What "Exactly" Is Kiddie-Porn (a serious question)
jmg
This is a hard one to ask!
A guy in NJ was found guilty of some kiddie-porn charge, to wit;
>Authorities say Byrnes had possess at least one hundred and eighty graphic image files
>containing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
What if those pictures did not have any actual sex going on? What if they were
photo's of kids from a vacation on the beach at St. Tropez? Would they still be
considered kiddie porn? What if it was a family photo from a nudist camp?
(I'm so embarrassed asking this)
Where does the law draw the line? You hear cases of people working at photo labs
who call the police because of pics they think are kiddie porn simply because
they are snapshots of naked children, and you hear that the DA will prosecute.
Can they? Do they?
I know this is a touchy subject and one that brings great paranoia but I don't
understand the laws (at least in the US) and I DO NOT INTEND TO TEST THEM (I
swear!).
Anyone care to take a stab at this?
J
--
Shadow boxing in the dark. [www.bongoboy.com]
bobgoblin2000
This is the eternal debate. Locally, the obscenity of Mapplethorpe's
photos of nude and semi-nude children were tested in Cincinnati courts.
I saw them when they were on display here and thought they were great.
The idea of them being pornographic never entered my mind until after the
suit was filed.
For some, it comes down to nudity = pornography hence nudity + children =
kiddie porn. And these few people think it in the best interest of all
to stamp out such things.
Even in Mapplethorpe's photos, there is a great difference in a little
girl sitting on a step holding a flower - and you can see that she's not
wearing any underwear - compared to a nude man with a bullwhip stuck up
his ass.
There's never going to be any set regulations in the U.S. And with the
Supreme Courts decision to leave it up to community standards, the
community will always be divided.
--
el señor lyons
BOBGOBLIN EXTRAORDINAIRE
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/8009/bobgoblin.html
Bob Timmermann
jmg wrote:
>
> This is a hard one to ask!
>
> A guy in NJ was found guilty of some kiddie-porn charge, to wit;
>
> >Authorities say Byrnes had possess at least one hundred and eighty graphic image files
> >containing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
>
> What if those pictures did not have any actual sex going on? What if they were
> photo's of kids from a vacation on the beach at St. Tropez? Would they still be
> considered kiddie porn? What if it was a family photo from a nudist camp?
>
> (I'm so embarrassed asking this)
>
> Where does the law draw the line? You hear cases of people working at photo labs
> who call the police because of pics they think are kiddie porn simply because
> they are snapshots of naked children, and you hear that the DA will prosecute.
> Can they? Do they?
>
> I know this is a touchy subject and one that brings great paranoia but I don't
> understand the laws (at least in the US) and I DO NOT INTEND TO TEST THEM (I
> swear!).
>
> Anyone care to take a stab at this?
Supreme Court,
unlike adult pornography. IIRC, the Court ruled that any pictures of
minors engaged in
sexual activity was considered child pornography and not a form of
protected speech.
Naked pictures of underage children can be considered child pornography.
Child pornography does not have a community standards rule, nor can you
argue that
the material is covered by the SLAPS test (Serious Literary, Artistic,
Political, or
Social value.)
You should be able to find a copy of the decision somewhere on the web
as it is
a very famous opinion. I believe Justice White wrote the opinion
sometime in the early
1980s.
--
Bob Timmermann
South Pasadena CA
j...@radix.ignorethis.net
jmg <jmg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: What if those pictures did not have any actual sex going on? What if they were
: photo's of kids from a vacation on the beach at St. Tropez? Would they still
: be considered kiddie porn? What if it was a family photo from a nudist camp?
I would say that it's kiddie porn if the kids are being exploited in
some way. You can probably take pictures of your own naked kids/family, but
taking pictures of other people's naked kids/family is verboten. Quantity
comes in also. A few pictures of your kids streaking around the beach is o.k.,
but exposing a whole roll of film would draw the cops.
Terry Nielsen
jmg <jmg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> : What if those pictures did not have any actual sex going on? What if they were
> : photo's of kids from a vacation on the beach at St. Tropez? Would they still
> : be considered kiddie porn? What if it was a family photo from a nudist camp?
