ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl) (12/20/84)
Followup-To: net.women
#[What follows is--I believe--the complete text of the Minneapolis ordinance
#against "pornography." (The reasons for the quotes around the word pornography
#will become clear in my comments on the ordinance.) My comments are bracketed
#and preceded by "#" for those who wish to edit them out and have just the
#ordinance on line.. I will be up front about all this and say that I'm
#against this ordinance, so don't expect an unbiased set of comments. This
#ordinance was re-printed in the December 1984 issue of FILM COMMENT as part
#of an entire section of interviews on the subject of women, pornography,
#censorship and film. I have many comments on the rest of the section which
#will be in a separate article.]
#
#[Please post all followups to net.women. I can't figure out how to get that
#to work.]
An Ordinance of the City of Minneapolis
The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows:
Special findings on pornography: The Council finds that pornography is central
in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. Pornography is
a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which
differentially harms women. The bigotry and contempt it promotes, with the
acts of aggression it fosters, harms women's opportunities for equality of
rights in employment, education, property rights, public accommodations and
public services; create public harassment and private denigration; promote
injury and degradation such as rape, battery and prostitution and inhibit just
enforcement of laws against these acts; contribute significantly to restricting
women from full exercise of citizenship and participation in public life,
including in neighborhoods; damage relations between the sexes; and undermine
women's equal exercise of rights to speech and action guaranteed to all
citizens under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the state of
Minnesota.
#
# [And just how did the Council find all this out? Are they too running
# studies? No tests, Donnerstain's included, have ever shown this--a
# fact that Donnerstein is the first to admit. My next posting will talk
# about this.]
#
# ["Women's opportunities" were harmed (or rather, non-existent) in
# medieval Europe, a period not known for its rampant pornography.]
#
# [What is so degrading about prostitution per se? It's the conditions
# brought about by its illegality that are the problem.]
#
# [I find it outrageous that this ordinance, a blatant attempt at
# censorship, should attempt to use the argument that it is promoting
# "women's equal exercise of rights to speech"--talk about hypocrisy!]
(The ordinance further delineates what falls within its definition, as
follows:)
(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically
depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also includes one or more of
the following:
#
# [Note: this means that there is no such thing as gay male
# pornography (but see below). Whatever they're defining here, it
# isn't pornography, at least as that word has been used up until now.
# Webster's defines pornography as "the depiction of erotic behavior
# (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement."
# And who defines "sexually explicit"?]
- women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or
#
# [So SOYLENT GREEN is pornography?]
- women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or
- women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being
raped; or
- women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or
bruised or physically hurt; or
- women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or
#
# [What the hell is a "posture of sexual submission"? Is the City of
# Minneapolis trying to legislate that women always have to be on top
# or what?]
- women's body parts--including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, and
buttocks--are exhibited, such that women are reduced to those parts; or
#
# [This may even include brassiere ads for all I can tell.]
- women are presented as whores by natures; or
#
# [Welcome to the idea of "loaded words"--"prostitutes" would not
# get people as riled up. My next article will have some comments from
# Margo St. James, founder of the prostitutes advocacy group, COYOTE.]
- women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or
#
# [I won't even argue that human beings are "animals" (well, we're not
# vegetables or minerals, are we?). I will point out that a scene in
# which two lesbians are using dildos--for example--or in which a woman
# is shown masturbating with an object is also banned.]
- women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, abasement, torture,
shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes
these conditions sexual.
#
# [Who the hell decides all these things anyway? And "women ... shown as
# inferior" is way too broad for an ordinance. It not just violence
# that's being protested, but *any* negative image.]
(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women is
pornography...
