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: Real Dirt on Porn Message-ID: <6919@watmath.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 18:29:16 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.6919 Posted: Thu Feb 16 18:29:16 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 00:04:01 EST Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 47 Pornography as I see it: 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). It is clear to me that erotica is a legitimate phenomenon, both from personal experience and others' experiences. Some way is then needed to distinguish erotica from pornography. Or is it? Let us judge the desirabilty of writings, films, etc. not on the amount of flesh shown, or whether or not penetration is graphically depicted; let us instead judge on the basis of what is being advocated. The advocacy of a criminal act should be seen in the same light as the criminal act itself. Stag films portraying rape as a valid way for men to obtain sexual enjoyment is clearly advocacy of rape. A film of a couple making love (no matter how graphic) is advocating something many of us quite rightfully enjoy. Note that this solution is open to abuses in judgement. I feel that any method of limiting communication will have that problem. This method is, however, clearly tied to criminal law: a more enduring standard than ``current morality''. This proposal completely short circuits the various definitions of ``pornography'', and manages to admit the existence of valid erotica. In fact, let's call the phenomenon "Advocacy of Criminal Acts or Inhumanity." That's a more useful thing to talk about than pornography. Since people are objecting to the *influence* of ACAI on society, it makes sense to prohibit those things which would have undesirable influences. This stands in stark contrast to common current practice in which a priori rules which describe what may or may not be depicted are used as censorship guides. It's obvious that what should be legislated is not what may not occur, but what may not be advocated. ``Morality is an issue for the individual, criminality is an issue for society.'' Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730 PS. The goals (and hence the advocacy) of a work are not something that can be considered in a vacuum. The goals of the people who produced it, as well as the people who consume it, must be considered. There seems to be a tendency in Ontario to ignore these principles and evaluate works without considering their context.