>
Tough one to define in words, yet in practice I have no problem
distinguishing between pictures that are taken in fun, and those that
have an expoitative purpose.
If you can't take pictures of your naked kids, then I suppose the days
of those photos that you pull out and embarrass the hell out of your
teenagers in front of their boyfriends/girlfriends are gone.
On the other hand, if the fact that the kids are naked seems to be the
intent and subject of the picture, rather than just incidental to it,
then I see that as starting to get into pornography.
--
-Terry Nielsen
Maple Ridge, B.C.
Canada
jmg
Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
>If you can't take pictures of your naked kids, then I suppose the days
>of those photos that you pull out and embarrass the hell out of your
>teenagers in front of their boyfriends/girlfriends are gone.
Lord knows my mom has kept those baby pictures/8mm movies of me and tries to
bring them out on a pretty regular basis. "You looked so cute" she says. After
some 40 years I'm still embarrassed by it all. (and you think she'd learn by
now? Mothers!)
>On the other hand, if the fact that the kids are naked seems to be the
>intent and subject of the picture, rather than just incidental to it,
>then I see that as starting to get into pornography.
I can imagine that someone could look at an art photo in two different ways, one
as an art photo and one with, well... you know. So then, does the photographer
get in trouble because someone looked at their photograph in a particular way?
It's all so confusing.
Captain Schmideo
>So my question has always been...what offense did the guy actually
>commit? No matter what he *thought* he was doing, he wasn't actually
>communicating with an underage girl about sex. Furthermore, despite his
>intent, it wouldn't have been possible for him in this case to commit
>the offense.
>
I think you can compare it to the guy who hires someone to kill his wife,
only to find out that he just got busted by an undercover detective. Or the
terrorist who buys a "nuke" from an FBI agent. Or the John who propositions
an undercover lady cop. Yeah, no crime was actually committed, because it
was not "carried out".
BUT, the criminal INTENT was still there, and that's good enough to appear
before the Judge.
(Jose Diaz)(JRDelirious)
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 21:43:19 GMT, jmg...@ix.netcom.com (jmg) wrote:
>This is a hard one to ask!
>
>I know this is a touchy subject and one that brings great paranoia but I don't
>understand the laws (at least in the US) and I DO NOT INTEND TO TEST THEM (I
>swear!).
>
And recently things are getting ever so more confusing.
Insofar as "candid" snapshots, it's a matter of the good sense of the
guys at the photo lab. As someone else said in the thread, one or two
pics of the kids streaking on the beach may be OK, half a roll of a
minor posing nude will get you a visit from Child Protection or even
the Vice Squad, curious to hear what your explanation may be.
(though in many US jurisdictions they're likelier to actually raid
your house and have your name all over the media as a suspected
pervert ringleader first, and *THEN* ask you for your explanation)
In the more mainstream commercial-production field, there has been a
recent trend to define child pornography in the State and municipal
statutes as any material that portrays what appears to be a minor
engaged in sexual activity, or portrays the apparent minor in a "lewd"
way. The film "The Tin Drum" was impounded in a city in Oklahoma due
to this definition, and the current remake of "Lolita" faced this
trouble when trying to get released in the USA.
There are current proposals to outlaw any images meeting this loose
definition even if the images are drawings or computer-*created*(not
just manipulated) graphics wherein no real live minor (or
minor-looking adult) were involved. (The argument being they may be
used as "stimulant" by the pedophiles)
JRD
Terry Nielsen
(Jose Diaz)(JRDelirious) wrote:
> There are current proposals to outlaw any images meeting this loose
> definition even if the images are drawings or computer-*created*(not
> just manipulated) graphics wherein no real live minor (or
> minor-looking adult) were involved. (The argument being they may be
> used as "stimulant" by the pedophiles)
This reminds me of a case I heard a while back that still has me
puzzled.
A man was charged after arranging to meet a fourteen year old girl for
sex. He had struck up a conversation with her on the internet which was
carried on for some time. Eventually the suggestion was made that they
made in a motel. He was arrested when he got to the motel.
Trouble was, the girl never existed. It was a police detective on the
other end of the computer the whole time.