#
# [Terrific! They have now defined gay male pornography (in the usual
# sense of the word "pornography) as pornography as "explicitly sexual
# subordination of women." Welcome to Doublespeak! This makes no
# ****ing sense at all!]
(The ordinance defines its violation as follows:)
Discrimination by trafficking in pornography. The production, sale,
exhibition or distribution of pornography is discrimination against women by
means of trafficking in pornography:
- City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private or public
university and college libraries in which pornography is available for study,
including on open shelves, shall not be construed to be trafficking in
pornography but special display presentations of pornography in said places is
sex discrimination.
#
# [So it's okay to read if you get it in a library, but you can't buy
# it in a bookstore? What a load of crap!]
- The formation of private clubs or associations for purposes of trafficking in
pornography is illegal and will be considered a conspiracy to violate the civil
rights of women.
#
# [And this ordinance isn't a conspiracy to violate *my* civil rights of
# free speech?]
- Any woman has a cause of action hereunder as a woman acting against the
subordination of women. Any man or transsexual who alleges injury by
pornography in the way women are injured by it will also have a course of
action.
#
# [But if the claim is that women are injured by being kept "subordinate"
# to men, how can men ever claim injury "in the way women are injured"?
# They're trying to make the law seem like it doesn't discriminate on the
# basis of sex. It does.]
Coercion into pornographic performances. Any person, including transsexual,
who is coerced, intimidated, or fraudulently induced (hereafter, "coerced")
into performing for pornography shall have a cause of action against the
maker(s), seller(s), exhibitor(s) or distributor(s) of said pornography for
damages and for the elimination of the performance(s) from the public view.
(Actionable for five years after last sale or performance.)
#
# [So if Vanessa Williams wins her suit, the local 7-11 manager in
# Minneapolis can be sued for exhibiting/distributing PENTHOUSE.
# What's he supposed to do, have a hot-line to Guiccone?]
(The following conditions do not negate a finding of coercion:)
- that the person was a woman; or
- that the person is or has been a prostitute; or
- that the person has attained the age of majority; or
- that the person is connected by blood or marriage to anyone involved in or
related to the making of pornography; or
- that the person has previously had, or been thought to have had,, sexual
relations with anyone, including anyone involved in or related to the making of
the pornography; or
- that the person has previously posed for sexually explicit pictures for or
with anyone, including anyone involved in or related to the making of the
pornography at issue; or
- that anyone else, including a spouse or other relative, has given permission
on the person's behalf; or
- that the person actually consented to a use of the performance that is
changed into pornography; or
#
# ["Changed into pornography"? What does that mean? It sounds like
# someone could consent to being filmed doing whatever, then later
# decide to sue. After all the fact that they freely agreed early
# doesn't mean it wasn't coercion according to this law. Bullshit!]
- that the person knew that the purpose of the acts or events in question was
to make pornography; or
#
# [See comments above. This emphasizes the ridiculousness of the law
# even more.]
- that the person showed no resistance or appeared to cooperate actively in the
photographic sessions or in the sexual events that produced the pornography, or
#
# ["Events that produced the pornography"? So if a married couple makes
# love, and then the husband goes out and writes a pornographic novel
# inspired by this session, the wife can sue?]
- that the person signed the contract, or made statements affirming a
willingness to cooperate in the production of pornography; or
#
# [In other words, the last four sections mean that no matter what a
# woman says or signs, she can at any future point claim coercion, and
# none of her previous statements can be used as evidence against it.
# This sounds not only like the defendant is guilty until proven
# innocent, but also that s/he can't even use a legally signed contract
# to defend themselves. This is not freedom; this is a kangaroo court!]
- that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the making of the
pornography; or
- that the person was paid or otherwise compensated.
Forcing pornography on a person. Any woman, man, child, or transsexual who has
pornography forced on him/her in any place of employment, in education, in a
home, or in any public place has a cause of action against the perpetrator
and/or institution.
