boring and unrewarding book... I found "Fanny Hill" a little boring too, at age 23, but at age 15, it would have been delightful reading. A person's intersts get more sophisticated with age. Conversely, I found "Spikes" to be revolting at 20, but exciting at 28. When the novelty of sex wore off with marriage, diversions added just the right "spice", for both of us. >Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of >Playboy? Hustler? Some remedial reading programs do use these materials on a regular basis. They also use Cosmopolitan, Playgirl, and True Romance to motivate young women. Pretty pictures are less than 1% of the magazines, sugar coating to make the medicine easier to swallow. :-). >Neither the R nor the X ratings carry any force of law whatsoever; they are >private ratings. Sorry, many local and state governments do provide criminal penalties for admitting people under 16 or 17 to "R" rated movies, and admitting people under 18 or 21 to "XXX" rated movies. >As far as making creative decisions, see the remark by >E.B.White above. I deleted it, but read it. There is a big difference between the author, the publisher or producer, and the distributor. An author should write for himself. But the producer/publisher has to worry about investors, earnings reports, and profits. The distributor has to worry about "dead inventory". Even in adult bookstores, there are lots of "bargain packs", mostly containing material not "hot" enough for regular sales. >As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller* >decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need >to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect >the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea >of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of >real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary. The notion of legal obscenity has to be expanded. Currently selling legal obscenity to minors is illegal in some states and localities. When "sale to minors" means selling Variations to 5 year old kids, I agree. When it means a person is old enough to have sex, but not old enough to read about it, that's wrong. In Colorado, the age of consent is 15, but to watch Porkys you must be 17, and to buy even Playboy, you must be 18. >> There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he >> considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others >> from purchasing that magazine. > >The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal >methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Legally, this is true. When intimidation tactics are used, as was the case with 7-11, it is hard to call it ethical behavior. There have been several forms of "Legal Harassment" of both stores and patrons by organized groups. The group that took down liscence plates and sent notes to the owner's home, employer, and minister. The group that took the names of patrons and posted them on the bulletin boards of several churches, for purposes of boycott, harassment, sale refusal, employement descrimination, etc.. Currently, respect for sexual preferences, be they "strict morality", or "very kinky", is not a principle of our society. Most people believe that the bedroom is a private place, but do not believe that books, film, or even preferrences expressed outside the bedroom are equally sacred. Perhaps, in the "ideal society", the "kinks" could express their preferences as openly as the "moralists" express theirs. It might even lead to stronger marriages if "submissives" could meet "dominants", and people could let word of mouth attract others whose interests and preferences are complimentary with their own. There is nothing wrong with having a strict moral code, but if repression of expression of contrary preferences allows a person with a strict moral code to marry a person with a "kinky" preferences, problems are quite likely to develop. Look at the way the "Gay movement" has enabled gays to meet other gays. Very seldom are heterosexuals approached, because they know who is homosexual. If a man enjoys "fashion" (women who dress in erotic lingerie), it tells a girl who is interested in him what "bait" to use. If a woman likes submissive men, the submissive ones will be literally begging for a date :-), while the dominants will walk off to look for submissive women. These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be --discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered-- weeks or even years after the honeymoon. Pornography may or may not "cause" other sexual crimes. If, however, if it enables one to express verbally, in a non-threatening situation, his own preferences, before acting on them with an unwilling partner, it may be a good thing that porn is available. I am not advocating that everyone should go down to the porno shop to discover their kink. Just that those who have kinks (not everybody does), not "surprise" their partners. Decieving a partner about these preferences in the vain hope that they can be "turned around", is the most obscene form of deception. Rex B.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/04/86)