So my question has always been...what offense did the guy actually
commit? No matter what he *thought* he was doing, he wasn't actually
communicating with an underage girl about sex. Furthermore, despite his
intent, it wouldn't have been possible for him in this case to commit
the offense.
As much as I despise pedophiles, that one has always bothered me.
Tim Robinson
Either "Captain Schmideo" <cshm...@ionet.nospamnet> or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
>
>
>>So my question has always been...what offense did the guy actually
>>commit? No matter what he *thought* he was doing, he wasn't actually
>>communicating with an underage girl about sex. Furthermore, despite his
>>intent, it wouldn't have been possible for him in this case to commit
>>the offense.
>>
>
>
>only to find out that he just got busted by an undercover detective. Or the
>terrorist who buys a "nuke" from an FBI agent. Or the John who propositions
>an undercover lady cop. Yeah, no crime was actually committed, because it
>was not "carried out".
>BUT, the criminal INTENT was still there, and that's good enough to appear
>before the Judge.
In those instances, there is some semblance of reality that someone is
trying to carry out. That is, paying an unsuccessful hitman is as
criminal as paying a cop who has no intention of doing a killing. Ditto
trying to pick up a lady cop. You may be right on the bomb thing,
though.
OTOH, if you follow all that goes on -- for example -- on IRC, you'll
notice lots of adults playing head-games with each other. In the
original situation (guy talking with adult who pretends to be underage)
would it be a positive defence to say that he really believed it was an
adult wanting to do role playing?
| Tim Robinson | Lonely Web page. Please visit. |
| timt...@ionet.net | http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by |
| men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." L. Brandeis |
Fake e-mail used for spam fighting. Please use the one in the sig.
Terry Nielsen
Captain Schmideo wrote:
>
> I think you can compare it to the guy who hires someone to kill his wife,
> only to find out that he just got busted by an undercover detective. Or the
> terrorist who buys a "nuke" from an FBI agent. Or the John who propositions
> an undercover lady cop. Yeah, no crime was actually committed, because it
> was not "carried out".
> BUT, the criminal INTENT was still there, and that's good enough to appear
> before the Judge.
I certainly have considered that, but in my view it still doesn't
explain it. You are talking about the category of 'attempted' crime.
But what about where there is intent and attempt, but the end crime
being contemplated never existed in the first place?
In the case of the guy hiring the hit man, the wife exists. There is a
crime which is capable of occurring being planned, with (fortunately) an
undercover officer the recipient of the request.
In the case of solicting prostitution, it doesn't matter that the cop is
not really a prostitute. The crime, at least in Canada, is usually the
act of soliciting sex for money (in public only in Canada). If the john
approaches the cop and says 'how about a blowjob for 20 bucks', then he
has certainly solicited sex for money, and the crime has been committed.
But the fourteen year old girl in my original question never existed in
the first place. So, no matter what the mans intentions were, what crime
could he ever have committed?
Consider the similar analogy:
Undercover cops take a bag filled with flour and mark it "100% pure
Heroin". They then leave it on a sidewalk. You come along, see the
bag, think to yourself "hey I can sell this stuff and make a fortune!".
You pick it up, and are immediately descended upon by the cops and
charged with attempted trafficking.
You thought it was heroin, you certainly intended to do something
illegal with it, but the heroin never existed in the first place. Have
you committed a crime?
(I don't pretend to know the definitive answer, but it's interesting
food for thought)
Tim Robinson
Either Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
>But the fourteen year old girl in my original question never existed in
>the first place. So, no matter what the mans intentions were, what crime
>could he ever have committed?
>
>Consider the similar analogy:
>
>Undercover cops take a bag filled with flour and mark it "100% pure
>Heroin". They then leave it on a sidewalk. You come along, see the
>bag, think to yourself "hey I can sell this stuff and make a fortune!".
>You pick it up, and are immediately descended upon by the cops and
>charged with attempted trafficking.
>
>You thought it was heroin, you certainly intended to do something
>illegal with it, but the heroin never existed in the first place. Have
>you committed a crime?
>
>(I don't pretend to know the definitive answer, but it's interesting
>food for thought)
That, more or less, is entrapment. The police really can't invite you
to do something wrong. Cops can try to position themselves such you
might try to commit a crime in their presence, but can't ask you
directly to do it unless they can show a pre-disposition on your part to
do it. A cop can dress like hooker and hang around the red-light
district and wait for a sucker, but can't just come up to you and say
"blow job, $20 bucks. You want?"
