Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.books,net.women Subject: Defining Pornography (reply to Simon) Message-ID: <4605@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 12:59:57 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4605 Posted: Tue Jan 15 12:59:57 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 05:35:55 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 177 Xref: watmath net.books:1217 net.women:4091 }[from Marcel Simon:] }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. No, I don't think I do have to start there. The fact that we are even talking about porn assumes that we have a general idea of what it is. To discuss it it only has to be an observed part of people's experience. This observation is enough to decide whether or not something needs to be done about it. I agree that a more precise definition has to be made for legal purposes if, and when, people decide to actually do something about it. But that does not have to be done at the outset. It has not been my purpose to legally define pornography. I have only given my opinion and observation of its effects in support of my view that *something* should be done about it. I have also tried to expess my feeling that a workable legal definition *can* be produced. I recognise the problems with defining porn for legal purposes. But the main hinderence to coming up with such a definition is that people insist that it be defined so as not to exclude what they like. This is not a definition in the normal sense of the word. What it reduces to is to say that nothing can be banned because some people want it and like it. This notion seems absurd when applied to other proscriptions in society. Another thing that hinders is the impression I get that many people don't want a definition of pornography. If you even come close to providing an objective basis for its definition, any combination of the following reactions usually result: 1) People will point out the casualties of the definition saying "this will also ban X, which is a good book". But as I said before, every law has casualties that make it seem unfair. The best we can to is to reduce them. 2) Something that amounts to saying, "No one can tell me I can't have this if I want it. I enjoy it.". But that same principle is not universal. I amounts to saying that something someone is doing and wants to do can't be banned. 3) The "slippery slope" argument that says if pornographers loose their right to publish we will lose our freedom of speech. Some people have related this to freedom for the expression of political ideas. I see one difference that I think is significant: With political, philosophical, and religious ideas there are a plurality of views. The only thing that counters the message of porn (it's not "speech" if there is no message) is its absence. It either exists or it doesn't. More on this below. }> 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? But the point is that things are banned and allowed in all communities on different grounds. Things from traffic laws to drug abuse laws are not dependent on the nebulous "community standards" concept. They are legislated and enforced without polling the community for their standard. Why is porn singularly different than every thing else in this respect? Do we have to "get" our communities to ban cock fights, open gambling, drug abuse or prostitution? Why aren't first amendment freedoms invoked in these areas? And in the area of publication, why has the line been drawn so rigidly at kiddie porn? That law has had its casualties. For example, the owner of shoe store chain here in Columbus was asked to cover the bare bottomed toddler on his billboards with a diaper. It is the state legislatures that are reacting against kiddie porn, not any effort based directly on community standards. }> 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. No, I'm blaming the Legislature for passing the buck to the Supreme Court. By virtue of its judicial function the S. C. cannot invoke a definition of pornography. That would be writing laws into effect; which is the job of our legislature. The Court interprets the laws in specific cases and sets precidents for their application. With no law to work from the Court could do nothing. That is what "community standards" amount to: nothing. Porn peddlers are under no constraint to defend their trade against any community standard. They appeal to law (1st Amendment). Community standards mean substantially nothing; even when the community is marshalled to give them content. That is why if anything is really going to be done about porn it must be done on some objectively based law. True, that objective basis is going to cut across what some people like, but what people *like* is not the basis for any effective laws. }> 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. But here you avoid the issue of its probable effects on society. Political views are multiple and they counterbalance one another. Also particular political (religious or whatever) views may be debated on their merits and compared with one another. The message of pornography has no competitor except a higher view of sexuality that implys its absence. There is no pluralism here, only a duality. I think this is because the message of pornography strikes at something that is universal and also deeply personal with all human beings: their sexuality. It is possible to separate people from their particular ideologies and not take anything away from their personhood. It is not similarly possible to separate people from their sexuality and leave their personhood intact. As an illustration: I can say to the woman who embraces Nazism that I oppose her ideology (it is possible for her to embrace another) but still recognise her right as a human to embrace it. Yet it is much harder to separate her person from her sexuality. If I accept the degrading impression that porn conveys of human sexuality, I cannot, at the same time affirm a person as being distinct from what that message conveys. The woman cannot help but be a woman and have her own sexuality inherent in that. Pornography that is geared toward men does not emphasize the personality of the individual subjects. It coveys a *general* impression about all women. I have contended that this impression is degrading. I can create a disjuction between a person and his/her political or religious beliefs but I cannot do so with regard to their sexuality. I beleive that the duality inherent in the message of porn and the fact that it takes advantage of an intrinsic, universal human characteristic (sexuality) set it apart from the essential forms of expression. }> 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 You are shifting the analogy to your advantage by changing the reason for not wanting something in our neighborhood. Read my analogy between two types of book stores again. I maintianed that there is more general opposition to a porn shop than a family type bookstore. That opposition is often reflected in zoning codes. But if people do not see porn has having any more harmful effects than the family bookstore, why the difference? Do porn shops bring more noise into the neighborhood than other bookstores? Why do you think people would make a distinction? In summary I concede that the task of defining pornography is a difficult one. But the issue of whether or not it is harmful (which may be discussed based on a more general idea people have of what porn is) has to be dealt with first before the task of developing a difficult legal definition can bear any fruit. Nothing is going to happen if people aren't conviced that something needs to be done about it. Also, the task of defining porn for legal purposes needs to be a concerted effort. I recognise that such a task needs to incorporate more than one person's viewpoint if it is to have a sufficiently objective base. So defining porn for the legal purpose of banning it is not something I have undertaken to do. In my view that is fruitless without the cooperation of people who already recognise the need to do something about it. That recognition needs to come first and it doesn't need a precise legal definition of porn to come about. I have limited my comments to presenting what I feel to be porn's harmful message and the unique characteristics of that message that may allow us to single it out from other, essential form of expression. Were I to attempt a legal definition of porn on my own, it would probably reflect too much of my own personal bias and not have a sufficiently objective base; which I contend that we need. Also, I think that trying to legally define porn for the purposes of proscription before establising its merits (or lack thereof) is counterproductive. If my efforts here have convinced some to personally shun their own use of porn and encourage others to do the same, that consititutes a much more ideal remedy for the problem than proscription up front by law (In practice it is propably insufficient, however). We generally applaud the efforts of government to raise the dignity and moral treatment of women through legislation and the institution of affirmative action programs. Protecting porn with similar means seems counterproductive. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd