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: Re: Defining Pornography (reply to Dubuc)
Message-ID: <4616@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 23:45:52 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4616
Posted: Thu Jan 17 23:45:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 10:11:15 EST
References: <4605@cbscc.UUCP>, <201@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 178
Xref: watmath net.books:1245 net.women:4131

Another reply to Marcel Simon:

>How can you discuss the merits of anything that you have not defined?
>I hope you don't solve work projects in the same way. Your approach is
>even worse from a legal standpoint. It is of supreme importance to have
>specific laws, unless we trust that its enforcers, i.e. government and the
>police, to be consistently enlightened. You will agree that they don't have
>a good track record in this area.

I am trying to say the the categories of pornography are well enough defined
in everybody's mind to discuss it's merits.  If I mention the terms
"hard core porn", "violent pornography", "soft porn" most people could
generally recognise those categories and place different materials consistently
within each category even though the lines between them may be fuzzier for
some than others.  Do you maintain that these distinctions are meaningless?
As I recall you made just such a distinction in your first article:

    Sure, most sensible people can agree that Big Bertha does the Los
    Angeles Rams (:-) or some such title has no value except to stimulate
    sexually. But what about DH Lawrence or Erica Jong books? 

I said before, it has not been my purpose to form a legal definition but
to point to the need for one.

>Kiddie porn is illegal, not as pornography, but as statutory rape and/or
>child molestation. The visual representation of consenting adults having sex
>is not illegal. If one of the adults is not consenting, the laws covering
>coercion, kidnapping and rape can and do deal with that. A definition
>of porn is not needed because it is irrelevant in these cases.

See my article called "Kiddie Porn".

>This net, which I take to be representative of the country (a probably bad
>assumption), has seen a lively debate of erotica vs porn. This debate has
>been inconclusive because every opinion has been sufficiently different from
>every other. So saying that we "have a general idea of what [porn] is" is not
>only insufficient, but dangerous. It invites tyranny from those vocal enough
>to pressure legislators and executives into accepting *their* version of it.

I don't see the logic here.  We are talking about the difference between
a concept of porn that allows us to discuss its merits (such as you have
above) and one that allows a workable legal standard for that which we 
deem to have no merit.

>Something like that has been tried. It was called Prohibition and failed.

Banning liquor failed so banning porn will too?  Do you think porn is
as acceptable and commonplace and indulgence as drinking?  Do you consume
it at football games or in front of T.V?

>If you are only looking to stimulate discussion and convince others of porn's
>alleged harmful effects, you can do so. Your postings, however, have been
>strongly tinged with the desire for legal action. I do not, BTW, expect
>that a legal definition will be universally accepted. Only that one
>will be accepted enough that its supporters will be able to elect
>those who will codify it into law, which will withstand the
>scrutiny of the courts.

Is any legal definition of anything universally accepted?  You're right
I would like to see eventual legal action.  Do you think the problem is
going to solve itself?

>You seem dangerously casual about curtailing the first amendment. By
>your reasoning, it is OK to curb freedom a little to achieve a "greater"
>good. But where does "a little" stop? Today DH Lawrence, tomorrow
>Dan Rather (viz Jesse Helms' campaign to buy CBS), maybe? And then what?
>What if I say, "you hate X, therefore you banned Y; I hate Z, so I should
>be allowed to ban A", is that OK?

I think it was Larry West who agreed with me that the first amendment is
not absolute.  He qualified that by saying that we must give up that freedom
VERY VERY carefully.  I definitely agree.  I don't think I have advocated
wanton disregard for the 1st amendment.  I recognise how carful we need
to be and I think that we have more of a luxury of being careful than we
will if the porn industry grows at the rate it has been.   If it becomes
so much of a problem that it hits us in the face then any solution may
be too little to late.  We can't suspend judgement forever.  When we
do that with teenage drunk drivers so that the problem gets out of hand
we get groups that go overboard (many people think) pushing the government
to raise drinking ages and such.  Reason gets pushed out the door when
it gets to that point and those who refused to listen earlier can only
complain about the exesses.  

