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: <1164@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1164
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:18:57 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> <691@rduxb.UUCP> <24@unc.unc.UUCP> <1159@ihuxn.UUCP> <1158@mtgzz.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.women:7445 net.motss:2070 net.flame:11952

--
[I said, in response to Frank Silvermann]
> > Sorry, you can't simply define away the problem [porn].  The fact is
> > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does
> > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize
> > their oppression.  What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify
> > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make
> > pornographers responsible for their actions.

[Evelyn Leeper]
> Oh, does this mean that men who feel they are defamed by feminists
> who claim "all men are rapists" can sue them and expect to collect?
> 
> 					Evelyn C. Leeper

Sorry for the oversimplification.  First off, there's a difference
between having status to sue and expecting to collect.  Second,
having status to sue (in US law, anyway) is predicated on the
notion of real (i.e., monetary or reducable thereto) damages.  It's
not a matter of feeling one is defamed--you have to be able to show
how you, personally (or as a class, I suppose), were materially wronged.
Some types of published material are already subject to such law.
Who was it (Liz Taylor?) who took the National Enquirer to the cleaners?

This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn
leads to censorship", is bogus.  There is no "leads to", only "comes
from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights".  (It's under-
standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.)  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 personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term,
libelous.  I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights,
my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any
analogous responsibilities.  I thought that ethical egoism (the notion
that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally
bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101.  Now, these folks have almost
no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even
those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they
don't know.  Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry
hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it
false.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  17 Sep 85 [1ier Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***