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!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!twltims From: twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Pornography Message-ID: <6955@watmath.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 12:08:14 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.6955 Posted: Mon Feb 20 12:08:14 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 04:54:10 EST References: <6728@cca.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 134 This is my (Tracy's) reponse to an article posted by Charlie Kaufman which criticised my original article on pornography. My responses are indented. The quote in Charlie's article is from my original article. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie: > > 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. Tracy (me): I am not going to spend much time on your article. For an example of what I consider to be a clearly reasoned and valid response to my original posting see Jon Mauney's article, <2502@nscu.UUCP>. You seem to have misunderstood my article. I completely throw out consideration of ``pornography'' because I don't consider it a useful idea. I refuse to even talk about it. There are, however, real violent crimes. It is these that I address. Your paragraph above does not represent (to me) a meaningful response to my article. 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? You are right. But people can be taught to find certain things acceptable. I would prefer that people are taught that murder or rape are unacceptable. If someone started teaching that murder and rape were acceptable behaviour, I would like society (read me writ large) to be able to stop the teaching. 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. There are ``political views'' that I would suppress. I could claim the acceptability of virgin sacrifice as a political or religious view. Given the goals that I have for the society I live in, I would feel justified banning the expression and propagation of those views. I live in a country that doesn't have a first amendment. Canada. 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 don't believe that the collective predjudice of any mass of people constitute wisdom. Wisdom is something aquired through hard work, and most people don't. Sometimes ideas are opposed by people who see in them some threat to their own vested interests. I pay attention to people who oppose these ideas in terms of the social goals that I think are important. That is, if we both agree that violence is bad, or discrimination is bad (even though I might personally benefit from it) then we can disagree on how to stop it. If we fail to agree on the first point, we have nothing more to talk about. Unfortunately, these things that I think are ``wrong'' are of great use to certain classes of people. (eg. discrimination). I have no qualms in disrespecting such people and their attitudes. --- 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 I don't see how you demonstrated that I was guilty of a dangerous line of reasoning. It's interesting that all your criticism seems to be based on the very first paragraph of my article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy (me) for a wrap up: I would like to go on record as being completely pro smut (read erotica). Since current thought on pornography would mix erotica up with the undesirable stuff, as well as missing what I think are the important issues, I offered this as an alternative. Remember: ``Criminality (and survival) are issues for society, Morality is an issue for the individual.'' Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730