Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!mauney
From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.misc
Subject: Re: Real Dirt on Porn
Message-ID: <2507@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 14:21:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ncsu.2507
Posted: Tue Feb 21 14:21:59 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 04:34:16 EST
References: <6919@watmath.UUCP>, <2502@ncsu.UUCP>, <6954@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh
Lines: 61

I understand Tracy Tims to be saying the following about those
forms of entertainment that could be categorized as "Smut (I love it)".
(correct me if I'm wrong)
     Smut is currently controlled by restriction against showing
     certain parts of the body,  or certain activities,  or those
     things that are offensive according to "prevailing community
     standards.
     The current restrictions are suboptimal.
     We should attempt instead to restrict those movies, and other
     forms of communication,  that tend to promote actions which 
     present a danger to the community.  E.g. inciting to riot
     is a crime -- inciting to rape should at least be obscene.
Some subtleties are, of course, lost in simplification.

The suggestion is laudable in that it attempts to put a more workable
criterion on what is acceptable.  It also takes a more reasonable slant
than the current situation which says that "pubic hair is a no-no, but
axe murders are ok."  However,  in the end I believe that Tracy's
suggestion falls prey to the same problems that plague any other attempt
to define what is and isn't "obscene":

     Tracy is worried about violent crimes, such as rape, and not
     about "crimes against nature,"  such as sodomy.  That's fine
     (and I agree with her) and that view could be written into the
     law.  But the Rev. Jerry Falwell thinks that fornication is
     a danger to the community;  there are, no doubt,  people who
     believe that fornication is actually *worse* than rape, because
     rape only affects the physical body,  whereas fornication affects
     the immortal soul.  By legislating your ideas about violence,
     you leave the door ajar for legislation about non-violent
     activities that others may not approve of.  You may see a clear
     line around violence that makes it different,  but others may
     disagree.

     Intended effect is not only difficult to prove (look at libel
     cases)  but in this case will not get you anywhere.  The 
     intended effect of a porno movie is to separate fools from
     money.  The effect that patrons are looking for is enjoyment.
     I don't have any evidence on this,  but I'd be willing to
     bet my jar of pennies that those people who are moved to
     violence by violent porn do NOT go to the movie for the 
     purpose of building up their courage to commit a crime.
     If studies show otherwise,  please let me know.
     In any case,  for the majority,  the intended and
     actual effect is quite harmless.  Why should they suffer
     for the crimes of the few?

     There is also the purely pragmatic problem that any reasonable
     reading of the proposed restrictions would do away with
     mad-slasher movies,  which prevailing community standards
     inexplicably find acceptable.  Opposition to such restrictions
     would be tremendous.

I get the impression that Tracy and I mostly agree about censorship
in general, and as it exists today.  I am not convinced that Tracy's
proposal would actually work,  nor that if it worked, it would make
things very much safer.  It is worth discussing, though.
-- 

_Doctor_                           Jon Mauney,    mcnc!ncsu!mauney
\__Mu__/                           North Carolina State University