Hi, the following is part of a letter I tried to mail you. My machine does not understand rb@ccird1.UUCP Please suggest a workable path from oliveb (or mail, and I'll look at header). Thank you for a very comprehensive, much more light than heat, article! Well-worth the length of it. A minor point: $17 dollars? Seems a little high. If one is into such things, I would suggest looking for a mail order source. Some are more specialized than others, and several exist that I know of. One even has half-price sales! Thanks again for a very knowlegeable posting. I have noticed you are one of the most frequently worthwhile to read. I especially like your catagories, from marshmello to ultra. Very expressive. A minor addition I might make... >It is important to note that Adult store patrons represent a small segment >of the population. It would not be safe to say *most* women are into >bondage :-). More like 1 in seven, according to a survey quoted in some half-remembered article in some men's magazine. I have no idea if this is accurate. And it wasn't "into", it was more like 14% of women "sometimes fantasize", and a significantly smaller number would actually want to try it (for their own pleasure). Could actually be higher now, with changing awareness; that survey was at least 5 years ago. (The point is, one might naively imagine a vanishingly small percentage of women, but it's actually not that small an "interest group". Survey said more men interested in trying it than women, but I've forgotten the figure. Oh, and I assume they lumped together both polarities of who ties and who gets tied). You made lots of other good points, too many to bother you with complementing each seperately. I just want to emphasize liking this one: >These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one >night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be >--discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered-- >weeks or even years after the honeymoon. This (and the following two paragraphs with it) is very well said. The very existance of this entertainment is valuable to such communication, without requiring any "literary" merit. >Rex B. - Phil prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) or: prs@oliveb.UUCP
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/13/86)
> >> >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, > >> Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with > >> the "porn". > >Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court, > >under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out. > > Often, was because the materials in question had educational value. Birth > control, impotence, precautions for sex, and other articles were included > for the protection under the "socially redeeming value" clause. Other > material included political viewpoints, news, and information not often > given exposure elsewhere. This was indeed the ``offensensitive'' abuse that *Roth* was meant to correct. As a practical matter, however, a great deal of other material, justified by a cheap moral or a dubious claim of educational value, was protected under the *Roth* decision. > >> >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little: > >> Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect > >> and furthermore polarized the porn market. > >The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole. > > This is true, but the Miller case does not require that a work have > literary merit. *Miller vs. State of California* states that the material in question is legally obscene if *all* three of these criteria are met: 1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest [in sex -- the American Heritage Dictionary has three definitions of ``prurient'', all of which involved an *obsessive* interest in sex, not just a normal one] 2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct speifically defined by the applicable State or Federal law. 3. The word, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It is true that the decision speaks of ``value'' rather than ``merit'' -- it would be possible, I suppose, for a work without literary merit to have literary value, though I've got only the vaguest notion of how. > >> There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or > >> regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such > >> as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared > >> and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink". > > ... > ... > If you were to attempt to purchase "cheesecake" materials based on the > covers however, you could be quite shocked to discover that a $17.00 > magazine with cheesecake on the cover contained full nudity, men > torturing women, and/or women torturing men, but no other "cheesecake". > > One magazine actually shows what appear to be beautifully dressed women, > and inside is all men dressed as women, with genitalia showing. A question: is there an ``open code'' language that regular purchasers of this material understand? Fact is, if your goal is simple nudes or women (or men) in skimpy clothing, you can busy *some* of that mail-order from Barnes and Noble! The heavy-duty outlets (analagous perhaps to places licensed to sell hard liquor) may not be where you want to go. > ... > The only current postal restriction I know of is unsolicited mailing of > sexually explicit materials. Currently, yes. In fact, abuse of postal regulation may have been the worst censorship abuse of the first half of this century. An MD who gave factual answers to handwritten questions about contraception in first class mail could be thrown in jail -- and many were. I've forgotten the name of the postal inspector, but I don't have very kind thoughts toward him. He actually set up and enticed MDs to do this. Today, of course, there would be an entrapment defense, and the MD would clearly be protected by various SC decisions, *Miller* being one of them. > >If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and > >making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not > >among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of > >enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available. > > In a sense, I agree. By establishing degrees of "obscenity", and providing > wider distribution channels to less "obscene" materials, the amount of > "softer porn" would increase. Perhaps film rating systems (if statutes > are to use them as guidelines) which encourage a wider range of age brackets, > or advisory, rather than compulsory ages, could aid in a more "normal" > presentation of sex, love, and commitment. The problem is that the existing channels (perhaps including the mainstream ``men's magazines'') are wound up with organized crime. Legalizing