Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!well!ptsfa!dual!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: pornography, censorship
Message-ID: <1176@ames.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 00:16:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1176
Posted: Wed Oct  2 00:16:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 07:08:40 EDT
References: <2529@watcgl.UUCP> <1153@ames.UUCP> <2564@watcgl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 147

From John Chapman (watcgl!jchapman):
>> 	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?

	One could infer this general principle from the Bill of Rights, I
think, but that's not necessary to my argument. Would you like a law requiring
you to brush your teeth 3 times a day? Or a law forbidding overeating? Would
you really want to live under a government that imposed *it's* standard of
responsible behavior on *you*, or is it only a government that imposes *your*
notion of responsible behavior on others that you find attractive?

> 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)?

	If the danger's not direct, you'll not get everyone's agreement on the
need for a law, for one thing. If the danger's not direct enough to be shown,
all we have are some people's opinions that porn is dangerous; why should
opinion be made into law?
	And there's another problem. To use one obvious example, the indirect
harm from alcohol abuse is much easier to show than any putative harm from
porn. Does this mean alcohol should be banned? Most people don't seem to think
so, and I can give at least two good reasons for agreeing. First, banning it
was tried, and didn't work; indeed, it made the problem worse. Second, most
people don't abuse alcohol, only use it, and outlawing the stuff infringes on
their freedom of choice.

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

	"Slander" is a legal term with a quite precise definition, and simply
does not apply. But I'll attempt to answer the spirit of your question. Let's
pass ourselves a hypothetical law which bans the promotion of hatred against
any identifiable group. Here come our complainants: The American Nazi Party
wants most of the movies about World War II banned, since they promote hatred
of Nazis; some feminists are asking, not only for a ban on violent porn, but a
ban on "slasher" films, and even on some respectable films, like "Tattoo", as
dehumanizing and degrading women; a civil rights group is asking for action
against HUCKLEBERRY FINN as they feel it promotes hatred of Blacks; the Sons
of the South want a ban on "Easy Rider", and the Policeman's Benevolent
Association supports them. Last in line (but you can see more on the way) is
this big dude who claims to be a Philistine, and has a bone to pick with the
Bible :-).
	Only one of the above is purely facetious. The HUCKLEBERRY FINN
example has really occurred, many times. If you get your law, John, somebody
will really be deciding such questions for all of us, and it probably won't be
you. Ever consider you might not like their decisions?
	One other thing to consider: the impact on academic inquiry. You want
to ban pro-racist propaganda, right? Well, MEIN KAMPF would *certainly* have
to go, as would many Nazi documents. Inconvenient for historians, eh? And Nazi
stuff is hardly the only racist literature. Anyone researching slavery in the
antebellum South would certainly need to be aware of the racist writings of
the time. Shall we, perhaps, set up a system whereby only "legitimate
scholars" would be allowed to read such things? It seems a touch elitist to
me, but perhaps you'd be one of those legitimate scholars :-). It hardly
matters. Censorship is always elitist, in that one group (judges, censors,
whoever) is given the right to decide for everyone else what they may read.
The censors, one presumes, are immune to whatever vile influence the censored
material would have on the rest of us, were we allowed free access.
 
>> 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.

	It's not obvious to me, and apparently not even obvious to some of
your fellow porn-haters. One of the arguments frequently used against porn is
that it should not be considered as protected by the 1st Amendment because it
is not an expression of ideas at all, but merely a lewd public display, as
devoid of ideas as a carnival sideshow. In any case, if I correctly understand
that the only porn you object to is porn which "degrades women", then can I
assume you'd not object to even extremely violent, sadistic and raunchy porn
that had no women in it? Such stuff exists in the gay community.

>> >   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.

	Well, my beliefs are based on a lifetime of experience and
considerable thought, too; should I have the right to restrain you from doing
something because I believe it's harmful? We are discussing a question of
public policy, here: whether there ought to be greater legal restrictions on
what may be published. Are you really suggesting that your personal opinion,
unsupported by facts, is a good reason to pass a law, or did you simply
misunderstand my point?
 
>> 	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.

	A lot of things promote divisiveness. Both the civil rights and
anti-war movements of the '60's were certainly divisive. But, somehow, all of
us tend to see the Other Side as the ones who are being unreasonable. Why do
you feel so confident that you would see more or less eye-to-eye with the
people who would enforce the law you propose? Your last sentence in the quote
above echoes almost precisely the kind of rhetoric that Spiro Agnew used
against the anti-war movement in the '60's. The principles to which you appeal
are dangerously general.
	Tell me, John, are you one of those who are sure that all Right
Thinking People will inevitably agree on something because it seems basic and
self-evident to you? If so, I encourage you to continue reading and posting to
the net; you will find it's difficult to convince many otherwise sane people
of your "obvious" beliefs. And if not, what makes you think that the kind of
general arguments that you use in favor of censorship would only be used to
ban all the stuff you dislike, and never to ban what you think should be
allowed? I know I feel the chilly wind already in your proposals. If it's
reasonable to ban Nazi propaganda, then perhaps it's reasonable to censor
anyone who supports the Nazi's right to publish the stuff, as I do? You say
you wouldn't do that? So what? *You* won't be the censor. Under the
hypothetical law I modeled on your suggestions, above, I could see a censor
concluding that I'm indirectly promoting hatred of identifiable groups by
supporting the right of others to publish such stuff. This very article might
be considered illegal!
	Think about it.

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