Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!wisen From: wisen@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: More Real Dirt on Porn - (nf) Message-ID: <1039@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Mar-84 00:08:06 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1039 Posted: Sun Mar 11 00:08:06 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 19:41:07 EST Lines: 70 #R:ncsu:-252000:inmet:10900060:000:3687 inmet!wisen Mar 9 16:32:00 1984 >the real issues. If there are movies that have an undesireable effect on >society (and I defined that to mean ``movies that would increase the accept- >ability of violent actions in society, generally through advocating >violent acts'') then I argue that these movies should be banned. Note that >by definition we have a tool for distinguishing them from artistic movies. >Yes, it is possible to create a seemingly desirable film that REALLY DOES >increase the acceptance of violence in society. I would think that even >though the film was ``artistic'' it would be undesirable because of it's >effect. > I see some problems in this paragraph: 1) Legalisms should probably be discussed in net.legal, net.law, or whatever. 2) What is our tool for determining that a film REALLY DOES increase the acceptance of violence in society? 3) Rhetorically, what do we mean by "violence"? Or "acceptance" thereof? 4) Since we cannot prove that a film REALLY did increase the acceptance of violence in society until after a) the film is produced, released distributed; b) an illegal act of violence [or a legal but outrageous act of violence] occurs; c) a causal relationship has been proved between the movie and the act of violence [this could take years of sociological stufy, or years of court battle], then are the movie producers liable in a [U.S.] civil suit for damages sufferred by the victims of the violence [analogous to product liability suits]? Will this stifle investment in the movie industry, or stifle production of violent movies such as "The Enforcer", "Star Wars", "Diva [French]", "Thunderball [British]", etc.? [Feel free to disagree that those are violent movies.] Will we be left with situation comedies and soap operas in the theaters? 5) Given that the due process for determining that a movie increases the acceptance of violence takes several years, isn't the law easily circumvented? 'Pornography' lawyers have used the lassitude of U.S. due process to give pornography several years run before, for instance, the Supreme Court declares the particular product "obscene". Then they just came out with a slightly different product and restart the cycle. [I can't give references on this. I think this was the situation about 20-30 years ago.] 6) Will Canada try to prevent the U.S. from broadcasting 'pornography' into Canada the way Canada presently wants to prevent our export of Acid rain? Will Ronald Reagan stoutly defend this violent pornography broadcast as "the free exchange of ideas"? Remember Pres. Reagan's fight against the UNESCO new world information order? :-) In the United States, it's very messy to try to define something, and ban it. You could try writing nasty letters to the offending movie's producers, or try a boycott of, for instance, Coca-Cola products, because you don't like the movies that Columbia Studios is producing. [I recall that Coke owns that studio.] The Moral Majority has tried a tactic similar to this for TV shows that offend them. Grist for the mill, worth researching: Several years ago, there was a movie named "Fuzz", set in Boston, that included an episode wherein hoodlums douse and ignite a victim. Soon after the movie's release, an analogous crime did occur in Boston, and a brouhaha was raised over whether "Fuzz" should be banned. But I don't think it ever was banned. Sorry for my sloppiness; I haven't got a visual editor handy. And now for an obnoxiously long signature: . |\ ------Bruce Wisentaner /| \ cca!ima! \ / | \ esquire! --inmet!wisen o / | \ harpo! / ^_. _/___|===== O\/`O \_______/] \_(