Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!twltims
From: twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography
Message-ID: <6955@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 12:08:14 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.6955
Posted: Mon Feb 20 12:08:14 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 04:54:10 EST
References: <6728@cca.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 134


This is my (Tracy's) reponse to an article posted by Charlie Kaufman which
criticised my original article on pornography.  My responses are indented.

The quote in Charlie's article is from my original article.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie:

>
> 	There are laws which proscribe violent action, the spread of hatred,
> dicrimination, etc.  It is generally agreed that these laws are a good thing.
> It seems to be quite reasonable to have the law also proscribe the advocacy
> of these things.  This is the realm of criminal law.  (I see various forms
> of Inhumanity as criminal acts, as well).
>
How do I attack thee; let me count the ways...

1) OK.  The various forms of pornography are evil and there should be
laws against them.  It seems quite reasonable to have the law proscribe
the advocacy of these things.  Anyone who advocates the legalization of
pornography (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you) should be prosecutable
as a criminal.

	Tracy (me):

	I am not going to spend much time on your article.  For an
	example of what I consider to be a clearly reasoned and valid
	response to my original posting see Jon Mauney's article,
	<2502@nscu.UUCP>.

	You seem to have misunderstood my article.  I completely
	throw out consideration of ``pornography'' because
	I don't consider it a useful idea.  I refuse to even talk
	about it.  There are, however, real violent crimes.  It is
	these that I address.

	Your paragraph above does not represent (to me) a meaningful
	response to my article.

2) Pornography does not advocate anything.  Only people advocate things.
Most producers of pornography do not advocate the results you describe -
they are just trying to make a buck (Larry Flint may be an exception,
but in my opinion such a presumption is giving him much more credit than
he deserves).  So where is the advocacy, and who interprets it?

	You are right.  But people can be taught to find certain
	things acceptable.  I would prefer that people are taught
	that murder or rape are unacceptable.  If someone started
	teaching that murder and rape were acceptable behaviour, I
	would like society (read me writ large) to be able to stop
	the teaching.

3) If pornography is vile material appealing to ones prurient interest
without redeeming social value, one could argue that there is no reason
society should tolerate it.  On the other hand, if it is a political
expression of the view that women should be treated as sex objects, that
they are good for nothing else, and that that is what they really want
anyway, then the expression of such political views is expressly
protected by the first amendment of the constitution.  Would you
suppress certain political views because you disagree with them?  Are
you afraid that expressing such views in an open forum is dangerous
because too many people might agree with them?  Well, that's what the
first amendment is for; for preventing vested interests (even
majorities) from suppressing opposing views by preventing their
publication.

	There are ``political views'' that I would suppress.  I
	could claim the acceptability of virgin sacrifice
	as a political or religious view.  Given the goals that
	I have for the society I live in, I would feel justified
	banning the expression and propagation of those views.

	I live in a country that doesn't have a first amendment.
	Canada.

4)  I think to say that "it is generally agreed that these laws
(proscribing violent action, the spread of hatred, discrimination, etc.)
are a good thing" is a bit of an overstatement.  While violence has few
adherents, the laws enacted in the name of preventing it can be highly
controversial.  Current anti-discrimination laws may well be opposed by
the majority of the population (depending on how you word the survey
question).

	I don't believe that the collective predjudice of any
	mass of people constitute wisdom.  Wisdom
	is something aquired through hard work, and most people
	don't.  Sometimes ideas are opposed by people who
	see in them some threat to their own vested interests.
	I pay attention to people who oppose these ideas in terms
	of the social goals that I think are important.

	That is, if we both agree that violence
	is bad, or discrimination is bad (even though I might
	personally benefit from it) then we can disagree on how
	to stop it.  If we fail to agree on the first point,
	we have nothing more to talk about.  Unfortunately,
	these things that I think are ``wrong'' are of great
	use to certain classes of people.  (eg. discrimination).
	I have no qualms in disrespecting such people and
	their attitudes.

---

I hate to go on record as being pro-smut (after all, you never know who
might be reading these things), but I couldn't resist attacking a
dangerous line of reasoning.

                          --Charlie Kaufman
                            charlie@cca
                            ...decvax!cca!charlie

	I don't see how you demonstrated that I was guilty of
	a dangerous line of reasoning.

	It's interesting that all your criticism seems to be based
	on the very first paragraph of my article.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracy (me) for a wrap up:

I would like to go on record as being completely pro smut (read erotica).
Since current thought on pornography would mix erotica up with the
undesirable stuff, as well as missing what I think are the important
issues, I offered this as an alternative.

	Remember:

	``Criminality (and survival) are issues for society,
	Morality is an issue for the individual.''

	Tracy Tims	{linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
			The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730