#
# [What is "forcing pornography" on someone? Does a person who goes to a
# public library and sees pornography on the shelves there--which is
# supposedly allowed--have a cause of action against the library?]
Assault or physical attack due to pornography. Any woman, man, child, or
transsexual who is assaulted, physically attacked or injured in a way that is
directly caused by specific pornography has a claim for damages against the
perpetrator, the maker(s), the distributor(s), the seller(s), and/or the
exhibitor(s), and for an injunction against the specific pornography's further
exhibition, distribution, or sale...(Not applicable to material antedating the
ordinance.)
#
# [And just how is the connection going to be proved? I suspect there
# are so few cases in which in could be *proved* that juries may decide
# to *assume* that it's the case. So much for "innocent until proven
# guilty."]
Defenses...It shall not be a defense that the defendant did not know or intend
that the materials were pornography or sex discrimination.
#
# [So the manager of the local B. Dalton is now expected to have read
# every book he sells, in case one of them has some "pornographic" (by
# this ordinance) scene in it somewhere. Talk about broad censorship!]
#
#[My summary: If this ordinance is actually upheld, we're in big trouble. Free
#speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and who knows what else have all
#been trampled in the activists' attempt to right what *they* think is wrong.
#I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you, than have some self-appointed Moral
#Majority tell *me* what to think. This ordinance is just the first step to a
#police state and I won't stand for it!]
#
# Evelyn C. Leeper
# ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
#pgf@hou5g.UUCP (Paul Fox) (12/21/84)
a Has this ordinance been passed, or is it just proposed? If it's proposed, I doubt its chances of passing. If it has passed, then I doubt its chances of lasting, in the face of the money and power behind pornography. The language is, as you say, awfully strong for an ordinance, but I must say I approve of the sentiment of the content. Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel NJ. [ihnp4|vax135]!hou5g!pgf
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/22/84)
For people reading this in net.politics, check out <249@ahuta.UUCP> in one of
net.{books,movies,legal,women}. The subject is an ordinance that defines the
sale, distribution, display, etc. of "pornography" to be a violation of women's
civil rights.
> [My summary: If this ordinance is actually upheld, we're in big trouble. Free
> speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and who knows what else have all
> been trampled in the activists' attempt to right what *they* think is wrong.
> I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you, than have some self-appointed Moral
> Majority tell *me* what to think. This ordinance is just the first step to a
> police state and I won't stand for it!]
>
> Evelyn C. Leeper
> ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
The ordinance is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Don't count on
the Supreme Court performing its duty. The military draft was a blatant
violation of the thirteenth amendment. Luckily the justices are apt to pay
more attention to one of the original ten than to any latter amendment.
--Cliff [Matthews]
{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143greenber@acf4.UUCP (12/22/84)
<> <> Way to go, Evelyn!!!!!!! Couldn't of said it better myself (so I won't!) Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
geb@cadre.UUCP (12/25/84)
I agree with Evelyn. While I do think that pornography is a sore on the flesh of society, it isn't one that can be healed by stomping it with the jackboot. The essence of a totalitarian society is one with enough draconian laws that everyone is guilty of some violation. You then stay out of jail only by the good graces of the government. Add ordinances such as these to the tax laws, drug laws, and a few more "conspiracy" laws and we're getting there. The first amendment is more important than making sure that no one is offended or exploited. Laws dealing with pornography should confine themselves to "public" displays (by which I mean really public, not behind some closed door or in some club), sales to children, and cases in which the photographed party is forced. The printed word could never qualify as actionable unless it contained names of real people, in which case the current civil law would surely suffice. When this ordinance starts talking about the social undersirabilty of pornography because of the ATTITUDES it causes in the readers, it is treading on very thin ice, and is a very dangerous law, since the next step could be politically undersirable attitudes. If someone wanted to publish a book advocating the subjugation of women, removal of their voting rights, etc., would that be illegal?
hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (12/28/84)
<*munch*> This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being degraded by making them? Since when must a woman be protected from what she chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my choice? This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! Better yet, it never should have been written!!! Helen Anne Vigneau Dual Systems Corporation
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/29/84)
Let's please follow the request of the originator of this discussion and post all followups to net.women. (That's where I just posted mine.) Thanks.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (12/29/84)
Please do not shift the discussion of book-banning ordinances to net.women, where it certainly does not belong. At least double-post to net.books, the appropriate forum for discussing such attempts to censor books and magazines. Thank you. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (12/31/84)
In article <894@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes: ><*munch*> > >This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the >hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that >if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty >little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being >degraded by making them? Well, somehow, people got the idea that the Christian right has proposed this law. Now far be it from me to defend this group, but in the spirit of accuracy and fairness, I must say that they jumped on the bandwagon after they saw that the proposal was in accordance with the result they wanted. Who did give this stupid, unconstitional proposal to the Mineapolis/St. Paul city council? A group of feminists. Yes, those who wish now to make people equal by denying rights (sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but that's the way I read the law) to others. > Since when must a woman be protected from what she >chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. But didn't you know? Your life influences the public and therefore, your life must be legislated by the state. Especially when there is a slight pos- sibility of a chance causal effect that might hurt someone in the unforseeable future. >If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or >anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, >incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about >prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the >name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my >choice? The state and a group of rabid men haters who are willing to push hard enough for it, that's who... > This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! >Better yet, it never should have been written!!! > Amen. Luckily, the ordinance was proposed and voted on last January (I guess news travels slowly to most of the idiots on this net). It narrowly passed and was vetoed by the mayor. Frank Adrian
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (12/31/84)
Helen Anne Vigneau writes: >This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the >hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that >if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty >little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being >degraded by making them? Well, I would claim that men and women used in such movies and such ARE being degraded. I don't support the ordinance, but I claim that pornography, because of how it views humans in general, degrades the person who appears in it and human beings in general. And that is *irrespective* of the willingness of the participants to degrade themselves. I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence far more than was ever intended. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/31/84)
In article <utcsrgv.618> west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: > Well, I would claim that men and women used in [blue] movies and such ARE being >degraded. I don't support the ordinance, but I claim that pornography, because >of how it views humans in general, degrades the person who appears in it and >human beings in general. And that is *irrespective* of the willingness of the >participants to degrade themselves. > I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less >of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that >some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm >that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite >sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability >to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the >fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence >far more than was ever intended. > > Tom West That's a load of bull (sexist comment!). Why should people depicted making love be degrading themselves when people depicted fistfighting are not? What is worse about sexual relations than knife fighting? Surely the depiction of love and eroticism is way better than the degrading sight of someone pitching a commercial for overpriced furniture? I have never understood where this notion come from, that pornography is degrading or damaging to women. It takes two to tango, doesn't it? From the comments I have read, if the woman is shown taking the initiative, she is "showing that women are easy." If the man takes the initiative, he is "showing women are there to be subjugated (or raped)." If violence and sex are becoming intertwined in *N. American* pornography, could it possibly be because of the repression (suppression?) that delivers it into the hands of the underworld? Could it be because N. American culture (as seen in popular films and highly rated TV) is becoming obscenely violent, and that violence spills over into pornography as well? Ontario is probably the most puritan jurisdiction outside the Moslem world. It isn't necessarily the best in which to be a woman. Compare the rights, both legal and socially taken-for-granted, of women in Ontario with those of Danish or Dutch women (where pornography is either legal or tolerated). I doubt you would find Ontario to show up very well. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
dbb@opus.UUCP (David B. Bordeau) (12/31/84)
> <*munch*> > > This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the > hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that > if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty > little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being > degraded by making them? Since when must a woman be protected from what she > chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. > If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or > anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, > incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about > prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the > name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my > choice? This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! > Better yet, it never should have been written!!! > > Helen Anne Vigneau > Dual Systems Corporation <crunch*n*munch> Attention Ladies,Equals,Female-Men,What Ever You Want To Be Called: This article, written by a woman, says it the best!!! Most woman in pornography chose that "profession" they weren't forced onto it! True, some woman have been forced to do things they didn't want to do but the majority wanted to do there "own thing". This of course brings to mind Linda Lovelace who says she was forced at GUNPOINT to make the movie "Deep Throat". Anyone who has seen the movie might dispute that point. (of course she lost her case in court) As a male I must say I have never seen such outragous hatred toward my gender because of a few ,"keepem' barefoot and pregnant" net users. Believe me when I say some of us do consider women equals but with the way some of you are treating us (PREHISTORIC BEASTS) I'm sure you can change our minds. Please try not to refer to SOME men as EVERY or ALL!!! Just because a man or men don't like you as a person doesn't mean they dislike ALL or EVERY woman on the face of the earth. You may just be intolerable. (for instance, the way Sunny K. refers to the opposite BEASTLY sex I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she didn't have one male friend.) Please give us, me, some of us a break. Thanks for the "people do what they want" article Helen. I appreciated it. Tired of the BEASTLY generalization, David Bordeau P.S. Sorry to single you out Sunny but you have the worst attitude toward men I have ever seen in my entire life.
