Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <7800461@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 20:27:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800461
Posted: Mon Sep 23 20:27:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:19:08 EDT
References: <2061@mnetor.UUCP>
Lines: 66
Nf-ID: #R:mnetor:-206100:inmet:7800461:177600:3183
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Sep 23 20:27:00 1985


>/* Written  8:05 pm  Sep  8, 1985 by sophie@mnetor in inmet:net.politics */
>/* ---------- "Re: A suggestion for a ground rule" ---------- */
>...It is one thing to object
>to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses
>no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another
>to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat.
>I object to pornography for this reason.  It scares the hell out
>of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and
>decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will.  That
>has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their
>own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety.

Excuse me, but even if a very strong statistical, as opposed
to causal, link between pornography and violence existed, you still 
would have no kick coming.

There are laws against people raping you, attacking you, detaining
you.  or even threatening you.  These laws are just and worthwhile.

There are NO laws against people fantasizing about doing these things,
no laws against deciding to do them, but there are laws against doing
them.  Why?  Because it only harms you when these things are done, not
when they are considered.

Eliminating pornography because there might be (my understanding is that
it is hardly beyond argument) a statistical link between porn and violence
ignores the point: violence is already illegal.  If you could show that
some people react involuntarily with violence when confronted with porn, you
could perhaps legitimately make it a crime to show THOSE people pornographic
things.

As it is, I don't know of any such identifiable class of people, and the
violence you fear is already against the law.  To object that making
porn illegal would result in fewer rapes per year is silly.  Segregating
men and women might accomplish the same objective, as might castrating
all men.  The fact is that our society is free enough to recognize 
(most times) that it is the CRIME that is the thing to be made illegal,
not the circumstances which MIGHT lead to crime.

>
>....  Nobody's objecting to
>people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate
>literature which endangers their safety.

Then sue for reckless endangerment!  Of course, if you don't
think you could win.....

>>     So my advice, to those who are considering jumping
>>on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice
>>about what you are doing.  By attacking one of society's
>>basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire
>>women's rights movement.
>
>Gee, and I thought the right to physical safety was one of our
>society's basic rights too.  Sounds like some rights have to
>be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada)
>

That's EXACTLY right.  The danger of censorship  (which carries with
it the rationale that the state may PREVENT certain non-violent,
non-intrusive behavior because non-identifiable folks MIGHT react in
dangerous ways) must be balanced against an unproven implicit claim:
that you would be safer in a society where pornographers operate
outside the law.  (Remember, making pornography illegal merely makes
it illegal -- it doesn't stop it).