Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!charlie From: charlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Pornography Message-ID: <6728@cca.UUCP> Date: Sun, 19-Feb-84 13:55:42 EST Article-I.D.: cca.6728 Posted: Sun Feb 19 13:55:42 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Feb-84 20:15:12 EST Lines: 52 > > 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. 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? 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. 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 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