>Yes, we have to get communities to ban cock fights, gambling, etc, because
>a consensus exists that their monetary (tax, tourism) advantages are
>outweighed by their handicaps: cruelty to animals, crime, traffic, etc There
>is not necessarily a moral consensus, just a practical one, which can
>change: casinos in Atlantic City, jai alai in Connecticut, state lotteries
>etc. You are pushing are exclusively moral reasons to back your point of view.
>Since morals are a subjective legal matter, hence
>the need for a community consensus BEFORE legal action is taken.

None of the above are subject to the same community standards procedure
that porn is.  My reasons aren't exclusively moral.  By now you've
probably seen the "social effect of porn" article I posted at noontime
today.  A practical element is also present in regulating porn as it
is with the other things you mention.

>
>The legislatures, at the state level at least, did write obscenity laws
>that covered porn. These were mostly struck down by the courts, mostly for
>being unconstitutionally vague. Maybe no greater efforts have been made
>since because the legislature sense the lack of consensus on the issue.
>This is politics, which is inextricably tied to democracy.

This is oligarchy, tied to the whim of the courts, most notably the
Supreme Court.  If the courts take a conservative swing during the
next 20 years or so I wonder who will be screaming for it not to be
voiding the laws of our elected legislators then.  Or do you believe
the courts represent the consensus of americans  better than their
own elected officials.  Tell me, if there is a consensus against porn
how is it supposed to get reflected in our laws?  Do we lobby the courts?
Vote the judges out of office?  Come now.

>I have saved the great pseudo-issue of porn's effect on society for
>last. WHAT effect? Where are your facts? For every study that on por
>inciting to rape, there is a counter-study that shows the opposite.

Facts are posted already.  But I suppose *absolute* proof will be demanded
next without the same standard being applied on the pro-porn side.   
Just stating that there are counter-studies for every study doesn't
support the counter-studies if there are any.  You can't support the
status quo with just the fact that there is debate.  You have to show
that the status quo represents the better side of the debate.  You don't
take the attitude "my country right or wrong" do you?

>I think there is a mixup between violence and pornography. The two
>are often intertwined, but are *not* the same. Don't give me the
>"pornography is degrading" line. There has been plenty of excellent
>rebuttal of it on this net.

Exellent?  Let each reader be the judge of that for themselves, OK? 

>I fail to
>see much convincing information in your personhood/sexuality
>point. If sexuality is so inherent in a human (you spend a lot of time
>on female sexuality. Are men not sexual beings also? Or are only women
>"degraded" by porn?), what's wrong with its display?

Again, let others be the judge of what is convincing (or common sense,
I think) for themselves.  You present no argument here.  And you haven't
been reading my articles carefully.  How many times do I have to say
that when I use a female as an example I am not shunning the male and
vise-versa.  First Ms. Leeper accuses me of being sexist for not mentioning
that women also have sexual desire.  Now you're acusing me of the opposite.
Yes I do think porn degrades men.  I said that in other articles.  I
think you should try and tell me what is wrong with the point of 
sexuality being intrinsic in personhood rather than twist my position so.

>
>What is a "family" bookstore? A place where you can get "food" full
>of chemicals, cancer causing cigarettes, contentless magazines and
>books (the illustrious Silhouette Romance, for example), and other
>nefarious artifacts. I once lived in abuilding next door to a "family"
>food store (a pizzeria). I had to deal with teenagers playing car
>radios and ghetto blasters at top volume at three AM, empty pizza
>boxes in the lobby of my buiding the next morning in winter, my door
>blocked by large menacing looking young people. I'll tell you, never
>again. I'd rather walk or drive a distance than have that in my
>neighborhood again.

B. Daltons.  That's and example of a family bookstore.  I don't know
what the rest of this paragraph has to do with the subject.

>So nothing is resolved, I am afraid. Since you are the concerned party,
>we are still waiting for an attempt at defining porn, coupled with
>some convincing data on how it harms *me and mine*, that will at least
>stand up to the scrutiny of the net.

I am not impressed with the scrutiny of the net, personally.  I can make
my own judgements of whether an argument seems reasonable.  I hope you
aren't pretending to speak for the net with yours.

I realize, though, that I'm spitting into the wind on this issue in this
forum.  I think this is where I get off.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd