barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/11/86)
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile): >> >A. Abuse of Persons Used in Production >> >> > Pornography is a medical and public health problem because people, >> >particularly women and children, are abused in the production of certain >> >pornographic materials ... >> >If these were the only adverse health consequences of >> >pornography the most straightforward remedy would be the regulation of the >> >pornography industry to assure safe and fair labor practices. > >> This answers itself. [Gene Ward Smith] > >Yes, if indeed it were the only case. On the other hand, how do you really >ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a >camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years >later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide >where to draw the line in the work rules for this material? 1) They are aware at the time that what they are doing is public, and a permanent record is being made. They've made a free and informed choice. 2) They are adults, and have the right to make such decisions for themselves. 3) Mental illness?? Potential later embarrassment is possible, but what makes you think ex-porn stars are more vulnerable to mental illness? As for appropriate work rules, I should think they should follow the current standards for modeling and film acting, with slight modifications. No child actors, for example. >> >B. Injurious Products >> >[possible dangers of accidents with sex toys] > >If only ``a few people'' are reported as being seriously hurt, should the >materials be controlled, or their sale be discouraged by discouraging porn >that depicts their use? I think that we *still* have to balance the harm >and good in each case. OK, but we already have a way of doing that. It's called "product liability". If I buy Dr. Feelgood's Super Strawberry Sex Syrup, and get a painful rash in a very delicate spot, I can sue the guy, just like I could sue a ladder manufacturer if his brand-new ladder breaks under my foot. By the way, I love that word, "discouraging"; sounds *so* much nicer than suppressing or censoring :-). >On the other >hand, consider the mental health implications of presenting material >which incorporates pain, physical restraint, and elements of slavery and >degradation as normal sexual material. Damn, we've been having an argument on >net.singles about just what constitutes rape when one partner isn't sure! What do you mean by "presenting as normal"? The argument is about whether it should be presented at all. Frankly, in a society like ours, which is not even considering the censorship of films like FRIDAY THE 13TH, part (X), the violence issue seems a red herring in the porn debate. Unless someone wishes to argue that cheap slasher films have a redeeming social value not shared by cheap porn flicks? :-) >> >F. Fostering Attitudes with Adverse Health Consequences >> >> > Pornography is a medical and public health problem because it >> >increases the probability that members of the exposed population will acquire >> >attitudes that are detrimental to the physical and mental health of both >> >those exposed and those around them. >> >... Analagous response of exposure to nonsexual media violence have >> >been documented for even longer. >> >> Ditto my response to section E. Does this last sentence mean we should >> ban Rambo? > >On this basis, it's probable that we should. But because of the subtle and >powerful interactions between sex and aggression, it appears that we are >more capable, in general, of seperating fantasy from desirable or acceptable >behavior where sex is not involved. (I do not attempt to support this >statement fully; indirect evidence comes in the ``rape trial'' studies that >are cited and outlined in the Report) Correlation != causation. That's why the evidence is (politely termed) "indirect". I'm always struck by the implied elitism of the censorship supporters in these arguments. Censorship implies censors, people who will read/hear/see *lots* of this stuff, like the commission did. But they're respectable folks, so they're OK. And Mark is no doubt sure it won't corrupt *him* if he should happen to experience it. I'm sure it wouldn't corrupt me, too. How 'bout the rest of you? Any of you think your morals would be corrupted by porn? Or is it always other people's morals? >> instance, one would wish to see why the effect of pornography is so >> different in Japan and Western Europe. ... also ... a comparison to "Friday >> the Thirteenth, Part LXVII -- The Story Degenerates". In other countries, >> they are much more worried about media violence than porn. Does the evidence >> show they are wrong? Dr. Dietz's comments seem to indicate otherwise. > >Recently, one of Sweden's public health officials was quoted as saying >something very like ``pornography is the theory; rape is the practice''. >(I will try to get more info on the health official and what he said.) > >Are those countries wrong? It would be more accurate to say that in their >care to not restrict matters sexual, some have missed violent materials. >In particular, Denmark has been the source of much such material, according to >the Report. Remember also that the countries of Northern