Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Just a couple of thoughts on Pornography
Message-ID: <443@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 00:06:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.443
Posted: Sun Sep 29 00:06:51 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:11:15 EDT
References: <732@utai.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS Tech. Sales Support, Morristown, NJ
Lines: 39

> Geoff Loker:
> 
> Thought 1:
> [ A proposal to limit pornography sales to "specialty" stores located in
> a specific area and providing only porn ] 

I understand the city of Boston did something similar, with its Combat
District/Red Light Zone. Any residents of that area have any comments on
the results of that experiment?

Generally, the only problem I see with this approach is: where to put them?
Places like New York have Times Square. What to do with the small town where
the only "porn" is Playboy at the drugstore counter? Do we force some
entrepreneur to go into a socially castigated business?

> Thought 2:
>      It has been suggested about that pornographic pictures of adults are
> fine because they are obviously consenting adults.
> [ Some examples where pictures where doctored or obtained illicitly ]

Unless the person in question is a public figure, publishing someone's
picture without approval is cause for a libel suit, regardless of doctoring,
so long as the person in question is clearly recognizable. If the person
is a public figure, it gets tougher, as Henry Kissinger found out when 
a magazine (The National Lampoon, I think) published a nude picture of a
man with Henry's head pasted on. The satirical context, plus the fact that
the picture was an obvious hoax may have had something to do with the fact
that Kissinger did not sue.

Likewise, a model release for a picture taken without prior approval is
not worth much. A photographer friend has told me of shooting a woman
he saw in the street, then approaching her with a model release form.
She sued him for invasion of privacy, and won.

The point is valid, though farfetched. Linda Lovelace has claimed she
was forced to "perform" in "Deep Throat." I don't know how, or whether
this imbroglio was legally resolved.

Marcel Simon