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!watmath!twltims From: twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) Newsgroups: net.women,net.misc Subject: Re: Real Dirt on Porn Message-ID: <6954@watmath.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 11:23:19 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.6954 Posted: Mon Feb 20 11:23:19 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 07:17:26 EST References: <6919@watmath.UUCP>, <2502@ncsu.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 106 This is my (Tracy's) response to Jon Mauney's criticism of my original article. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Mauney (mcnc!ncsu!mauney): Tracy Tims has an interesting idea: don't ban pornography that depicts graphic sex, ban films that promote rape and/or other crimes. This would give a much more objective and workable guideline. Unfortunately: 1) which crimes are not to be shown? If it is the glorification of crime that we object to, then a lot of very good movies are in trouble. A lot of movies show people getting away with murder; The Sting certainly glorified fraud. If someone makes a movie that depicts littering (and creating a nuisance) will he be fined 50 dollars and made to pick up the garbage? Tracy Tims: That's a very good question. I feel that it would be important to make a distinction between crimes of property (theft, fraud, etc.) and crimes against people (murder, rape, assault, spreading hate, discrimination). Crimes against people are the target. The prohibition of this class of crime is a much more universal social norm (and goal) than the prohibition of littering. 2) XXX-rated movies (so I'm told) often depict adultery, fornication, incest, and Infamous Crimes Against Nature -- activities which are still illegal in many places. Porno movies without such activities would be even more boring than they currently are. I am not talking about banning the advocacy of all criminal activity. I am only talking about banning the advocacy of criminal activity where such advocacy is strongly suspected of having undersireable effects (increasing violence, crime) on society. 3) Restrictions could be easily circumvented. For example, I could make a movie that graphically depicts a man raping and murdering many women. I would draw this out for about 90 minutes -- especially the sex scenes -- to emphasize the brutal and inhuman nature of this man. Then I would show him arrested, tried, and put behind bars. I would make this part last about five minutes, to show the swift application of justice. Voila! a morality play, suitable for schoolchildren: If You're Mean, You'll Go To Prison. I could argue my artistic vision in court for years, and I probably would win. And if the prosecution wants to argue the influence my movie has, they'll have to find someone who saw my movie and was thus motivated to commit a rape he would not otherwise have committed. But as I said in the footnote to my original article, one has to evaluate the film on the presumed intended effect. One has to take into account the audience reaction, and the intent of the makers. A difficult job to be sure. Also, the question of what is suitable for children is one that I am intentionally not addressing. Tracy admits that there are problems with any attempt to restrict forms of communication. I agree. That is why there should be no restrictions at all, unless a clear and present danger can be shown. This is an attitude I respect. I will explain below. The question is ``is there a clear and present danger?'' As I said above, I would only ban under the same circum- stance. The way to prevent rape is to find out why some men are mentally ill. Censoring movies will not work. I am not sure I agree with you on this point. Yes, find out why there is violence. Also, like any disease, prevent it's spread. It's a matter of survival. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A longer explanation (me (Tracy) again): I think that society has a right to ensure it's own survival, and to attempt to create a safe environment for the individual. I want to live in a society where others will not think it acceptable to commit violent or inhuman acts. That's a purely personal idea. If it is at all acceptable to perform those acts, then my security is threatened, and society isn't working the way I think it should. I think that it is possible to teach people that violent or inhuman acts are acceptable. I think that the prevention of such teaching is a useful and valid idea given the goals of society. Here is the problem. As long as we censor, there will be weaknesses in the laws allowing abuse. Whether or not you agree with my proposal seems to rest upon whether you think there will be more harm done by my kind or censorship, or by no censorship at all. For the nonce, this is a matter of taste and judgement. I respect both views. Since censorship DOES exist, and is currently constituted on specious criteria (see my last article) I feel that an improvement would certainly be made by making the criteria reflect the actual goals of society and censorship, rather than the moral norms of our ancestors. Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730