Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahuta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxj!houxm!ahuta!ecl
From: ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.movies,net.legal,net.women
Subject: Anti-porn ordinance
Message-ID: <249@ahuta.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 11:30:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ahuta.249
Posted: Thu Dec 20 11:30:55 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 02:13:47 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 257
Xref: watmath net.books:1114 net.movies:5304 net.legal:1130 net.women:3861

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
#