Europe *do* differ. What about Japan? There is much more rape, sadomasochism and general violence in Japanese porn than American; yet the Japanese, though perhaps a rather sexist society, have a much lower rate of violent crimes against women than the US. I think that's also true (lower rate of violent crimes against women) of all or almost all West European nations, yet some of those countries have much more liberal porn laws than we do. >Again note that public health considerations often must be balanced against >individual liberties. Our written Constitution may not be the perfect >description of the liberties that inividuals have a right to, but it's not >a bad try, especially for the first of its kind. The fact that it exists and >is still a source of controversy affecting each of us is a reminder of how >well its authors and subsequent defenders did -- and still do -- their jobs. >These questions need to be asked, and the answers need to be found. But the >answers will not all inevitabely be the same. I think the 1st Amendment sets a clear standard for judging books, films, pictures or magazines that are accused of being harmful: innocent until proven guilty. There is just no serious evidence of anyone suffering harm from sexually explicit material. A few rapists have tried to dilute their guilt by saying "porn made me do it", but that's hardly to be credited. Confusing things even further is the lumping together of the effects of vicarious violence and vicarious sex, a confusion that the pro-censorship lobbies seem to delight in furthering. There is more public willingness to censor sex than violence, but the only (limited) evidence of *harm* is against violence, not sex. So they muddy the issue of sexual frankness with that of violence. Where is the *evidence*? Why was the commission unable to back their conclusions with hard data instead of hearsay? Does anyone have evidence that sexual stimulation via porn (*not* violence) is harmful? Innocent until proven guilty. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/12/86)
> > > The alternative is Plato's Republic, where the Guardians of the public > > welfare ban certain kinds of music, certain kinds of books, and so forth. > > The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the > point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* > except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any > sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears that > the Supreme Court has held this to be the case. > > mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) AH! Now we have gotten to the *crux* of the matter: sexual arousal Nothing here about rape, nothing here about violence, nothing here about unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, nope just plain sexual arousal. Let's ban bikinis!! (they arouse *me*!) Let's ban Rubens, Rembrandt, the Venus de Milo!! Let's ban *anything* which may lead people to that awful, disgusting *sinful* pleasure of *SEXUAL AROUSAL*!! After all if God had wanted us to be sexually aroused...... Amidst all the noise about rape, violence, etc, you have finally stated the true desire of the Meese Commission and the right-wing fascists trying to take away our rights to private pleasures. Their desire to repress sexual arousal. Which is exactly what I have argued is the point of the Meese Commission all along. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/13/86)
> Mark Terribile (mtx5b!mark) writes: > > The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is > > the point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for > > *nothing* except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not > > communication in any sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. > > Or at least it appears that the Supreme Court has held this to be the case. > > Strange. Art, as I would define it, is a selective re-creation of > reality *designed to create an emotional response*. Just one of many definitions. An artist once told me that art had to do with seeing things in ways that others didn't, and juxtaposing them in ways that others wouldn't. I guess that leaves out Rembrandt and much of Michelangelo and DaVinci ... > Films designed for *nothing* except the triggering of horror, piety, hatred, > fear, compassion, laughter - any emotion other than sexual arousal - are > constitutionally protected speech. I hold with the late Justice Black > that the Constitution does not endorse such an exception, And with William O. Douglas. But not with the other eight Old Men on that bench. > and I loathe any interference by the state with something as personal as the > emotions, including sexual arousal, engendered by whatever art one > freely decides to experience. And my intuition is that a society which > regards sexual arousal as less desirable than horror or fear, and > forbids works which evoke the former while protecting those which evoke > the latter two, is *sick*. What about a society that holds these things as so personal and private that the community has the right to say that people shall not gratuitously manipulate the feelings and physical reactions of others? There is a judgement embedded in this to the effect that most of the works in question do not constitute Art; that we can tell the difference between those that do and those that don't, with a small range that *might*; and that those that do or might are protected. And that the mere manipulation of these personal and private feelings does not of itself constitute Art. Is this where your disagreement lies? -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (09/13/86)
