pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/11/86)
In article <15568@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >In article <1556@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >>The minority report is ignored by those who cite the report in suport >>of porn. > > Come on, come on. Can't you recognize the difference between >"supporting" something and "defending" it? Or is this another of >those arguments like the one that pro-choice spokesmen "support" >abortion? Or that the ACLU "supports" the American Nazi Party? OK, have it your way. (It's a BIG difference, isn't it?) Replace "support of" with "defend" in my statment. The point (made more explicit in the part of my article you *haven't* quoted) is that those who cite the Nixon Commission's report in DEFENSE of porn ignore the evidence presented by the minority of the Commission. What kind of basis is that for a DEFENSE? Are you the one who said the report was so trustworthy? If you didn't know that there were two parts to the report then I suggest that your trust is based on something else than the content of the report itself. > All of these are absurd. I can and will defend someone else's >right to be wrong just as vigorously as I will defend my right to >be right. I guess that's what those of you who seem to want to >repeal the Bill of Rights don't understand. > > -- David desJardins Love that last sentence, Dave. Do all your quarell's over semantics end with accusing those who are of a different opinion than yours of wanting to repeal the Bill of Rights? Makes me wonder how much you have in common with those you criticize. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (09/12/86)
In article <5221@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bizet.dec.com writes: > > I will grant the commission that it was correct. That their is a link > between violence and ponography. It still does not take away personal > responsibility for the act. It is time government got off the back of > the people and let them be responsible for their own actions. If people > want to read smut let them. If they act violently after the fact that > will be dealt with by the justice system. Allowing government the power > to protect people from responsiblity for their own decisions and actions > is wrong. I personally believe that censorship in any form is wrong. > > Brian Mahoney 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 -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (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 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/13/86)
> ---------------------Reply to mail dated 6-SEP-1986 00:32--------------------- > > > > I will grant the commission that it was correct. That their is a link > between violence and ponography. It still does not take away personal > responsibility for the act. It is time government got off the back of > the people and let them be responsible for their own actions. If people > want to read smut let them. If they act violently after the fact that > will be dealt with by the justice system. Allowing government the power > to protect people from responsiblity for their own decisions and actions > is wrong. I personally believe that censorship in any form is wrong. > Brian Mahoney Ok. I will assume then that you wish to see those who molest children prosecuted. There are now loopholes in our current laws and peculiarities of the rules of evidence that prevent this. That Report which you are not going to read contains specific recommendations on what laws should be changed in order to rectify the situation. How do you feel about these? -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/14/86)
In article <1568@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >Love that last sentence, Dave. Do all your quarell's over semantics >end with accusing those who are of a different opinion than yours of >wanting to repeal the Bill of Rights? No, some of them end with me quarreling with their spelling and placement of apostrophe's. > Makes me wonder how much you >have in common with those you criticize. Not much. I'm not trying to tell you what to write, and certainly not trying to put you in jail for writing it. Misspelling provokes me to violence. Maybe it should be illegal? -- David desJardins
mahoney@bizet.dec.com (09/15/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 12-SEP-1986 23:31--------------------- >Ok. I will assume then that you wish to see those who molest children >prosecuted. There are now loopholes in our current laws and peculiarities >of the rules of evidence that prevent this. That Report which you are not >going to read contains specific recommendations on what laws should be changed >in order to rectify the situation. > >How do you feel about these? >-- > from Mole End Mark Terribile I feel that pornography dealing with children or molestation of children in other ways should be stopped. If there are children being abused because of loopholes these holes should be filled in. I do not think anyone on this net would support abuse of children in any form. Also laws that allow rape of women in pornographic settings should also be plugged. My problems start when one group of adults want to stop another group of consenting adults from doing whatever they want. If all the people want to have an orgy let them. If this group of people want to take drugs, let them. If these people want all this put on film and sold I don't see a problem. I personally find most of this stuff disgusting but I will not take away another's right. That is something I find even more disgusting. Brian Mahoney
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (09/20/86)
In article <1523@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> >As far as the qualifications of the present commission: I write: >> How about a representantive from the porn industry? Like an actor/actress or >> producer or something. That would be only fair. >If a Commission were to be assembled to study the effects of coal burning, >would you want a coal mine owner on the panel? Why not? Who better to expose blatant lies by the opposition for the benefit of the rest of the panel that may not know any better. Obviously, such a per- son is not an expert on the *results* of an action, but they certainly know the real-life procedures of the industry. [regarding shutting down the porn industry]> >> You don't just turn off something like that. An attempt to do so would >> probably bear a resemblance to the "war on drugs" we are seeing today in >> its effectiveness. And I suppose FBI agents and others would have to be >> diverted from drug enforcement to police any new laws. > >Well, if the money is being channelled through organized crime, putting it >back in the legimate economy will help because money in the underground >economy escapes taxes. I don't follow this. If an activity or product is made illegal but there is still a demand, then organized crime will be there faster than you-know-what to provide it. I'm sure that organized crime would *love* to have pornography outlawed. It would make them a monopoly in the business where there is legit- imate, legal competition today. It sounds like you think that outlawing porn would reduce the income of the mob. In case you can't tell from my last statement, I disagree. >> Dave >Mark Terribile Dave 'Making something illegal does not make it go away' Richards