But, FWIW, there ARE thought crimes in America. If two people buy
$50,000 of a stock at the same day at the same time, but one of those
people thought he had inside information that the stock would do well,
that's a crime. It's not the activity being prosecuted, but rather what
the prosecution can prove about the person's intent. I believe this is
wrong, but there you have it.
SJF 1959
jmg...@ix.netcom.com (jmg) writes:
>I can imagine that someone could look at an art photo in two different ways,
one as an art photo and one with, well... you know.<
Unless you're Camille Paglia, and willing to argue that
that great art and pornography are overlapping
categories.
Regards from Deborah
http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Yiddishkeit code: S- Fa1,c=0 Ng M- K- H tI SYrc/A
Te!a P FO/s/m/sL/co D Tz+ E++ L Aw Ha hc--
j...@radix.ignorethis.net
SJF 1959 <sjf...@aol.com> wrote:
: jmg...@ix.netcom.com (jmg) writes:
: >I can imagine that someone could look at an art photo in two different ways,
: one as an art photo and one with, well... you know.<
: Unless you're Camille Paglia, and willing to argue that
: that great art and pornography are overlapping
: categories.
From my travels, I've come across art books with paintings by Matisse,
Picasso, and Degas that are quite clearly pornographic. I've never
seen one in a museum though, only in "private collections".
j...@radix.ignorethis.net
j...@radix.ignorethis.net wrote:
I also recall the Georgia O'Keefe's flower paintings were infamous. The
story goes that a New York socialite bought one to hang in her living room,
but later took it down when she found her husband giving her daughter a sex
education lecture using it as an illustration.
How about Beardsley, with his dynamite Lysistrata illustrations,
and Egon Schiele?
nur...@yahoo.com
Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a case I heard a while back that still has me
> puzzled.
>
> A man was charged after arranging to meet a fourteen year old girl for
> sex. He had struck up a conversation with her on the internet which was
> carried on for some time. Eventually the suggestion was made that they
> made in a motel. He was arrested when he got to the motel.
>
> Trouble was, the girl never existed. It was a police detective on the
> other end of the computer the whole time.
>
> commit? No matter what he *thought* he was doing, he wasn't actually
> communicating with an underage girl about sex. Furthermore, despite his
> intent, it wouldn't have been possible for him in this case to commit
> the offense.
O.k., I only got a "C+" when I took Criminal Law, but I think I can explain
this.
Here are the concepts involved: A crime consists of two parts: "Mens Rea" --
that is, the requisite level of intent; and "Actus Reus" -- a prohibited act.
Both are necessary for a crime to be committed. In addition, our discussion
will include the concept of "attempt"-- a person who had the required Mens
Rea to commit a crime and takes steps to bring about the Actus Reus can be
found guilty of "attempt" to commit a crime, even if the crime is never
actually committed (e.g. "attempted murder"). Finally, we will be discussing
"mistake of fact" and "mistake of law." A "mistake of fact" occurs when a
person *would* have successfully committed a crime, but for some mistaken
belief on the part of the potential criminal as to an essential fact
involving the crime (e.g. a person who believes he is buying heroin, but
actually buys sugar is guilty of "attempted possession of a controlled
substance" since, if the facts he believed to be true were true, he would
have committed the crime.) A person commits a "mistake of law" when they
intentionally commit all the acts necessary to commit what they believe to be
a crime, but which is not actually prohibited (e.g. a person who mistakenly
believes that burning the flag is unlawful intentionally burns a flag). A
person who would have committed a crime but for a mistake of fact is still
guilty of attempt (i.e. has shown both Actus Reus-- the attempt-- and Mens
Rea-- the intent), while a person who would have committed a crime but for a
mistake of law has done nothing wrong (i.e. had the requisite Mens Rea, but
did not commit any unlawful act.)
We'll assume for the moment that the man knew the "girl" was underage and
that he neverthless intended to have sex with her. Thus, he had the required
intent. The "bad act" in this case was taking an overt act to bring about the
completion of the act of having sex with her. Thus, while he cannot be
guilty of statutory rape (since no one was actually raped), he is guilty of
*attempted* statutory rape under a "mistake of fact" theory (he would have
committed the crime but for the fact that he mistook a police officer for the
14 year old). Ditto for the person who thinks he is buying drugs in a police
sting. Although he has mistakenly believed that the "powder" is, say,
cocaine, the defendant has intended to purchase an illegal substance and took
acts to bring about the completion of the crime. (Other common law school
"attempt based on mistake of fact" scenarios: the murderer who mistakenly
tries to kill using a starter's pistol; the would-be burglar who thinks he is
robbing a store but mistakenly breaks into an empty warehouse.)
By contrast, had the man simply sat at his computer and thought "I'd like to
have sex with a 14 year old," but never did anything more, he would have the
Mens Rea, but would not have taken an step towards completion of the crime.
No Actus Reus = no crime. Similarly, the man who has sex with the 14 year
old, but thinks she is of legal age would have committed the Actus Reus, but
would not have the requisite intent to commit a crime. [Of couse, since
statutory rape is a crime with a low intent threshold, most jurisdictions
would hold the man strictly liable for his act. But I'm trying to make a
point, so back off.] Once again, no crime committed.
The tricky legal part is deciding how close the man has to come to completing
the crime for there to be no reasonable doubt that, had the facts been as the
man believed, the actual crime would have been committed. That is, can the
police arrest him when he finishes arranging the meeting on the computer?
When he reserves the hotel room? When he arrives? When he first touches the
[decoy] "girl" in the room? etc. Overanxious cops can ruin a perfectly good
sting by jumping in too early. Most of the time, they'll let the scene play
out as long as possible before making the bust just to make sure (e.g. the
decoy prostitute takes the john all the way to the hotel room before the
police move in, rather then busting him after the solicitiation is complete,
thus avoiding the "I was just joking with her" defense.)
Finally, most U.S. jurisdictions punish the "attempted" crime with the same
penalty as if the crime were actually completed. Thus, the man could go to
jail for just as long as if he actually had sex with the 14 year old. (For
practical reasons, however, most judges would probably give the man a lesser
sentence, if for no other reason than there isn't an outraged victim
demanding a harsh punishment.)
--------------
-Nurlman
--------------
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Terry Nielsen
nur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
> > Trouble was, the girl never existed. It was a police detective on the
> > other end of the computer the whole time.
> >e offense.
>
> O.k., I only got a "C+" when I took Criminal Law, but I think I can explain
> this.
>
> Here are the concepts involved: A crime consists of two parts: "Mens Rea" --
> that is, the requisite level of intent; and "Actus Reus" -- a prohibited act.
<rest deleteted>
Impeccably well written and argued. Thanks for taking the time.
I still have gut reaction to the charge as being not right, but you have
me on the ropes with your explanation, and I'll definitely have to
rethink my argument :-)
Thanks,
Alan Hamilton
Here's a good one I heard on NPR. There is a man serving a
life sentence in prison, under a "three strikes" law. His three
crimes were three attempts to escape from prison.
What makes this interesting that the conviction that put him
in jail in the first place has been overturned. Were he not in for
attempted escape, he'd be free.
On one hand, it's illegal to escape from prison, he broke the
law, he has to deal with it. He should have stayed put and let the
case work itself out.
On the other hand, he was in prison for a crime that he knew
he didn't commit, but was convicted for. Leniency should be shown
since he was just trying to escape a system he knew that had failed
him.
I don't really know what to think about this case.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
SEEverist
Alan Hamilton wrote:
> There is a man serving a
>life sentence in prison, under a "three strikes" law. His three
>crimes were three attempts to escape from prison.
> What makes this interesting that the conviction that put him
>in jail in the first place has been overturned.
-snip-
>On the other hand, he was in prison for a crime that he knew
>he didn't commit, but was convicted for. Leniency should be shown
>since he was just trying to escape a system he knew that had failed
>him.
I would say that the system didn't necessarily fail him, but it took too long
for it to reach his desired results. So, he took the system into his own
hands and decided it would work for him in his way, albeit illegally.