In article <1522@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >> The alternative is Plato's Republic, where the Guardians of the public >> welfare ban certain kinds of music, certain kinds of books, and so forth. > >The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the >point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* >except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any >sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears that >the Supreme Court has held this to be the case. And therein lies a fundamental weakness of any anti-pornography campaign-- trying to come up with a way to ban "Deep Throat" but keep "Last Tango in Paris." Banning a movie based on the intention of its makers seems unenforc- able in the extreme. "Deep Throat" wasn't designed solely for sexual arousal. If it had been "designed for *nothing* except sexual arousal" there wouldn't have been anything in the film which could not cause sexual arousal. For example, the scene where Linda Lovelace visits her doctor ("How would you like it if your balls were in your ears?") is intended for comic relief, to make the audience laugh, not to sexually arouse them. The Playboy Forum often contains questions about cars and stereos. This information is not intended solely for sexual arousal, and so Playboy cannot be banned on this premise either. -- "I can walk like an ape, I can talk like an ape, I can do what the monkey can do" Steve "Blore" Howard, a Fun Guy from Yuggoth {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (09/15/86)
> And with William O. Douglas. But not with the other eight Old Men on that > bench. ^^^ Oh, my God, Sandra Day O'Connor retired and I never heard about it! :-) Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu BITNET: mtgzy.uucp!ecl@harvard.edu The future exists first in the imagination, then in the will, then in reality.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/16/86)
In article <1522@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >Ok. At least we are talking about issues and principles. Let me ask you >then about specifics. [The following arbitrarily edited, fresh list needed anyway...] >would you support specific public health laws to address this situation by >requiring that the booths be closed to each other and that the occupants be >visible from the outside? (Or pick another remedy of choice ...) >photographs are sometimes seized when alleged pedophiles are arrested, would >you support closing the loopholes in evidence requirements under existing >statutes regarding interstate distribution of such materials? >Would you allow a person who is not old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages >to act in films whose sole purpose was sexual arousal of the viewer, or could >the same (or similar) requirements of age be acceptable or appropriate? >a few such places would seem to call for no less regulation than, say, the >restaurant industry. >*THESE* are the kind of actions that the Commission recommended! Yes, they Thank you. But please be even more specific, quoting the recommendations verbatum so that those of us who want to may respond to the report rather than to a mixture of their suggestions and your suggestions. Since most of us don't have the report *yet*, you can facilitate non-flame discussion by posting this. Some of what you present in this posting (ie closing loopholes re pedophiles) is reasonable enough to discuss in terms of how it can be implemented without undesirable side-effects (such as accidentally outlawing family-oriented nudist magazines by defining child-pornography too broadly, as one proposed law would have done). >*do* recommend that we take notice that there may be harms resulting from >other kinds of material. Yes, they recommend that California change its >State requirements for community laws to match the *Miller* standard, rather >than the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. But if you want to take issue with a >finding or a recommendation, know what it is. *THEN* argue. 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). >It's true that I presented the concerned statements of two of the Commissioners >because they were eloquent. But if you examine the specific *recommendations* >of the report, they are almost never as strong as you would expect, given the >harms that the Commission believes exists. Instead, they call for further >study. > >The two exceptions are kiddie porn and loopholes in existing laws. In case it isn't obvious, my request is for quotes of the *action* recommendations, as calls for more study are not contoversial. References to studies, page numbers, etc, will be a good idea later, when more of us (presumably) will have cheap copies of the report. > from Mole End Mark Terribile - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: Everybody bops. _on blackboard or something in "She Bop" video.