dws@mit-eddie.UUCP (Don Saklad) (01/01/85)
_
Oryx Press' Defusing Censorship, The Librarian's Guide to Handling Censorsip
________________________________________________________________
Conflicts
_________
by Jones, Frances M., may be the best and most recent review
of U. S. library activity in this area. Look for it on a library shelf at
Z675.S3J727 1983 or the 025.2 Dewey decimals.dws@mit-eddie.UUCP (Don Saklad) (01/01/85)
_ SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP USER SUPPORT LIBRARY USERS GROUP INFORMATION ABOUT LIBRARY SYSTEMS AND SERVICES BOSTON LIBRARY USERS, TEL. 661-9650 SHARE HINTS AND TIPS ABOUT OUR BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AND AREA LIBRARY NETWORKS
cuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick Cuccia) (01/04/85)
> > <*munch*> > > > > This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the > > hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Helen Anne Vigneau _60 Minutes_ had a story on the Minneapolis anti-porn law last year. No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison (WI). Besides, I didn't think that Fallwellites thought that women had rights ! 8-) --Nick Cuccia --cuccia%ucbmiro@Berkeley --ucbvax!cuccia
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/04/85)
-- >> _60 Minutes_ had a story on the Minneapolis anti-porn law last year. >> No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was >> written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors >> were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison >> (WI). >> Nick Cuccia The mainstream of feminism in Madison (you know, the folks who successfully engineered the recall of a judge who stated on the record that a five-year-old kid had "invited rape") has thoroughly, in fact publicly, disassociated itself from this effort. In fact, it's only being pushed by one very vocal member of the Dane County Board who has yet to put anything specific on paper. Let's not get too heavy into feminist-bashing. All the feminists I know have been very vocal in opposing these ordinances. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 Jan 85 [14 Nivose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (01/04/85)
REFERENCES: <257@hocsp.UUCP> The person didn't say that feminists were "rabid man haters"; s/he said that "a group of rabid man haters" were pushing for passage of the ordinance *as written*. The fact that the original ordinance (as written by the "feminists") was different doesn't change the attitude of those who wrote the "current" ordinance. And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. And so, conversely, any ordinace that would stand such a test obviously has little relationship to the one that I posted here. And, by the way, virtually all references in "feminists" in this discussion have been qualified: > They weren't Falwellites, they were feminists. Misguided feminists, perhaps, > but certainly not Falwellites. > two-edged sword. Who is to say what is prohibited and what is not? Will > control of its enforcement stay in the hands of well-meaning feminists who > will use it only for the protection of society? Hell, no. The ordinance > itself contains such a broad definition of pornography that it could be used > to ban even the works of many feminists themselves, and it sets a precedent > i.e., who's behind it? To me, it reads like it was written by Fundamentalist > conservative types trying a new tack to get one by the courts, but I'm > aware there are liberal feminists who would support it, as well. I hope > They weren't only feminists. True the original ordinance was > conceived by Catharine McKinnin, a noted feminist. But the final ordinance, > the one that passed, was drawn up by the town council and a large bunch > of New Right Christian types. What Ms. McKinnin wished to achieve and > what the Falwellites wished to achieve were two very different things, > even though it looks the same on the surface. Radical feminists want to > control pornography by making it a civil rights issue. If some women can > ... > the kind of legal action that one faction of radical feminists want > to see. > Radical feminists contend that until pornography is seen for what it is, > a method to objectify and subjugate women, > Feminists are working on ridding us of the insidious form of sexism that > you speak of, believe me. They don't wish to ban it outright. Feminists > have more respect for our rights than all that. But they do exert pressure, > legally and economically, to remove this brand of sexism from our society. > If anyone is interested, I'm sure I could dig up Catharine McKinnin's > version of the story. I find it quite disconcerting when feminists > are branded as people intent on denying us our rights. Feminism isn't > some warped philosophy advocating state control of our minds and deeds. > It only asks that women have the opportunity to control their own lives, > without men continually telling them that they know what is right for them. > I am sure that religious moralists did not sponsor this bill. However, > I am not sure that it was sponsored by feminists, either. > give this stupid, unconstitional proposal to the Mineapolis/St. Paul city > council? A group of feminists. Yes, those who wish now to make people equal by > denying rights (sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but that's the way I read the > law) to others. > No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was > written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors > were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison > (WI). > The mainstream of feminism in Madison (you know, the folks who > successfully engineered the recall of a judge who stated on the > record that a five-year-old kid had "invited rape") has thoroughly, > in fact publicly, disassociated itself from this effort. In fact, > it's only being pushed by one very vocal member of the Dane County > Board who has yet to put anything specific on paper. > Let's not get too heavy into feminist-bashing. All the feminists I > know have been very vocal in opposing these ordinances. (Isn't grep wonderful?) On the whole, it looks like it isn't "feminists" who are being attacked, but "radical feminists." In fact, most of the comments about "feminists" (no qualifiers) have been positive. Evelyn C. Leeper ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/05/85)
> The harm >that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite >sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability >to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the >fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence >far more than was ever intended. > Um, well maybe it warps *your* views, but why should the activities of healthy, normal people be circumscribed because of the attitudes of a few sickos like you? :-) Well, if it doesn't warp your views, what makes you think it warps anyone else's? I would claim that people seek out that which already conforms with what they believe - that pornography (what *is* it, anyway?) changes no minds. Of course, you can get out of that by making a distinction between pornography and erotica, one being degrading and the other not, but as a practical matter it's hard (for the legal system) to draw a line between the two. I heartily applaud your final sentence, however. This net is bio-degrading... Jeff Winslow
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/06/85)
[] <--censored bug
While the net seems to be unanimous in its condemnation of the proposed
law, is this because of opposition of censorship of any kind, or just because
the law is sexist and rather unfair (things can become crimes retro-actively)?
It is my opinion that the pornography is definitely unhealthy for society.
While the actual cases of there being a direct and sole causal relationship
between pornography and violence against women is suspect, I find it rather
hard to believe that pornography does not promote a rather degrading attitude
towards women (and men). Sure, a single viewing of Friday 13th isn't
going to turn men into raving murderers, but the set of attitudes associated
with these movies will probably begin to have an effect on people. Lifestyle
ads are also 'fantasy' but they seem to shape people rather well, albeit
directly. I doubt that several million (tens of millions?) dollars would be
spent if they didn't.
It seems likely that ANYTHING we see is likely to influence us to some
degree, especially over prolonged periods of time. The shaping of attitudes
towards women (and men) by pornography is something that seems to have no
positive side to counteract the obvious negative of re-inforcing the image
of women as sex-objects. Hence, I really can see little justification for
allowing such to continue to harm society.
