adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/24/86)
Adam Reed: > >2. Determine whose behavior is adversely affected by fantasy materials. > >The existing evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that adverse > >behavioral effects are confined to people suffering from a specific > >cognitive deficit, ... Behavioral studies might be conducted to evaluate > >this hypothesis empirically. We could also learn how to diagnose this > >(at this point hypothetical) deficit, and how to remediate it (for > >example, by teaching the art of distinguishing between fantasy and > >reality to those affected, if it turns out to be a teachable cognitive > >skill). Mark Terribile: > As far as identifying people *before* they become offenders: how do you propose > to do this? Mandatory psychological testing seems even more invasive than > mandatory drug testing, and a lot more dangerous from the constitutional > standpoint than either drug testing or the restriction of specific material > depicting specific acts that the *Miller* standard permits. IF this hypothesis were objectively shown to be true, a person providing fantasy materials to someone with this deficit would become liable, under common law, for civil damages in the amount of the harm thus caused. It is likely that providers would then require proof of the ability to use the materials safely, just as car rental companies will not rent a car to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to use it without endangering others. I see no constitutional problems, and no need for legislation if the testing were done by private firms. > By the way, would you educate me on the difference, if any, between > ``remediate'' and ``remedy''? Gladly. To remediate is to attempt a remedy. There is of course no guarantee that the attempt will succeed. > Adam, one more question: I'm truly sorry to have to ask this, but our newsfiles > do get purged periodicaly. Did you say that Donnerstein felt that his work > on was misinterpreted by the Commission? This might have been mentioned by someone else - I don't remember doing so - but yes, Donnerstein is on record saying that the Commission misinterpreted the work. This was reported in one of the newsmagazines (probably Time, although it may have been USN&WR or Newsweek) in a cover story on the commission report. I have not studied Donnerstein's work closely enough to comment on it. > Does this mean that you have fewer objections to restrictions of these > materials than of other materials? Can ``degrading'' materials be included in > the first item, if they are degrading enough? No. The trouble with the "degrading" category is that it is not objective (different people experience different things as "degrading") and thus fails to meet a civilized society's standard for legal restriction. Some people believe that sexuality is degrading per se, and hence would view all sexually oriented art as "degrading". This is exactly what happened whenever "degrading" materials were legislated against. Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/26/86)
In article <789@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: >IF this hypothesis were objectively shown to be true, a person providing >fantasy materials to someone with this deficit would become liable, >under common law, for civil damages in the amount of the harm thus >caused. It is likely that providers would then require proof of the >ability to use the materials safely, just as car rental companies >will not rent a car to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to >use it without endangering others. I see no constitutional problems, >and no need for legislation if the testing were done by private firms. A startling idea, but it makes sense on further thought (*if* the alleged dangers can be established for some subset of entertainment, and *if* some way of assessing ability to use responsibly is available). Automobiles are not the only example already in place; explosives for construction are *very* dangerous, and some restrictions apply. Also guns. Many areas require attending a class before you are allowed to legally carry "mace". Heavy equipment and bus driving have stricter requirements than passenger sedans etc. All of these examples are *orders of magnitude* more dangerous than the *worst* porn. Oh, those are all *productive* items (except the weapons? sort of). How about entertainment? Fireworks technicians, stuntmen, race car drivers, animal trainers, acrobatic pilots, high-wire artists... all are or could reasonably be subject to qualification requirements. Legalisticly quite reasonable. Not quite the same, but comparable. Not that it will happen. We will either have censorship or we won't. Hysteria will either prevail or it won't. "It's that simple". [question about "degrading enough" being banned...] >No. The trouble with the "degrading" category is that it is not objective >(different people experience different things as "degrading") and thus >fails to meet a civilized society's standard for legal restriction. Good answer to one of MT's *major* points of contention with (many of) the rest of the net. Thanks again, Adam. > Adam Reed (mtund!adam) - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: Everybody bops. _on blackboard or something in "She Bop" video.