Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!rpk
From: rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Smut and Free Speech
Message-ID: <1298@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 12:01:10 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1298
Posted: Thu Feb 16 12:01:10 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 06:16:47 EST
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 46

Since when is sexual harassment ``speech'' ?  I'm afraid that the soi-disant
``liberal'' interpretation of ``speech,'' which has been over-extended to
things like occupying other peoples' land without asking them, has finally
backfired.

As far as child pornography goes: I don't claim to have a totally coherent
position on the rights of children, but I doubt that most children would either
voluntarily participate in the making of such material, nor would they
understand the consequences.  Child pornography, as I understand it, as bad
because its child participants are too immature to make a choice, to make an
uncoerced decision.  If someone could come up with ``synthetic'' kiddie porn,
maybe that would be a different story.  

What I am getting at here is, I don't consider sexual harrassment a free speech
issue: it is clearly a kind of coercion in which one's sexual ``space'' is
being invaded.  Therefore, this reasoning:

	Sexual harrassment is bad speech.
		[I'd say is a bad *action*.]
	Pornography is bad speech.
	Sexual harrassment is against the law.
		[And quite rightly so.]
	Therefore, pornography is sexual harrassment, and should be against the
	law.

is consistent, but the premise that holds it all together is *WRONG*.

Pornography, no matter how disgusting to onlooking parties, does not have the
same effect: I challenge anyone on the network to give evidence that
pornography *causes* sexual harrassment or sexual violence against women.
Please note, too, that many European countries, are very lax about pornography,
and these governments are of the enlightened socialist ilk, where they probably
bravely championed the cause against stodgy Old Guard types.

There's a grievous legal danger in the ``civil rights'' (oh the doublespeak !)
attack on pornography: by claiming that the mere availability of certain
materials actually violates rights, without legally being required to show the
cause and effect relationship (and prehaps impugning bad faith on the
pornographer's part), a successfull attack would expand the bounds of legal
reponsibility to unmanagable frontiers.
-- 
``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski)
ARPA:		RpK@MC
MIT Local:	RpK@OZ
UUCP:		genradbo!miteddie!rpk
	or	genradbo!miteddie!mitvax!rpk