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (09/17/86)
This was a long article, but I'd like to pick out and address a couple of points. In article <1506@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >Yes, if indeed it were the only case. On the other hand, how do you really >ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a >camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years >later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide >where to draw the line in the work rules for this material? At the present time, I believe that only adults over 18 can legally appear in a porn film. I always thought this was because we assume that someone of that age is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. If that is not true, then we have other, much larger problems. When someone believes in their convictions and is honest about themselves up front, there are no "skeletons in the closet" that can be dragged out later, and hence no embarrassments. [regarding porn magazines as opposed to "outdoor" type magazines] >On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and >risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the >welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than >dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in). In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec- tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel- ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap- peared in Hustler magazine. I guess that those type of magazines are the only forum where sexual situations can be discussed in *frank terms*. >>... You don't need porn for this, just buy a copy of "The Joy of Sex". >> (Unless sex manuals are ipso facto porn?). > >Does ``The Joy Of Sex'' demonstrate whippings that cause bleeding, or provide >photographic depictions of people being tortured by having their penises, >labia, or nipples pierced? Does it depict acts that are difficult, degrading, >or harmful? Does it encourage non-consensual acts, or acts under duress? > > from Mole End Mark Terribile This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not been ex- posed to this type of material, although I'm sure it exists for those willing to spend the effort to find it. This seems to be a good place to reiterate my request to help break the connection between sex and violence. One way to aid this campaign is to not use the two terms together. Try to replace the stan- dard phrase "sex AND violence", with "sex OR violence" wherever possible. It seems like such a small thing, but I don't know of a better way to start. Dave
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/17/86)
>> And with William O. Douglas. But not with the other eight Old Men on that >> bench. > ^^^ > >Oh, my God, Sandra Day O'Connor retired and I never heard about it! :-) > > Evelyn C. Leeper >The future exists first in the imagination, then in the will, then in reality. Either you are making fun of your opponent when he satirizes himself (which seems like an awful self-defeating thing to do) or you really DON'T know what the phrase ``Nine Old Men'' refers to. FDR, as part of his New Deal, pushed through a bunch of reforms that were declared unconstitutional. Today, I don't think that they'd raise any eyebrows, but then they were hopelessly radical and the rather staid court knocked them down. Anyhow, FDR and his supporters grumbled about the ``Nine Old Men'' and tried to pack the bench (increasing the number of Justices). It didn't work; it seemed like anytime someone was appointed, he'd change his views to those prevailing beforehand. If you can suggest a pithy phrase to replace the Nine Old Men, I'll be happy to use it the next time I fell inclined to satirize my own position. Now what was that about our school systems not doing their job? B^{ On another topic, I apologize for misspelling ``orgasms'' a couple of times. It's a word that I don't type that often and my fingers haven't learned it yet. (Is a smiley appropriate there ...) while, continue, for, int, struct, my fingers are pretty good at. They're also beginning to get the hang of ``pornography'' after a few early typos. And I'm not making any promises about ``honorificalitudinibus''! Besides, Evelyn, I thought that you were above such things as spelling flames. -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/18/86)
> 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 if ``ideas'', the dissemination of which are protected by the First Amendment, could (but did not have to be) subject to restriction by the States. It was in that case that the phrase ``utterly without redeeming social importance'' crept into the constitutional law. All ideas, according to this decision, are protected, and material with ``even the slightest redeeming social importance'', no matter how overtly and explicitly sexual, could not be restricted. In simple words, a cheap moral would justify any story with any pictures, or any movie. The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little: Material may be obscene under law if all of these three tests are met. 1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest [in sex]; and 2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state or federal law; and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. These words have been litigated and deliberated to death and decisions have been handed down clarifying nuances and conditions under which prosecution may take place (a book may be found to be obscene, but if it is one of only a few such books in a bookstore, and there is no reasonable expectation that the proprietors could have known that it would be found be obscene, the proprietors cannot be prosecuted, etc.) Also, this decision does not cover child pornography; that is considered to have the potential for such grave and immediate harm that it can be much more closely restricted. Note that item (1) requires a judgement of the sensibilities of the ``average'' individual within a community, item (2) requires that the laws be specific, and item (3) requires that the work's value be judged on an equal scale across the entire country (no ``community standards'' here ...) In the case of *Jenkins v. Georgia*, in 1974, a conviction was brought against the f;im ``Carnal Knowledge''. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying that regardless of the standards of the community, the First Amendment prohibited any community from finding that a work such as that film appealed to the prurient interest or was patently offensive. With *Jenkins*, the Court effectively limited the range of community standards that could be accepted before the court. It is *still* possible that a work that would not be obscene under the community standards tests in lower Manhattan would be obscene in Salt Lake City, but the range is narrower than you might think. My source for the details of this (though not the basic facts) is the portion of the Commission's report that deals with history and constitutional issues; I think that even if you disagree with the conclusions of the Commissioners (and I'm sure that Phil does) you would find the treatment relatively even- handed. I'm not about to type the whole thing in, but there's one section that might be relevant to this discussion. It will generate, I am sure, a few flames, but there may be a surprise or two. I can also understand an ``absolutist'' being scared out of his breeches, but I think that most people (though perhaps not most people on these newsgroups) will see some of the issues addressed, and some questions that they had not thought to ask themselves asked and answered. 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 not violence to the principles underlying the First Amendment, we recognize that this cannot be the end of the First Amendment Analysis. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. And still others were less helpful, telling us, for example, that censorship was impermissible because "This is the united States, not the Soviet Union." We know that, but we know as well that difficult issues do not become easy by the use of inflammatory rhetoric. We which that many of these people or groups had been able to provide concrete examples to support their fears of excess censorship. Throughout recent and not so recent history, excess censorship, although not necessarily prevalent, can hardly be said not to have occurred. As a result, we have not been content to rest on the hollowness of the assertions of many of those who have reminded us of this theme. If there is a problem, we have our own obligations to identify it and remedy it, even if witnesseses before us have been unable to do so. 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. We do not say that there have been none. Attempted and unsuccessful actions against the film *Caligula* by the United States Customs Service, against *Playboy* magazine in Atlanta, and several other places, and against some other plainly non-obscene publications indicate 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 with 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. As we have tried once again to make clear in this report, nothing could be further from the truth. Apart from this, however, the excesses that have been reported to us are excesses that can only remotely be attributed to the obscenity laws. In a world of choice and scarce resources, every one of these excesses could have taken place even were there no obscenity laws at all. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 (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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/19/86)
> This was a long article, but I'd like to pick out and address a couple of > points. > > >Yes, if indeed it were the only case. On the other hand, how do you really > >ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a > >camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years > >later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide > >where to draw the line in the work rules for this material? > > At the present time, I believe that only adults over 18 can legally appear in > a porn film. I always thought this was because we assume that someone of that > age is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. If that is not > true, then we have other, much larger problems. When someone believes in their > convictions and is honest about themselves up front, there are no "skeletons in > the closet" that can be dragged out later, and hence no embarrassments. First of all, in New York State, the age limit is 16, not 18. A little too young. Secondly, it is claimed that in making films for certain audiences, *not* pedophilic in the usual sense, there is a great deal of pressure to use women (and men) who are younger. Because of loose recordkeeping require- ments and because the ``stars'' are usually paid in cash, it's hard for the State labor authorities or child welfare authorities to keep tabs on this properly. Also, many people who make just a couple of explicit sex films (including Sylvester Stallone, by the way) do so to keep from starving. It's quick money, cash that you con't have to report to the taxman, and a couple of films will pay the rent and buy you hot dogs and crackers for a few weeks. The ``informed, rational, adult decision'' view isn't quite appropriate. If, as Oleg K. has said, people who sell their bodies in the street are victms of society, can we rule out the possibility that people who sell their bodies on film are likewise victims? In the face of testimony by people who have made such films under these circumstances, trying to stay n school or find a legitimate job, the ``stars'' might well be said to be victims of circumstances, if