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