Of course, I suppose that graphic sex between loving and caring couples
doesn't ensconce such attitudes, but gee, isn't it funny that this sort of
thing is next to non-existent in the 'industry'. Actually, not really. I
think we all recognize the set of attitudes that pornography promotes.
Of course, censorship is a rather tricky business, and one must be careful
to make sure that it doesn't go anywhere beyond the boundaries originally
proposed for it, but then again, the same applies to anything governmental.
As usual, I imagine it's the middle path between pure freedom (chaos) and pure
control (totalitarianism) where the desired path lies.
I'd take the Ontario Censor Board over Times Square any day. Then again,
us Canadians are that much closer to the Soviets. We're obviously being
influenced by them. :-)
Tom L. West Ontario Flame Board
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!westrick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (01/06/85)
In article <318@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First >Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. I sincerely hope you are right. However, before we go placing too much trust in the 1st Amendment, remember that the ultimate interpretation would be that of the Supreme Court: the organization which once decided that Dred Scott was property. -- "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less" -- Humpty Dumpty, the noted linguist Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/07/85)
> I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less > of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that > some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm > that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite > sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability > to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the > fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence > far more than was ever intended. > > Tom West > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west I have several Canadian friends and resent your implication that they are not intelligent enough to be exposed to pornography and still retain a non- warped view of the opposite sex. But then mabey that's because I've run XXX tapes accross the border to them. P.S. The OPP doesn't get this net, does it? (cringe) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
carson@homxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (01/08/85)
When I first heard about the proposed ordinance, I thought it was wonderfully imaginative, a very clever side-step to get to the unprotected side of a real problem....I didn't necessarily think it ought to be passed (I don't like cencorship, and I don't much like pornography (the dirty movie channel don't count :-))... P.
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/08/85)
I am far from a supporter of pornagraphy but I think that a short step back needs to be taken. 1) Any rule or law which seems to be limmiting the fredom of a person to do as they please in society today is subject to chanllenge as being either discriminatory to a small group or groups or as being unconstitutional per se. 2) Pornography is not merely the actions of consenting adults. We have laws and rules in this country at least to help each individual be an individual free to do as the will provided that excersize does not impair (sp) or impune the same freedom for another. No matter how a law designed to deal with pornography is presented there will always be some minority block (even the pornographers) who will feel that the law isunconstitutional because their rights are being infringed upon. Long live ANARCHY!!
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (01/08/85)
>In article <318@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First >Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. The late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used to interpret the first amendment literally and consistently, that Congress may make NO LAW that abridges freedom from censorship. He has been virtually alone in this position, with almost all other justices believing that there are commonsense exceptions. One must always be concerned that the next person's idea about how to censor will be accepted as a good exception. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I personally would be receptive to censorship of materials that are truly likely to make young children become more violent people. But in general, censorship of anything, even Nazi hate literature, makes me uncomfortable. There are almost always better ways, both legal and sometimes illegal, to deal with things you disagree with, than to resort to censorship. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison
abv@stat-l (David Stevens) (01/10/85)
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but from what I
have seen, I gather that many of you may not realize how far this has
gone. In Indianapolis, an ordinance patterned after the one in Minn. was
passed by the City Council, and Mayor Hudnut promptly signed it into law.
All of this took place shortly after the 60 Minutes broadcast (I believe
about 2-3 months ago), and so the discussion is no longer academic. The
last I heard, the law had not been invoked by police, but nevertheless
was being challenged in court by a Naptown bookstore owner. Does anyone
know more about the challenge, like if it has gone to court yet?
Indiana -- bastion of ignor-- uh, *conservative*, politics.
--
----------
David L Stevens
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:abv
The opinions expressed above are my own, and not necessarily anyone else's.
---------------------
| |
| save the while! |
| |
---------------------