If I decided a few years back that a 55 mph speed limit was too slow, and got
ticketed with doing 65 in a 55, and decided not to pay it or go to court on the
infraction, a warrant could be issued. I could be arrested at a later date and
charged with an FTA. Now, those same streets that I once, illegally, drove 65
on, are posted for 65 mph. I couldn't go back and have that (those) arrests
expunged from my record, since what I was doing was illegal at the time I did
them, regardless of the circumstances later. Or, say I did go to court later,
and it was dropped since the officer didn't show for court, or some other
reason. The FTA arrests would still stand, since I violated a court order to
appear.
I understand that 10 mph over the posted speed limit is a far cry from life in
prison, but the idea is the same, regardless of the severity of the crime.
Steve
Tim Robinson
Either seev...@aol.com (SEEverist) or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
Well, if you truly want to line that up with the original poster's
question, you had to have been driving 55 in the first place.
Tim Robinson
Either al...@primenet.com (Alan Hamilton) or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
> Here's a good one I heard on NPR. There is a man serving a
>life sentence in prison, under a "three strikes" law. His three
>crimes were three attempts to escape from prison.
> What makes this interesting that the conviction that put him
>attempted escape, he'd be free.
> On one hand, it's illegal to escape from prison, he broke the
>law, he has to deal with it. He should have stayed put and let the
>case work itself out.
>he didn't commit, but was convicted for. Leniency should be shown
>since he was just trying to escape a system he knew that had failed
>him.
I know what you mean. I had a friend who was up on federal charges.
Enough of them got droppped until he was down to two counts: 1) Making a
false statement to the IRS and 2) Conspiracy. At no time did the
prosecution ever attempt to prove #1 and it was about to be dropped as
well. Ultimately he was facing years in prison for conspiracy.
Conspiracy to do what, you may ask? Um... well, just conspiracy. Not
to do anything at all. Go figure. I guess we never would know
what would happen out of that because the whole thing got dropped to a
misdemeanor plea bargain after years of investigation and millions of
dollars. Your government at work.
SEEverist
Tim Robinson wrote:
>Well, if you truly want to line that up with the original poster's
>question, you had to have been driving 55 in the first place.
I was thinking about that, but the original poster said his conviction was
overturned, it doesn't say that he didn't do what it was that he had been
originally convicted of. I guess this was my long-winded way of saying that
the three escape charges are all separate crimes (he should have realized this
after getting caught the first time), although they resulted from an overturned
conviction.
On a side note, I didn't realize escape was a three-strikes crime.
Steve
Alan Hamilton
I found the original story. It was on NPR's "All Things Considered"
on June 3. You can listen to a RealAudio recording at
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/archives/1998/980603.atc.html
Here's the summary:
Melanie Peeples reports on the case of Michael Pardue. Pardue was
sentenced to life in prison in 1973 after being convicted of the
murders of three men. All three convictions were eventually overturned
because they were based on a forced confession. But Pardue is still in
jail because he tried to escape three times, earning him a life
without parole sentence under Alabama's "three strikes and you're out"
law.
Shack Toms
sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) wrote:
>Unless you're Camille Paglia, and willing to argue that
>that great art and pornography are overlapping
>categories.
If pornography did not have any power, nobody would care about it one
way or the other.
So I would agree with her that it is artistically powerful, but not
that it is great art. IMO in order to be great art, the message has
to inspire people to good purposes.
But perhaps she thought that it did that, in the sense that it made
explicit sexual power acceptable. But it doesn't have to be
acceptable nor explicit in order to be powerful.
Shack
--
"Only now, at the end, do you understand." -- Emperor Palpatine
SJF 1959
sh...@esinet.net (Shack Toms) writes:
>So I would agree with her that it is artistically powerful, but not
>that it is great art. IMO in order to be great art, the message has
>to inspire people to good purposes.
>
>But perhaps she thought that it did that, in the sense that it made
>explicit sexual power acceptable. But it doesn't have to be
>acceptable nor explicit in order to be powerful.
Shack, why don't you read her book "Vamps and Tramps,"
and let me know what you think about her argument?
I'm still revolving it in my mind, and I have to say that I'm
impressed by her attack on prissy ideas about great art.