things would not get organized crime out of them -- witness the scandals in the cement and concrete industry in NYC, witness the problems in the waste disposal industries at every level, witness the frequent claims of La Cosa Nostra involvement in the entertainment industry ... Putting more of the industry under public scrutiny would help, of course. If you don't feel that buying or renting films or tapes out of the trunk of a car in a driveway somewhere is normal, you'll be more inclined to make purchases from a store which can be somewhat more readily policed. Even here, however, law enforcement officers testify that ``adult'' establishments often keep two sets of books. > >> ... local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which resulted > >> in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed in > >>general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores. > >Where lower courts have respected [*Miller*], and made it clear ... that > >they [uphold] the higher courts, there is less margin for abuse. > The lower courts, however support the "Adult" vs. "Minor" distinctions, with > no sort of intermediate class. In some states, a person under 21 is > considered a "minor". > > The irony here is that the most lucrative "soft porn" markets are in the > 14-21 age brackets. Look at the types of porn, and their target audiences. > These target audiences are the age groups most interested in this type of > material, rather than a factor of advertizing targets. Most sexually > descriptive materials are targeted slightly above their target audience. Does the fact that materials are attractive to adolescents mean that it should be sold to them? If some sort of grading system, with a reliable type of parental approval could be worked out ... ``Y'know Jim, your son Bob came in here last week and asked for a copy of Playboy.'' ``Didja' give it to him?'' ``Naw ... I didn't think I oughta' '' ``He's seventeen years old now. I guess if he wants to read that stuff, he's old enough.'' ``Then it's OK?'' ``Yeah. Say, how much do I owe you ...'' > "Unporn". I almost forgot about this category. This is material where > women or men are shown, not nude, but in situations that could be arousing > to a young people just becoming aware of sexuality. Pantyhose wrappers, > clothing catalogues, bathing suits, underwear, shoe ads, almost any material > showing reasonably attractive people in poses or with facial expressions > that are attractive. Even Barbie Dolls, cartoons, or Comic books. Children > as young as age 5, to as old as age 12, may find even this material sexually > arousing. In fact, this material is most likely to influence sexual > preferences in the future. My son has had a thing for women's shoes > since he was two years old. He couldn't talk before then. This actually disturbs me more than the ``airbrushed centerfolds'', since it carries a powerful sexual message that hits everyone. Adults can get a kick out of some lingerie ads, too. > "Marshmellow porn" (my term for things like "Teen Beat", "True Romances", > and personalities like Madonna, Prince, and Boy George", is a very large > market in the 13-15 bracket. This is typically things like sexually > suggestive "street suitable" attire, bikinis, leg and occaisional breast. > Some sexually suggestive situations. This could be expanded to include > lingerie, cheesecake, and "strip tease". ... This I would classify with the first group -- it carries a very strong sexual message, and it is directed in this case toward people who are not sexually (and emotionally) mature. It wouldn't concern me if it were not so all-pervasive. The Madonna and Boy George personalities bother me more than the movies. In fact, I am more concerned about the pervasive nature than about the occasional breast or back shot. But here we are drifing into individual values, and while they may be a good topic, we *were* talking about effects of violent or degrading materials and how they might be examined. Let's be sure (as several people have said to me) that we keep the topics straight. > Soft porn, such as Playboy, Playgirl, Cosmopolitan, and New Look, is more > popular with the 15-17 group. Here, more nudity, lingerie, and fetish > material is mixed in with the "fluff". Characters actually have sex, > but seduction, birth control, and emotional factors are not well emphasised. > In the bulk of the material couples are not often shown, or are shown > in "intimate" but not "explicit" sexual situations. Some areas restrict > sales of this material through "nuisance laws", designed to make informed > purchases impossible or inconvenient. Actually, the ``nuisance'' laws are generally designed to keep this material away from the 15-17 year olds. Insofar as Playboy, Cosmo, etc, are involved, there is some information provided by the editorial policies of the publications. Nothing in most of the statutes prohibits a copy from being kept behind the counter for examination by an adult who might want to buy (in the case of ``shrink-wrap'' concealment) or prevents an adult from taking a copy out of the ``blinder rack'' that covers the ``lower 2/3'' of the cover. > ... > There is also the "young girl" market, featuring shaved pubic > regions, pony tails or pig tails, bobby socks, saddle shoes, and other > "young look" fashions. This, strangely enough, is popular in the 30-50 > market. This group often includes "spanking" themes as well. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if this may be satisfying (redirecting) a drive that some fathers (or people who wished they were fathers) feel, and that violates the incest taboo. If so, it suggests that the normal bonds of affection within a family (real or fantasized) may not have developed enough to block the sex drive between father and daughter. I've read that this may be a problem either when the person hasn't developed these bonds with his child *or* never developed the needed bonds *with his parents*. If so, it echoes the conclusion of Commissioner Tilton-Durfee's ``dissenting'' statement: It occurred to me, over and over again, that the real issue might be the effects of American family life on the consumtion of pornography, rather than the reverse. It also echoes the statement of Commissioner Ritter in which he says that the Commission ``ran for the hills'' in not examining the ethical and moral consequences of materials which show sex outside of the context of a loving marital relationship. (Understand that Bruce Ritter is not unbiased: as a Fransiscan priest, he has certain moral values. But before writing him off, examine what he *says*): ``..Finding that sexual privacy is pancultural, that it has been a stable feature of western civilization for as long as we have knowledge, and that it currently remains highly valued by Americans in their attitudes, practices, and laws, doesn not ineluctably require a finding that the taboo of sexual privacy ought to *continue* to be held in such high esteem. But these findings ... are nevertheless crucial in assessing where the *burden* of proof ought to rest. In all fairness ... it should rest on those seeking to sweep away the taboo. Does current, photographic ponography offend that taboo? And if so, what is the harm? ... The answer to the first question is obvious ... Nothing is left for the viewer to imagine; no attempt is made to conceal either the face or the genitals of the performers. The consumer of the ``standard'' pornography in the 1980s, unlike the consumers of the materials generally available at the time of the 1970 Commission Report, is a full witness to the most intimate, the most private activity of another human being. > Hard Core, such as "Reflections", features detailed descriptions and > pictorials of painful acts for sexual pleasure. Costumes include > rubber and leather. Restraints are usually leather or metal cuffs, > attached to chains. Settings are often dungeons. Models range in age up > to 60 years old. "Mistress Antoinette", publisher and model of several > such publications is over 60 years old. This is popular in the 30-70 > age bracket. > > Films in the "hard core bondage" market are often simply films a dominatrix > takes of her clients, often filmed by another dominatrix. In many cases, > the victim is set free of all restraints, put in different restraints, > and so on. Often the victims are males with enough strength to break chains > (some victims do), put into one helpless situation after another. > > Finally, we have the "ultra-porn". This material includes actual rape, > torture, and even death (actual or simulated) of boundage victims. In > many cases, the model is told the film will include some "gentle bondage", > and is then bound in hard gear. The bondage often causes pain which > is in no way sexual or desired. Little fashion is shown, because the > victim would not hold still for it. Beatings involving even 2x4's are > included. Rope burns, blood, and expressions of sheer terror on the > victims face are common. Seldom is the victim shown "free" after the > ordeal. Although it is available, it is extremely uncommon to find > material of this sort, even in adult bookstores. One of the best known, > "Bondage Classics", was made over 20 years ago. The proceeds from > this film do go to the victims. The proceeds do when successful prosecutions and civil judgements can be had. How many ``underground'' films are unprosecuted, with unidentified victims? I think that most of us would agree that production of this material, and probably its distribution as well, ought to be prosecuted. We may disagree on whether it should be done via obscenity statues, assault or rape laws, or worker protection laws, or some combination of the three. > I have never seen pedophile material, nor do I wish to. It is not > even available in Adult stores. Appearantly, there is an underground > black market. I couldn't tell you anything about it. I simply don't > know anything. Then why not listen to victims and law enforcement specialists? > ... > >Does this mean that we should discard all law? > > No. It means we should have sensible guidelines which match appropriate > material to appropriate ages. Notice that the 15-21 market is often > only available to people over 21, depending on the state. Again, does the fact that 15-21 year olds are the only ones who wish to buy something mean that we should sell it? > It means that Adult stores should not have "no refund, no browsing" policies, > or the less offensive material should be marketable in areas where shoplifting > is less common. I know of a few stores in Colorado, located in the suburbs, > where browsing is allowed (for a nominal admission fee of 25 cents). There > was much less "hard-core" and almost no "ultra-hard-core" material. Ok. > >Or does it mean that we should attempt to report abuses through the Press > >and to elect just and fairminded officials? > > In the cases of ultra-hard core, you could even encourage laws that would > allow the victim to come forward, using the film as supporting evidence, > and allow subpoena of all roughs, rejects, and cutting room extracts. > You could even encourage prosecutors to find the models of such films > to determine if they were in fact non-consenting adults. Let's do that. > >> Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned > >> entirely, while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent > >> "moderate" publications from competing. > > > >The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws. > >Essentially, there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene) > >from being sold in convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder > >racks'' covering the lower 2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other > >remedies against accidental exposure to minors is taken, unless zoning laws > >explicitly limit the