not society. The technologies of photography, cinematography, and electronic video have increased the hazards by creating a permanent record that cannot be explained away the way a drawing or painting could be. > [regarding porn magazines as opposed to "outdoor" type magazines] > >On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and > >risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the > >welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than > >dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in). > > In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec- > tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel- > ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most > comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap- > peared in Hustler magazine. I guess that those type of magazines are the only > forum where sexual situations can be discussed in *frank terms*. And to the extent that these things are done, and to the extent that the advice is sound (my guess is that it is) the publications are serving a useful purpose to their subscribers. But not all the remarks are directed at Hustler (although some may be) and not all the remarks are directed at magazines. What about the ``XXX Sex Dreams of a Sorority Girl XXX'' (the name is one I just made up, folks ...) films that get run in the ``adult theaters''. Do they have write-in sections on sex with medically sound advice? > >>... You don't need porn for this, just buy a copy of "The Joy of Sex". > >> (Unless sex manuals are ipso facto porn?). > > > >Does ``The Joy Of Sex'' demonstrate whippings that cause bleeding, or provide > >photographic depictions of people being tortured by having their penises, > >labia, or nipples pierced? Does it depict acts that are difficult, degrading, > >or harmful? Does it encourage non-consensual acts, or acts under duress? > This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not been ex- > posed to this type of material, although I'm sure it exists for those willing > to spend the effort to find it. This seems to be a good place to reiterate my > request to help break the connection between sex and violence. One way to aid > this campaign is to not use the two terms together. Try to replace the stan- > dard phrase "sex AND violence", with "sex OR violence" wherever possible. It > seems like such a small thing, but I don't know of a better way to start. > This seems like a good place to point out that, although there is a sorry lack of reliable social science evidence, and (according to Adam R.) reliable studies asking simplistic questions of this complex phenomenon (yes, Adam, I'm adding a little to what you said ...) would not indicate direct links for most of the population, clearly there *is* a subpopulation for whom sexual pleasure is enhanced by violence or by degrading others. And materials of the sort which (as you say) do not interest you *do* affect them when sex and violence are juxtaposed (in slasher flicks) or combined (in certain types of pornography). 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. By the way, one of the few types of direct research that the Commission *did* undertake was a survey of materials available at ``adult bookstores''. The methods included taking the title of every nth current magazine or book that had any sexual reference on the cover. Various materials were also purchase, and other materials siezed by law enforcement officials were provided. I'm sure that the places examined were the ``worst'' in terms of the strength of material. On the other hand, within several major cities, these materials were avalable to anyone who would walk into a store which advertised itself as an adult bookstore. They are not hard to get. -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/20/86)
> > The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the > > point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* > > except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any > > sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears that > > the Supreme Court has held this to be the case. > > AH! Now we have gotten to the *crux* of the matter: > sexual arousal > > Nothing here about rape, nothing here about violence, nothing here > about unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, nope > just plain sexual arousal. > ... > Let's ban *anything* which may lead people to that awful, disgusting > *sinful* pleasure of *SEXUAL AROUSAL*!! >... > Amidst all the noise about rape, violence, etc, you have finally stated > the true desire of the Meese Commission and the right-wing fascists > trying to take away our rights to private pleasures. Their desire Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being indifferent. How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film what you do and publish it? Ten thousand, hundred thousand? How about a million? Oops, you're about to be undersold by a couple of starving kids in the ghetto who'll do it for a hundred-and-fifty. ``Orgasms are up two in heavy trading on reports of a major new marketing campaign ...'' (Oh, let me be silly once in a while! Trying to answer all of the silly ways you encapsulate *your* agendas is getting to me!) Sexual arousal is a means by which people may be manipulated. A woman known as CYNTHIA got intelligence information that turned WWII out of very loyal officers of Vichy France: I discovered how easy it was to make highly trained, professionally close-mouted patriots give away secrets in bed, and I swore to close my ears to everything of value on our side. The greatest joy is a man and woman together. Making love allows a discharge of all those private innermost thoughts that have accumulated. In this sudden flood, everything is released. Everything. I just never dared to learn our own secrets ... CYNTHIA, later Elizabeth Amy Thorpe (real name still secret) quoted in ``A Man Called INTREPID''. Hardly the stuff we want traded on the Mercantile Exchange ... -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (09/22/86)
