mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/12/85)
The following is a definition of pornography taken from a proposed anti-pornography ordinance (see the article titled "Re: At Last: Sojourner on Dworkin-MacKinnon" in net.women for more details): > > "Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination > of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or > (i) women are presented dehumanized as > sexual objects, things, or commodities; or > (ii) women are > presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or > (iii) women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual > pleasure in being raped; or > (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut > up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or > (v) women are presented in postures of sexual submis- > sion, servility, or display; or > (vi) women's body parts-- > including but not limited to vagina, breasts, or buttocks--are > exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or > (vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or > (viii) women are > presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or > (ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, > torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in > a context that makes these conditions sexual. My objection is that the definition is so vague that it is not clear what is and is not covered by it. Does the phrase "sexually explicit" have a precise legal definition? If I get turned on by leather coats in a Sears circular, does that make it "sexually explicit"? I'm not being facetious here - I've seen many things that I thought were perfectly unoffensive and had no sexual content denounced as "pornography". The sections of the definition are sufficiently broad to cover anything that passes the "sexually explicit" part - for instance, section vi could be applied to any picture of a woman. My impression is that this law is designed to give its supporters a cannon they can point at anyone publishing anything they don't like. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "A flash in front of my eyes ... I blink ... open my eyes to ... discover I am a dog in a pickup truck full of garbage ... no one but me sees the lid blow off the can ... it's 14 miles to the dump ... this is ... at last ... heaven."
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (11/13/85)
> > The following is a definition of pornography taken from a proposed > anti-pornography ordinance (see the article titled "Re: At Last: Sojourner > on Dworkin-MacKinnon" in net.women for more details): > > > > "Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination > > of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or > > (i) women are presented dehumanized as > > sexual objects, things, or commodities; or > > (ii) women are > > presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or > > (iii) women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual > > pleasure in being raped; or > > (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut > > up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or > > (v) women are presented in postures of sexual submis- > > sion, servility, or display; or > > (vi) women's body parts-- > > including but not limited to vagina, breasts, or buttocks--are > > exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or > > (vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or > > (viii) women are > > presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or > > (ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, > > torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in > > a context that makes these conditions sexual. Who wrote this, Gloria Steinem? This is the most sexist piece of BS I've ever seen. If the word "women" is replaced by "men" or "children", is it then not pornography? Too bad the ERA didn't pass, then this would be clearly unconstitutional.
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (11/13/85)
> The following is a definition of pornography taken from a proposed > anti-pornography ordinance > > > > "Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination > > of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or > > (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things, > > or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects > > who enjoy pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as > > sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or > > (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut > > up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or > > (v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission, servility, > > or display; or (vi) women's body parts-- including but not limited > > to vagina, breasts, or buttocks--are exhibited such that women > > are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented as whores by > > nature; or (viii) women are presented as being penetrated by objects > > or animals; or (ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, > > injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or > > hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. > > My objection is that the definition is so vague that it is not > clear what is and is not covered by it. Does the phrase "sexually explicit" > have a precise legal definition? If > I get turned on by leather coats in a Sears circular, does that make it > "sexually explicit"? I'm not being facetious here - I've seen many things > that I thought were perfectly unoffensive and had no sexual content denounced > as "pornography". The sections of the definition are sufficiently broad to > cover anything that passes the "sexually explicit" part - for instance, > section vi could be applied to any picture of a woman. > > My impression is that this law is designed to give its supporters a cannon > they can point at anyone publishing anything they don't like. > > Scott McEwan Typically, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, pornography is not a protected area of speech. This a majority opinion. Some Supreme Court Justices have held that all speech, including pornography, is protected. To get to Scott's most important question, speech wholly of a sexually prurient nature, utterly without social significance, is unprotected pornographic speech. I believe that this is the most important aspect of the proposed law. It appears to draw in Supreme Court precedent. However, this not my area of expertise. I believe it to be a good guess. I did purchase a reversible belt that might also "turn Scott on." Mark Reina
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/15/85)
>> The following is a definition of pornography taken from a proposed >> anti-pornography ordinance >> > >> > "Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination >> > of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or >> > (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things, >> > or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects >> > who enjoy pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as >> > sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or >> > (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut >> > up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or >> > (v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission, servility, >> > or display; or (vi) women's body parts-- including but not limited >> > to vagina, breasts, or buttocks--are exhibited such that women >> > are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented as whores by >> > nature; or (viii) women are presented as being penetrated by objects >> > or animals; or (ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, >> > injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or >> > hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. >> >> My objection is that the definition is so vague that it is not >> clear what is and is not covered by it. Does the phrase "sexually explicit" >> have a precise legal definition? If >> I get turned on by leather coats in a Sears circular, does that make it >> "sexually explicit"? I'm not being facetious here - I've seen many things >> that I thought were perfectly unoffensive and had no sexual content denounced >> as "pornography". The sections of the definition are sufficiently broad to >> cover anything that passes the "sexually explicit" part - for instance, >> section vi could be applied to any picture of a woman. >> >> My impression is that this law is designed to give its supporters a cannon >> they can point at anyone publishing anything they don't like. >> > > Typically, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, pornography is > not a protected area of speech. This a majority opinion. Some Supreme > Court Justices have held that all speech, including pornography, is protected. > To get to Scott's most important question, speech wholly of a sexually > prurient nature, utterly without social significance, is unprotected > pornographic speech. I believe that this is the most important aspect of > the proposed law. It appears to draw in Supreme Court precedent. > However, this not my area of expertise. I believe it to be a good guess. Well, that's an interesting and informative answer, but that's not what I asked. I want to know if the phrase "sexually explicit" has a well defined legal meaning. Is my impression that *this definition* of pornography is so vague that any work containing a woman could be called pornography correct? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "A flash in front of my eyes ... I blink ... open my eyes to ... discover I am a dog in a pickup truck full of garbage ... no one but me sees the lid blow off the can ... it's 14 miles to the dump ... this is ... at last ... heaven."
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/18/85)
> > The following is a definition of pornography taken from a proposed > > anti-pornography ordinance As well as the previously mentioned objections, it should be possible to create works which are clearly pornographic that do not fall under the purview of the definition. I will leave the details as an a excersize for the reader. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) (11/19/85)
In article <336@mb2c.UUCP> mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) writes: >Typically, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, pornography is >not a protected area of speech. This a majority opinion. Gee, I guess it's naive of me to think that when the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." that it means NO LAW, that's it, period. -- "Don't let anyone steal your dream." Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900 (kerch@lll-tis.ARPA)