Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: pornography, censorship
Message-ID: <2564@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 12:01:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2564
Posted: Thu Sep 26 12:01:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 04:17:44 EDT
References: <2529@watcgl.UUCP> <1153@ames.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 131

> From John Chapman (watcgl!jchapman):
> > { pre-point : when I say porn below I am not talking about films
> >   books etc. showing consenting adults enjoying themselves.
> > }
.
.
.
>  
> >2. Freedoms generally also entail responsibilities as well.  We,
> >   for example, have freedom of movement but not the freedom to
> >   move by vehicle while intoxicated.  If we are to have freedom
> >   of speech should we not also have commeasurate responsibilities
> >   as to it's use?  Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to
> >   promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group
> >   (e.g. women)?  
> 
> 	It is not the goverment's place to enforce responsible behavior in the
> broad sense, only to limit dangerously irresponsible behavior. Unless and
> until someone can show porn to be literally and directly dangerous, this kind
> of argument is simply subterfuge.

Where is it written that it is not the government's palce to enforce
responsible behaviour?  Why does the danger have to be direct - again
life is not simple so why should we restrict ourselves to only dealing
with simple relationships (although there are correlations between
porn and violence)?

> 
> >   Here in Canada there have recently been convictions of individuals
> >   on the basis of their publishing material which they knew to be
> >   false and which was designed to encourage hatred of an identifiable
> >   group.
> 
> 	I'm aware of the case; it's a dangerous precedent, and it saddens me,
> even though I'm pretty sure that Canadians are too sensible to let this kind
> of repressiveness become a trend.

Why sould it sadden you? Why shouldn't an identifiable group be afforded
the same protection against slander and the promotion of hatred that an
individual is?

> 
> >3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not
> >   enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that
> >   any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both
> >   lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus
> >   is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not
> >   therefore enjoy constitiutional protection?
> 
> 	Well, I consider Nazism and other extreme racist philosophies beneath
> contempt, too, but I don't want to censor them. I infer that you would. It is
> interesting to note that the more modern anti-porn rhetoric, the kind that
> condemns it as violent and hate-filled rather than as perverted and sinful,
> extends so easily to the censorship of other kinds of materials, like Nazi
> political tracts.

Why is "interesting"?  I think it's rather obvious that they have something
in common - the encouragement of irrational prejudices against some
particular group.

> 
> >4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link
> >   of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and
> >   rape".  Maybe there isn't. I don't know.  What I do know is
> >   that the very toleration/existence of porn by society lends
> >   it an air of legitimacy and thereby associates the same air of
> >   legitimacy and acceptance with the attitudes and ideas it promotes.
> 
> 	Dangerous logic. Those who would outlaw homosexuality, or Communism,
> use the same reasoning. I believe the law's job is only to tell me what I
> ought *not* to do, not what I ought, and I don't see something's being legal

 Right! One ought *not* to encourage people to hate.

> as giving it any air of legitimacy. What's being given legitimacy is the idea

If it's legal then society has said - "yes it is acceptable to us".  Certainly
it has more of an air of legitimacy than if it were illegal.


> that we all should have the right to do as we please, as long as we don't harm
> others in our pursuit of happiness.

However some of these attitudes do harm others.

> 
> >   I do find it impossible to believe that this legitimization of
> >   hatred/violence towards a particular group *does not* encourage
> >   a similar attitude/behaviour among it's fans.
> 
> 	But what you believe is irrelevant; what *facts* do you have to
> justify the *imposition* of your belief on others?

Why is it irrelevant - it's based on a lifetime of experience and some
considerable thought on the matter.  This type of attitude is quite
frequently found on the net - if you can't quantize something then
you can't legitimately comment on it - if people really ran their
lives this way and refused to make decisions unless they had hard
numbers then I don't think much would get done.

> 
> >5. As for those who worry about censoring porn opening the floodgates
> >   of censorship I reiterate we already have some forms of censorship,
> >   this will not be a first.  Should we worry about censorship getting
> >   out of hand?  You bet; I don't trust the government anymore than
> >   anyone else - but instead of putting so much  energy into protecting
> >   porn why not save it to protect something worth protecting if and
> >   when it comes under attack from censors?
> 
> 	If you only wish to protect ideas you agree with from censorship, then
> you do not, by my definition, believe in freedom of speech.

I don't.  I fully expect and accept that other people will have different
ideas and that they have the right to express them. I don't however think
this is some sort of god-given right.  I think the right to expression
ends when what is being said is wilfully false, encourages violence, or
promotes hatred and divisiveness.

> 
> -  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
>                                                 NASA-Ames Research Center
>                                                 Moffett Field, CA
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
-- 

	John Chapman
	...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman

	Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me
		     and they may not even be mine.