nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/05/86)
Mark Terribile on a rampage. I'll cut out most of his 670 line article in favor of hitting the most awful parts, and my apologies for the long posting to everyone else. If you're already convinced one way or the other on this issue, I doubt you'll find much here to unconvince you. >/* Written 6:01 am Sep 24, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's" ---------- */ >Not answering the question, which was ``what can we do about an apparent >*problem* which is supported at least by the testimony of individuals >involved.'' The answer: find out if it is a *REAL* problem: measure it. Ignore *APPARENT* problems of this sort because the "solutions" proposed by those arguing there is a real problem all involve Draconian restrictions on freedom. >You have said how you plan to show that there are benefits to a >thing identified as a cause of the problem. A valid view, but not an answer. > >You speak of your experience; I am glad that you would back it up with testing. >But then, you [Adam Reed, I think -- nrh] are not unbiased. Incorrect. One may derive pleasure from something while having a completely objective understanding of it. Further, the very mild accusation of bias is also irrelevant: nobody exposed to porn and other than completely indifferent to it can be claimed to be unbiased. Given other assertions Mark has made about the deep-seated nature of human sexual response, it's hard to believe he could find anyone unbiased. >... >As far as measuring positive effects: much of the harm attributed by the >Commission and by witnesses before the Commission was harm to people >other than those who exposed themselves to the explicit and/or degrading >materials. Can we reasonably determine that this harm does not occur >even when it is not obvious? If you want to pass laws, you bloody well had BETTER establish that the harm DOES occur, and that the danger is clear and present. >Can we determine that there are not losses in >positive interpersonal relationships, especially those that are enhanced >by sexuality, caused by the focusing of sexual energies through explicit >materials rather than relationships? Again -- EVIDENCE of HARM, not "lack of evidence of harmlessness" is what is required. > >It's a nebulous question, but I think that before we attempt to admit evidence >based upon the subjective awareness of the users of the material, we had better >be able to admit evidence based on the effects upon those who are in contact >with the affected persons, especially since we know that some people do neglect >even spousal relationships for this material. (Me, want *evidence*? Nah ...) Some people neglect spousal relationships for sports -- let's make sport viewing illegal also, OK? Sorry -- no can do: free people don't have to establish the harmlessness of their habits before being free of regulation, ok? >[suggestion that we find out more about porn's effects] Bully for you! >My opinion, which is only a guess, is that there may be mixed benefits and >losses, but that when the use of erotic *material* instead of social expression >of sexuality (which may or may not include the sex act) becomes predominant, >the harms will also predominate. Guess away -- but make no attempt to infringe freedoms on the basis of what you are so correct in calling a guess! >This *does* lead inevitably back to a question that the proponents of >widespread use of erotica seem never to address: does the use of this >material damage the institution we call the family? I've an answer to it: Nobody knows. On the other hand, we've no way of finding out if "Pillow Books" in the Orient (instructional erotica traditionally given to newlyweds) BENEFIT the family. So go figure, ANSWER these questions, rather than asking them, or you've established nothing. >[assertion that the family is in trouble already] >Before we embark on any social agenda, especially on any that would require >changing the interpretation, content, or purpose of our Constitution, or the >social mores that the interpretation affirms, we had better know what effects >we are about to have. Yes -- but you don't know, and you ARE proposing to change the interpretation of our constitution. >... >Well, there is the testimony of certain individuals that other individuals, >sometimes loved ones, used materials that often fell into the ``degrading'' >area as means of abuse, and that the other individuals, after exposing >themselves to the material, became abusive in various ways, which included >demanding sexual acts which were often either painful or humiliating to the >victims. Fallacy: Correlation implies causation. >... >Given the paucity of funding and (if I understand Adam) good >research, we shouldn't be neglecting the ability of ``ordinary persons'' to >do harm under certain kinds of subtle or overt pressure, or to *learn* harm >in the presence of similar pressure. Nobody neglects the "ability". But that's irrelevant. We SHOULD neglect the "harm" until it's shown to exist: that's what the notion of "clear and present danger" is all about. >We only answered half of that: >>Given the exclusion of those topics, is there any meat to any of the >>Meese Commission's findings, or anyone elses? > >Only the fact that throughout all of the human history of which we are aware, >and in every culture which we have had the opportunity to study, there exist >norms of sexual conduct and sexual privacy. We are proposing to tear down >virtually all such norms in the absence of any non-speculative evidence of >what the impact will be. > >That is all. Amazing! No. The Meese commission doesn't have this power. The Feds don't have that kind of power. Hell, the SOVIETS don't have this sort of power. And, check it out: the "teardown" happened years ago. We aren't "proposing" anything except to leave things alone. >[humanity has bad record if left free: pollution, war, greed] >And once again, Edwin Meese, in whatever esteem you do or do not hold him, did >*not* serve on the Commission. If you wish to indict the Commission, indict >them. If you wish to indict Edwin Meese, indict him. But please serve the >right indictments to the right people. Right -- how many people did Stalin kill? Oh? Only a few, maybe even none? Now -- how many were killed by people acting under his authority? >>>. . . We don't need a statistical analysis to determine that a woman was >>>raped before a camera . . . Anecdotal evidence, . . . verifies *that*. And >>>. . . if it can . . . live up to the . . . rules of evidence . . . [anecdotal >>> evidence] can . . . imprison a perpetrator for the rest of his life. . . . >> >> Certainly such evidence has a place. . . . When it comes to a question >>of *patterns* and *causes* however such evidence is of little value. Indeed >>it is often highly misleading. What if a film of an actual rape was made and >>distributed? That has *nothing* to say about the intrinsic value(or lack of >>it) in erotic entertainment! Erotic films can be(and are) produced without >>such things happening, . . . you must provide evidence that such things are >>in fact intrinsic to erotic film production. And I mean scientifically valid >>evidence not more anecdotes, which just introduce more individual events of >>no proven significance. > >We are one step and one half away from agreement. Would you agree that if >such things are endemic to the industry that produces the material, it would >be a matter for concern, and not only if they are intrinsic? A matter for concern? Of course: the ones you really dislike are ALREADY illegal. To the extent you argue that they exist now, you argue that the law is ineffective, and one should draw the inference that the law will REMAIN ineffective. >... >To push a point, if an actor in a movie refuses to say a line because he >(or she ...) believes that is anti-Semitic (and not part of the character ...) >the director has a reasonable right to demand that the line be read as written. >If a ``model'' in a pure sex film feels that an act that the script or the >director calls for goes beyond what even a model in such a film should be >doing, the director's demand will inflict a far greater pain and harm upon >the performer. Of course, one may argue that such is the risk of the business, >but what can one say of a business in which such risks seem inevitable? And what *IS* the risk? That someone will lose that particular job. It's clear that in the case of something that "goes beyond what even a model in such a film should be doing" that this won't happen often (otherwise it not be "beyond...", and then one says "no". My understanding is that this is how the "model" in "The Devil in Miss Jones" came to be the star of that film: the original actress refused to do some of the work, and the lady running the commissary agreed to try it. >... >I will repreat: if your business is in counselling or providing shelter to >people who have been harmed, physically or psychologically, by their exposure >to sexually explicit materials or by people who used such materials as the >means of harm, what more evidence do *you* need *that people can be harmed*? More than their unsupported assertion, their heartfelt conviction, or the testimony of those they agree with. Like some EVIDENCE! >... >Remember Bertolt Brecht's Marxist statement about prostitutes? To >argue that the pattern is unnecessary ignores the fact that it is the way the >thing has been done for a long time. That makes it seem unlikely to change, >no matter *how* the laws are diddled. That so -- let's NOT diddle the laws. Wasted energy, gives the business (quite profitable) to criminals BY LAW, and further overworks the enforcement apparatus. To say nothing of the evil of making futile laws. >>[What about A-Team & Rambo?] > >But at least the violence is not portrayed as a an acceptable means or >consequence of sexual arousal, which can be an awfully Good Thing and which >should *never* be used as an excuse for violence. Wrong. "The hero gets the girl". >... >From Chapter 5, *The Question of Harm*, Section 5.1.4, *The Problem of >Multiple Causation* (page 510 of the Government Printing Office edition): > > > . . . We live in a world of multiple causation, and to identify a > factor as a *cause* in such a world means only that if this factor > were eliminated while everything else stayed the same then the > problem would at least be lessened. In most cases it is impossible > to say any more than that, although to say this is to say quite a > great deal. And here we have, in a nutshell, why we shouldn't allow the Meese Commission, or indeed, ANY government agency to "do anything" about porn. Their blind spot shows here, and it is large. "...if this factor were eliminated while everything else stayed the same" is typical of the thinking of both Mark and the Commission. The problem is that there's no magic knob one can twist that eliminates porn while everything else stays the same. The knob we can twist is to what extent porn is illegal, which has multiple non-trivial side-effects. For example, it makes the people making porn into criminals. Outside the law, they've no reason to pay taxes, submit to ANY sort of political force, or treat their actors legally. (If all porn makers become, by definition, criminals, you'll have a hard time finding those not associated with organized crime). Making porn illegal also makes it "forbidden" -- greatly enhancing the lure it has for some people. There's no magic knob to twist, so "to say this is" is NOT "to say quite a great deal", at least for the question of legalizing porn. >... >> No, there is another question: Which came first, the low esteem in >>which the men and women are held or the viewing of such things as >>entertainment. It is quite possible, even likely, that it is the low esteem >>that has permitted the perception of violence as entertainment, rather than >>the other way around. If so, the problem is how to re-educate the public so >>that people are viewed in a higher light. Then the desire to watch degrading >>entertainment will go away all by itself, with no need for censorship. > >The assertion that this and pronography are irrelevant to each other seems >pretty far-fetched. So? Show it. By EXPERIMENT, rather than assertion. >Adam, again, on the presumption of innocence in lawmaking: >>Mark Terribile: >>> Not quite true. If there is reason to believe that a harm is likely to >>> result, restrictions related to the magnitude of the harm may be imposed. >>> Drunken driving is a classic example. > >>When caught, the drunk driver has already harmed the owner of the road, >>violating the owner's conditions on its use; and impairing the value of the >>road by making it more dangerous, and therefore less useful to other drivers; >>and thus less valuable to the owner. The fact that in some countries the >>"person" owning the roads, and thus harmed by the drunk driver, is the >>government, does not vitiate the applicability of the above principle. > >And if some people, by being exposed to certain materials, become more likely >to cause harm, or even predisposed to cause harm, they have made the world more >dangerous and impaired its value to the rest of its owners. > But, surprise! You assume what you wish to show: that the presence of porn is itself a net harm. Even if some do flip out (I don't see this as established) it doesn't argue that there is a net harm associated with porn. It was, of course, the position of many that when drunk driving laws were enacted, their logic would be used to justify all sorts of prior restraint. > >I would say rather that the whole point is to bring laws into conformity with >the deepest principles and long-term mores of a people. You are arguing for what's called a tyranny of the majority here. >... >I will >quote the Commission's report briefly. I realize that this will be a major >source of disagreement. (Section 3.1, *The Constraints of the First Amendment* >on page 254 in the GPO edition.) > > ...the foundation of the somewhat more complex but nevertheless > fundamentally similar treatment of obscenity by the Supreme Court. > This treatment involves two major principles. The first, reiterated > repeatedly and explained most thoroughly in *Paris Adult Theatre v. > Slayton* [413 US 49 (1973)], is the principle that legal obscenity is > treated as being either not speech at all, or at least not the kind of > speech that is within the purview of the First Amendment. And there you have it, folks. Poof! First Amendment? Oh yeah -- in the [government approved] history books, that was the [government approved] idea that the [government approved] people were free to speak their [government approved] opinions. In other words, let the government define what is within the purview of the first amendment, and you let the fox guard then henhouse. Foolish, dangerous, and ridiculous. >... >> 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. >> >>Other wired-in human needs, such as food and warmth, are commoditized. > >Do you recall what it took to get to the point where we can be reasonably sure >that the food we get is wholesome and safe? For the moment, I'll set aside my more controversial opinions, and stipulate that Mark's idea that regulation was what was required to fix food production is correct. Even if this were relevant (it is not) it would be invalidated by reductio ad absurdum as follows: (1) it was necessary to regulate the food industry. Unwholesome foods were being sold. (2) Unwholesome porn is being sold -- one should regulate that too. (3) Unwholesome POLITICAL IDEAS are being sold -- we must, by the same logic, regulate political communication. >[Picking crops vs. acting in porn] >Yep, but picking crops is, I would hope, not humiliating, or at least not as >deeply humiliating as having films showing you having sex, with a person you >care not the least about, circulating: a time bomb waiting to go off when one >of your colleagues sees it. A time bomb, eh? And that's why Stallone now lives, a poor and broken man, unable to face anybody? (His approximate reaction to the news that a porn film he was in was being sold for some large sum to some news agency: "Hell, for that amount of money I'd do it again!") Or take the case of Vanessa Williams. She had what is perhaps the most squeaky-clean job in America outside of politics, and yet there was some controversy in getting rid of her. Once again, you make the horrible assumption: people have the same values that you do. If they did, you wouldn't have to argue for porn to be made illegal. Nobody would look at it... or would they? >... >Well, actually it was meant to spotlight the well-founded (and popular) >cynicisms about business morality. Do you *really* want your sexual pleasure >to be provided by that? Or would you rather have your sexuality affirmed and >exercised by intimacy with another human being, with whom intimacy of any sort >pleases you and {her/him}? A very important point: legalized porn doesn't mean that my sexual pleasure is provided exclusively (or even partially!) by porn vendors. Merely that the option is open to me WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE LAW. In other words, legal porn means that I'm not running the risk of being hit with a blackjack and dumped in the river when I go to buy a dirty book. On the other hand, if you make porn illegal, suddenly I *must* deal with criminals. Thanks a lot, chum: you've really made society safer. Mark, it seems to me you've fallen into a few errors that repeat: 1. The assertion that if porn is legal, sexual pleasure will be controlled by businessmen. There are two problems with this: a. It isn't true -- they control only ONE facet of sexual behavior. b. Porn would remain under the control of businessmen whether it is legal or not, so whether the assertion (1) is true or not is not relevant to whether porn should be illegal or not. Or maybe it is, unless you care to argue that criminal businessmen are more noble than non-criminal businessmen? 2. The notion that absence of evidence of harmlessness is sufficient grounds to allow regulation. Whether this is historically true or not, it SHOULDN'T be true: I can certainly make a stronger case that religion should be regulated than porn, at least in terms of disposing someone to harm someone else (and yes, this DOES include the raising of children in strange and dangerous ways!). 3. The idea that, since illegal activities are associated with porn (rape of actresses, deliberate use of drug-addicted children) this justifies making porn itself illegal. Far from it! If those activities are illegal and occur already, it's merely proof that the government can't regulate certain things. Further, guilt by association of this sort can be applied to, for example, the existence of waterfronts, of the free use of alcohol, of the ownership of wealth, of politics, of gambling, of free speech.