In article <1560@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >This seems like a good place to point out that, although there is a sorry >lack of reliable social science evidence, and (according to Adam R.) reliable >studies asking simplistic questions of this complex phenomenon (yes, Adam, I'm >adding a little to what you said ...) would not indicate direct links for >most of the population, clearly there *is* a subpopulation for whom sexual >pleasure is enhanced by violence or by degrading others. And materials of >the sort which (as you say) do not interest you *do* affect them when sex and >violence are juxtaposed (in slasher flicks) or combined (in certain types of >pornography). > >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. Or: Although most church-goers are quiet, nonviolent people, there is a subpopulation for whom religious fervor leads to bigotry and political oppression. Since this affects people (victims), and since the patterns of political oppression are not always simple and evident, the simple remedy of "well, don't listen to loonies like Jerry Falwell" does not protect these victims adequately. -- "The king is gone but he's not forgotten. This is the story of Johnny Rotten." Steve "Blore" Howard, a Fun Guy from Yuggoth {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (09/25/86)
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > [regarding age of porn film actors] >First of all, in New York State, the age limit is 16, not 18. A little too >young. Secondly, it is claimed that in making films for certain audiences, >*not* pedophilic in the usual sense, there is a great deal of pressure to >use women (and men) who are younger. Because of loose recordkeeping require- >ments and because the ``stars'' are usually paid in cash, it's hard for the >State labor authorities or child welfare authorities to keep tabs on this >properly. I'm not sure that this is a valid reason for preventing these willing people from working. Just because it may be difficult for the government to stick their nose into something, does not mean it should be made illegal. Example: It is hard to keep track of people who wander around the country and have no permanent address. Should we outlaw this, and throw nomads (or gypsies, or whatever you want to call them) in jail? >> [regarding porn magazines as opposed to "outdoor" type magazines] >> >On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and >> >risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the >> >welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than >> >dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in). >> In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec- >> tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel- >> ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most >> comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap- >> peared in Hustler magazine. > >And to the extent that these things are done, and to the extent that the >advice is sound (my guess is that it is) the publications are serving a >useful purpose to their subscribers. But not all the remarks are directed >at Hustler (although some may be) and not all the remarks are directed at >magazines. What about the ``XXX Sex Dreams of a Sorority Girl XXX'' (the >name is one I just made up, folks ...) films that get run in the ``adult >theaters''. Do they have write-in sections on sex with medically sound >advice? As can be seen by the quote I included, I was responding to the comparison of porn MAGAZINES with "outdoors" or "sports" MAGAZINES. If you want to change the subject to films, fine, but obviously what I said has no bearing on this. [description of porn as having pictures of people being tortured, nipples or penises pierced, etc.] >> This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not been ex- >> posed to this type of material, although I'm sure it exists for those willing >> to spend the effort to find it. >....... one of the few types of direct research that the Commission *did* >undertake was a survey of materials available at ``adult bookstores''. The >methods included taking the title of every nth current magazine or book that >had any sexual reference on the cover. Various materials were also purchase, >and other materials siezed by law enforcement officials were provided. Unfortunately, that type of survey ("every nth current") does not say much about the relative volume, or popularity of each type of pornography avail- able. Using the same survey technique in a supermarket, one could infer that a person is just as likely to buy a bottle of tabasco sauce as they are to buy a potato, because they are both equally available. The false conclusion is that the demand for all items is equal. Obviously I'm guessing here, but I would imagine that the largest volume of porn is that which is in Penthouse, Playboy, Playgirl, and so forth, simply because of the multitude of convenience stores that sell them. So who can really say what PERCENTAGE of porn sold is of the violent, sadomasochistic or torture type. Let's say that this 'violent' porn amounts to 1/100 of the total pornography market. I don't think that is cause for concern. Of course it may be more. Did the commission examine that issue? Or did they merely say that 'some exists'? Dave >Mark Terribile >>Dave
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/03/86)
> >[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. 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. 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. 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 (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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.