rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/30/86)
In article <1576@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> >[certain materials linking sex with violence encourage certain acts by >> > a certain group of people ...] >> > >> >Because the interaction of the two affects people (victims) of these >> >individuals, and because patterns of victimization are not always simple and >> >evident (look at columns by Ann Landers, look at articles on this newsgroup >> >about dogs and cleaning the house) the simple remedy of ``well, leave him'' >> >does not protect these victims adequately. Further, where force or threat of >> >bodily harm is involved, that remedy is simply not available. >> > >> >> This is as valid an argument for gun control or banning religion as it >> is for pornography legislation. Watch this: Although we don't have very >> much evidence about the general population, there is a subpopulation which >> uses firearms in the commission of crimes. And the legality of firearms >> does make it easier for them to obtain guns and commit these crimes. Because >> these crimes have victims, the simple remedy of "well, just arrest the >> criminals and leave us law-abiding citizens alone" does not protect these >> victims adequately. > >There are a couple of differences. First, with the horrible case of domestic >violence put aside, the victims or crimes committed with guns and the victims >of bigotry do not have emotional attatchments to the people harming them. Not true. Many crimes are committed as a means of revenge. Many are "inside jobs", involving victims with whom there are emotional attachments. >Second, people who have been shot or robbed at gunpoint can either be >identified or can identify themselves rather easily; likewise victims of most >overt and harmful acts of bigotry. Again, there are exceptions. Victims of "inside jobs" and crimes of revenge, white collar crime, et. al. are often difficult to identify. >Third, of all crimes committed with the >threat of use of a firearm, only rape (which does not *require* a firearm) >carries the potential for emotional damage that long-term assault on sexual >dignity (by subtle demands for acts that are painful or that feel degrading) >carries. You have obviously never been robbed at gunpoint. >In this case: >1) The victims are people with emotional ties to the offenders >2) The victims often cannot identify themselves and no one else can usually > identify them (except after many years when awareness begins to penetrate > the shame and guilt) >3) The potential for extraordinarily deep damage is large. > from Mole End Mark Terribile The above could be said of several other types of "white crime". Computers make embezzlement possible, effecting people who may have had emotional involvement. Should we outlaw computers? Some religions take advantage of people's emotional instability during times of crisis. Other religions even resort to blackmail, extortion, "fortune telling", fraud, and assault to extract "tithes". Should we ban religion? True, some porn may advocate, or involve criminal behaviour. Moderated, rational regulations would be a more sane approach than an outright ban. OSHA, FTC, FDA, and other agencies *could* improve employment, marketing, and health practices. Zoning, ratings, and display regulations have kept the most offensive materials out of the hands of minors. Laws covering rape, prostitution, and child molesting have provided some protection. If you were advocating help for the victim, and awareness, I would support you. Even keeping certain materials out of the hands of prior offenders would make some sense. Protecting the "average person" from "possible corruption", I cannot support.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/13/86)
> True, some porn may advocate, or involve criminal behaviour. Moderated, > rational regulations would be a more sane approach than an outright ban. > OSHA, FTC, FDA, and other agencies *could* improve employment, marketing, > and health practices. Zoning, ratings, and display regulations have > kept the most offensive materials out of the hands of minors. Laws > covering rape, prostitution, and child molesting have provided some > protection. > > If you were advocating help for the victim, and awareness, I would > support you. Even keeping certain materials out of the hands of > prior offenders would make some sense. Protecting the "average person" > from "possible corruption", I cannot support. What if some material is *only* of interest to people with a tendency to use that material to legitimize behaviour which will make them offenders? Could this be the ``sawed off shotgun'' scenario? -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.