Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <1186@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 14:39:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1186
Posted: Tue Sep 24 14:39:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 06:24:42 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 63
Xref: watmath net.women:7498 net.motss:2090 net.flame:12024

--
[I said]
>> ... legal rights come from
>> moral rights ... And thus legal responsibilities,
>> which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but certainly ought to,
>> derive from moral responsibilities.  Responsibility is not
>> proscription. 

> I disagree.  Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective
> and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a
> heterogeneous society.  The law thus form a "barebones" moral
> framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own,
> presumably more restrictive moral codes.  It is necessary in a
> free society that the law not be restrictive of individual
> morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e.  my
> morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws
> in order to prevent chaos.)

> In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the
> social order is threatened by the continued availability of
> pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was
> unavailable. 

I agree with your logic, but not your premise.  Morality is not
necessarily subjective.   For instance, I know perfectly well
that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder.  In fact, I'll
bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought
his acts were moral.  Which is not the same as "acceptable",
"defensible", or a host of other excuses.  Please don't confuse
immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered.

Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps.  Why the hell else
even bother to have ethical principles?  You can keep your own personal
code of conduct in your diary.  Now, if our ideas of what is moral
clash, and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is
another issue altogether.  Probably not much, but I certainly won't
call a cop.  There are no Morals Police.

[Me again]
>> I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a
>> better term, libelous. 

> I am not sure what you meant, but the term is surely incorrect. 
> You must libel some person, not libel in the abstract, or a class
> of persons.  You may think pornography is offensive, repugnant,
> or whatever, but libelous does not apply

> Marcel Simon

That's what I said, "for lack of a better term..."   I believe that
*some* pornographers bear *some* moral responsibility for *some* crimes
committed against women.  They themselves may even think so, but they
probably don't.  In which case, I don't rightly know what I ought to do
about it.  Note that I speak of my own actions, which I am responsible
for.  I leave the state out of it, though the state has a way of
getting involved when individuals do not act responsibly.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  24 Sep 85 [3 Vendemiaire An CXCIV]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***