Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography ...(reply to Dubuc)
Message-ID: <195@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 16:58:41 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.195
Posted: Mon Jan 14 16:58:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 02:02:40 EST
References: <243@looking.UUCP>, <11300010@smu.UUCP> <4560@cbscc.UUCP>, <190@mhuxr.UUCP> <4584@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.books:1213 net.women:4081

> As I said, I don't think the difficulty of the task should keep us
> from doing something positive to curb porn production.  What is to
> keep us from coming up with a workable definition?  I have the feeling
> that we don't necessarily have to accept the conclusion that there
> can be none.

You must start by defining pornography. Your posting does no such thing.
You should also be more convincing of the necessity to ban pornography
once you have defined it. Again, you do no such thing.

> Community standards are a vague, nebulous concept.  It is much harder
> to prove and define workable community standards than it is to come up
> with a legal definition of what is pornography.<...>

Community standards are vague because communities are vague. If you cannot
get your community to agree on what is permissible and what is not,
then how can you justify banning or allowing ANYTHING?

> I think that concept was a cop out by the Supreme Court when the legislature
> tossed them that "hot potato".

Absolutely. This was a recognition by the S. C. that since they could not
think of a universal legal valid definition of porn, and since they did
not wish to be bombed by anti-porn advocates (:-) they would let the
community decide. You are saying that you cannot decide and you blame the
S. C. for not doing the job. You are evading the issue, Paul.

> if your last statement is true the First amendment is meaningless.  If
> you mean the we must accept the good with the bad, then that is saying
> that there is nothing that we can say we will not accept.  In the case
> of pornography this reduces, in practice, to a statement that nothing can
> be banned. As I said before, I think this makes a mockery of free speech,
> especially considering porn's probable effects on society.

The first amendment says that you and I will not be restrained from
saying or writing whatever is on our minds by the arbitrary edicts of
governments, "moral" citizens, etc. You can express disagreement by arguing,
e.g. this net, or by not listening to/reading the opinion. If you are offended
by pornography, don't read it, don't go into the adult store, etc... This
is the very essence of free speech, not a mockery of anything.

> The presence of porn is associated with some ill effects in most people's
> minds if they don't want it in *their* neighborhood.

I don't want a trucking company to set up shop in my neighborhood either
(because of noise, put down those flamethrowers) but that does not mean
trucking companies are detrimental to society

Marcel Simon
..!mhuxr!mfs