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