area in which such things may be sold. > > Would you buy a book, a magazine, a can of food, or a car without knowing > what you were about to buy. There are those who do so. This actually > makes the problem worse. After a few attempts a purchasing material which > does not prove to be worth the money, the frustrated customer is often > tempted to patronize more exotic retailers. Though he/she might find > something that appeals, the combination with other factors such as dominance > or whatever, may either offend, or arouse, causing even more complex fantisies > to evolve. But blinder racks do not make it impossible to remove a magazine, only to examine *without* removing it. > >I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications that do not make the > >convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would not (and could > >not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions > >as an ``adults only'' store. > > Much of this is political. A friend of a friend on city council might be able > to sell adult soft porn, while a franchise owner might not be able to sell > even very soft porn. No agrument that this remains an abuse. This is where we need a free press. Unfortunately, local newspapers are often too subject to pressure from local officials. > >Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of > >Playboy? Hustler? > > Some remedial reading programs do use these materials on a regular basis. > They also use Cosmopolitan, Playgirl, and True Romance to motivate young > women. Pretty pictures are less than 1% of the magazines, sugar coating > to make the medicine easier to swallow. :-). On the other hand, the RR programs are usually supervised, and the students are probably mostly occupied with their work. > >As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller* > >decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need > >to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect > >the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea > >of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of > >real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary. > > The notion of legal obscenity has to be expanded. Currently selling legal > obscenity to minors is illegal in some states and localities. When "sale to > minors" means selling Variations to 5 year old kids, I agree. When it means > a person is old enough to have sex, but not old enough to read about it, > that's wrong. In Colorado, the age of consent is 15, but to watch Porkys > you must be 17, and to buy even Playboy, you must be 18. Fair enough, although the ``age of consent'' is a nasty thing. Lowering the age of consent is one way to dilute the effect of `statutory rape'' laws that say that if a 17 year old and a 18 year old have sex, the 18 year old is guilty of rape. Remember that being physically able to have sex, and emotionally able to deal with the consequences of *normal, loving* sexual encounters does not necessarily mean that you are able to deal with the emotional consequences of graphic depictions of one sort or another. > >> There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he > >> considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others > >> from purchasing that magazine. > > > >The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal > >methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting. > > from Mole End Mark Terribile > > Legally, this is true. When intimidation tactics are used, as was the case > with 7-11, it is hard to call it ethical behavior. > > There have been several forms of "Legal Harassment" of both stores and > patrons by organized groups. The group that took down liscence plates > and sent notes to the owner's home, employer, and minister. The group > that took the names of patrons and posted them on the bulletin boards > of several churches, for purposes of boycott, harassment, sale refusal, > employement descrimination, etc.. One of the things that this indicates is that we have a clash between the values that we profess and our real values. > If a man enjoys "fashion" (women who dress in erotic lingerie), it tells > a girl who is interested in him what "bait" to use. If a woman likes > submissive men, the submissive ones will be literally begging for a date :-), > while the dominants will walk off to look for submissive women. > > These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one > night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be > --discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered-- > weeks or even years after the honeymoon. Makes sense. Still, if I found that I were into dominance or submission, I would probably feel concerned about it, and try to understand why, and maybe change it. If I were into ``fashion'', I probably would not. Why? Because one involves fanstasies and arousal centered around things that I feel are objectionable by themselves. > Pornography may or may not "cause" other sexual crimes. If, however, if it > enables one to express verbally, in a non-threatening situation, his own > preferences, before acting on them with an unwilling partner, it may be a > good thing that porn is available. Is there a way to do this without the widespread viewing of material that offends the sense of decency of a large part of the population? > I am not advocating that everyone should go down to the porno shop to > discover their kink. Just that those who have kinks (not everybody does), > not "surprise" their partners. Decieving a partner about these preferences > in the vain hope that they can be "turned around", is the most obscene > form of deception. Hard to argue ... but even here, is there a range, where one fellow might get a thrill out of ``fashion'', but be able to have loving sex with his partner without it, while another cannot enjoy *any* sex that does not involve painful bondage? -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.