orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/16/86)
> Brian, > > I'm not quite sure how I stand on the Meese Commission yet, because it, > indeed, is wrestling with the fine line between literal interpretation > of the Constitution (i.e. 1st Ammendment) and *preventive medicine*. > What I mean is, well, our society has passed various ordinances which > allegedly impose on the rights of individuals, but which serve the > collective good (by heading something off before it becomes a problem). > Some examples include: > > o Drunk Driving Laws o Gun Control o Speed Limits > o Workplace Safety Laws o Toxic Waste Control o Etc. Etc. Etc. > > If a clear relationship can be established between Pornography and > subsequent acts of violence, then doesn't it make sense to head-off > its chance to drive a person to that act of violence, rather than be > poised to incarcerate the person after the fact. By doing this, we've > spared the life of that potential victim, hence, we've served the > greater good of society. > > I am usually a fundamentalist of the Constitution, but maybe you and > I need to bend a little in this matter. Think about it. > > Bob Averack Your analogy is flawed. In every one of those cases above we are talking about *actual harm being done to others*. There is no doubt that drunk driving endangers others lives. And the MADD campaign has been very successful in reducing drunk driving. But how was it done? Have we reinstituted Prohibition? Did MADD ever say "You should never drink one drop of liquor ever because it is a sin"? No. They took the *reasonable* approach which is preventive and not repressive. They said, "It is your decision to drink or not. But it is irresponsible and endangers others lives to drink and drive." This is manifestly NOT the approach of Meese, Reagan et al. Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease selling erotic materials. This would be the equivalent of MADD going around trying to close down liquor stores. I don't recall that MADD ever did that, do you? At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't work very well at all, now did it? Moreover, if one is talking about what causes *violence* then there can be little doubt about it: *violence* causes violence and sympathetic portrayals of violence are far more likely to provoke violence than any erotic movie. As I pointed out in Brazil a policeman shot 3 people when he went haywire after seeing "Cobra". I see kids where I live playing "Rambo", playing with guns and emulating the violence they see on TV. As I have mentioned many times the Meese Commission never even mentions this. How could they? When Meese's Commander in Chief goes around killing 9 month-old babies, when he "jokes" about destroying a whole nation in nuclear war, when he waxes enthusiastic about Rambo and takes up the invitation to violence of Clint Eastwood's persona "Make my day", how then can he criticize the glorification of violence? Reagan and his regime glory in violence. Even after Cory Aquino's remarkable nonviolent revolution, her success in getting 10,000 Communists to lay down their arms within months of taking power, her recent peace accord with Islamic militants, all the bloodthirsty militarists in Reagan's administration can do is say: "Oh, Cory, you don't understand, you have to *kill* those Communists like Marcos did" Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mahoney@bizet.dec.com (09/19/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 16-SEP-1986 13:37--------------------- > Brian, > > I'm not quite sure how I stand on the Meese Commission yet, because it, > indeed, is wrestling with the fine line between literal interpretation > of the Constitution (i.e. 1st Ammendment) and *preventive medicine*. > What I mean is, well, our society has passed various ordinances which > allegedly impose on the rights of individuals, but which serve the > collective good (by heading something off before it becomes a problem). > Some examples include: > > o Drunk Driving Laws o Gun Control o Speed Limits > o Workplace Safety Laws o Toxic Waste Control o Etc. Etc. Etc. > > If a clear relationship can be established between Pornography and > subsequent acts of violence, then doesn't it make sense to head-off > its chance to drive a person to that act of violence, rather than be > poised to incarcerate the person after the fact. By doing this, we've > spared the life of that potential victim, hence, we've served the > greater good of society. > > I am usually a fundamentalist of the Constitution, but maybe you and > I need to bend a little in this matter. Think about it. > > Bob Averack I did not see this posted until Tim responded to it. Tim I think forgot or missed where I stated I will accept that pornography may cause others to commit violence. Going on that premise still, I will try to answer your question. The problem comes in that we as a people are getting to ready to hand over personal responsibility. It is still the responsibility of that person to control there own emotions. If pornography can push someone to an act of violence then 1) that person needs serious help 2) he is still responsible. Society must protect itself this is true the question is how far should it go? I think that the more restrained the better. Personal freedom must be protected or our society will wither away. As Tim said the act of drinking is not against the law it is drinking and driving that is against the law. Drinking makes some people more prone to drive drunk yet we do not outlaw drinking. We outlaw the act that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with pornography itself. What is wrong is the acting out of pornography on unwilling people. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun and using it in sporting events. It is wrong to use it to kill someone. Toxic Waste and Work Safety Laws I think are somewhat different. I admit I am probably drawing an arbitrary line. The thing there will always be an arbitrary line drawn. The question is where and why do you draw it. I draw it here because I see it definitely as collective entities. Toxic Waste effects the environment something that everyone has a right to. You can not step on someone else's rights. Work Rules are little harder but I think the same argument can be used. Your rights do stop where another's begin. There are to many things in this world that can cause one thing or another. That it is time for society to say it is up to the person to take responsibility, or we will eventually legislate all our rights away. With freedom comes responsibility. If we legislate away responsibility we legislate away freedom. Brian Mahoney
rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (09/22/86)
In article <1253@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP writes: > >Your analogy is flawed. In every one of those cases above we are >talking about *actual harm being done to others*. There is no >doubt that drunk driving endangers others lives. Tim, I still contend that, like the drunk driver who is a potential threat to society (with the threat unrealized until he or she actually runs that light or crosses the divider), the *turned-on* assailant is equally a threat (with the threat unrealized until the assailant strikes). >Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease >selling erotic materials. This would be the equivalent of MADD going >around trying to close down liquor stores. I don't recall that MADD >ever did that, do you? At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't >work very well at all, now did it? Tim, I said in my response to Brian that I am not totally resolved as to the Meese Commission, although I am in agreement as to their findings of a relationship between pornography and violence. The reason for my lack of resolution is, as you have pointed out, their technique in handling this most sensitive issue. >he criticize the glorification of violence? Reagan and his regime >glory in violence. Even after Cory Aquino's remarkable nonviolent >revolution, her success in getting 10,000 Communists to lay down their >arms within months of taking power, her recent peace accord with >Islamic militants, all the bloodthirsty militarists in Reagan's >administration can do is say: "Oh, Cory, you don't understand, >you have to *kill* those Communists like Marcos did" >Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting. > tim sevener whuxn!orb I am in complete agreement with you here, Tim. I find the Ronbo Regime completely repulsive. We're really not that far apart. I'm only offering that we need to be especially cautious with the fine line between *Freedom of Expression* and *Clear and Present Danger*. Thanks for your response. -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Robert H. Averack @ Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, Ct.) ! ! ! ! ## "...it is better to have loved USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #OO# in lofts than to never have UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### loved at all!" /uucppublic/averack ! ! ##\/## - Julius "Groucho" Marx OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### ("Monkey Business" - 1930) Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/02/86)
In article <1190@bunker.UUCP> rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) writes: >In article <1253@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP writes: >>Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease >>selling erotic materials. This would be the equivalent of MADD going >>around trying to close down liquor stores. I don't recall that MADD >>ever did that, do you? At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't >>work very well at all, now did it? First, Meese did nothing but organize the commission. Second, the commission only sent letters reporting that the stores involved had been named in a commission report on pornography. The fact that they were named by a witness who simply cited every retailer of Playboy or Penthouse magazine was not included in the letter. MADD has not advocated closing of liquor stores. However they have advocated penalties for selling alcohol to minors and intoxicated persons which include revocation or suspension of liquor licences, seisure of inventory, and or imprisonment of the licence owner. The results are not always the results intended. In New York, if a person does not have proof of age when stopped by the police, but has liquor with the name of the retailer marked on the reciept, the retailer is subject to penalties, whether the person in question was of age or not. >Tim, I said in my response to Brian that I am not totally resolved as to >the Meese Commission, although I am in agreement as to their findings of >a relationship between pornography and violence. The Meese commission found that there *may* be correlations between certain types of pornography and certain types of violent crime, yet found that there *was not* a correlation between violent entertainment and any types of violent crime. A little inconsistant if you ask me. Considering the material used as a basis for the conclusion was heavily loaded with violence and only mildly sexual in content, it is almost abuse of their power. >The reason for my lack >of resolution is, as you have pointed out, their technique in handling >this most sensitive issue. > >>did he criticize the glorification of violence? Reagan and his regime >>glory in violence. >>Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting. >> tim sevener whuxn!orb > >I am in complete agreement with you here, Tim. I find the Ronbo Regime >completely repulsive. We're really not that far apart. I'm only >offering that we need to be especially cautious with the fine line >between *Freedom of Expression* and *Clear and Present Danger*. You are correct, here. Unless there is a situation of *Clear and Present Danger*, Freedom of Expression should always be given preference. > ! (Robert H. Averack @ Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, Ct.) !