Stop me before I become a Camille Pagliacolyte!
Ben Walsh
Tim Robinson wrote:
> Ultimately he was facing years in prison for conspiracy.
> Conspiracy to do what, you may ask? Um... well, just conspiracy. Not
> to do anything at all.
Once when I was young a large group of us were outside the US embassy
here in Dublin. We weren't actual doing anything except wondering what
to do next sort of thing. Two peelers came up and started telling us to
move on. One of our number was more argumentative than the others and
said "this is a public footpath, we have every right to gather here."
This was quite true. We weren't on the Embassy property or trying to be.
We weren't threatening or even protesting, just being a bunch of
teenagers loitering. Nonetheless, when the polis tell you to do
something relatively non-intrusive, you balance the hassle of doing it
with the hassle of what they might do to you and you usually do it.
So, harrassment, argument and so forth ensued and the inevitable
happened. Copper grabbed ringleader by the arm. "Assault! Police
Brutality! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Peeler sez "you're under arrest."
Our boy sez "under what charge?"
Peeler sez "resisting arrest."
Laughter. Eventually we went off and the two flatfeet went in other
direction (without arresting anyone). A very minor victory.
Not as cool as the incident recently where the forces of Laura Norder
attempted to break up a beach party rave but were seen off by the
participants who didn't like their night being interfered with.
ben
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The man with the telephone - | ben walsh
Put him in custody." | benw at iona dot com
-- Judge Terence Finn | http://bounce.to/heretic
Robert William Vesterman
If a person below the age cutoff for legal pornography makes an
indisputably pornographic film about himself or herself, without the
help or knowledge of anyone else (especially not any legal adults),
and, upon turning 18, wants to loose it upon the world, is that legal?
I'd imagine it's not. So why not? Who is hurt?
Bob Vesterman.
--
This is the coolest of all sig files.
Tim Robinson
Either be...@iona.nospam.please.wereirish.com or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
>Peeler sez "you're under arrest."
>
>Our boy sez "under what charge?"
>
>Peeler sez "resisting arrest."
>
>Laughter. Eventually we went off and the two flatfeet went in other
>direction (without arresting anyone). A very minor victory.
Heh... I always wondered if a cop ever tried that. I suppose a cop
could try to arrest you for "interfering with the duties of a police
officer" which is actually a crime in the USA. A few years ago, a cop
DID try that to a guy who merely said things to him and did nothing
physical. The case went all the way to the supreme court (minor case,
got little publicity). The court ruled that mere talking could not be
construed to interfere with police duties (first amendment rights + the
cop can always ignore speech). The ruling came down a matter of weeks
before a friend of mine got arrested for just the same thing. However,
he fancies himself to be a lawyer and knew more than anyone in our
county about the supreme court case. He got the arrest knocked out
immediately.
Tim Robinson
Either buo...@webspan.net (Robert William Vesterman) or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
>If a person below the age cutoff for legal pornography makes an
>indisputably pornographic film about himself or herself, without the
>help or knowledge of anyone else (especially not any legal adults),
>and, upon turning 18, wants to loose it upon the world, is that legal?
>
>I'd imagine it's not. So why not? Who is hurt?
Or an 18 year old husband and minor wife could do that. By the letter
of the law, they could arrest the guy for possession of pornographic
images of a minor, but could you imagine trying to get that past a jury?
What would complicate the issue is if they had gotten divorced while
she was still a minor.
Then there is the business with Tracy Lords. She was underage when she
made her first porno films, but lied about her age. It wasn't until
years later that she revealed that. So without any change in the laws
or change in the films, suddenly a bunch of law-abiding citizens who
happen to own one of her early films are transformed overnight into
criminal pedophiles based on Tracy's say-so years after the fact.
j...@radix.ignorethis.net
Shack Toms <sh...@esinet.net> wrote:
: sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) wrote:
: >Unless you're Camille Paglia, and willing to argue that
: >that great art and pornography are overlapping
: >categories.
: If pornography did not have any power, nobody would care about it one
: way or the other.
: So I would agree with her that it is artistically powerful, but not
: that it is great art. IMO in order to be great art, the message has
: to inspire people to good purposes.
What, pray tell, does Michelangelo's David inspire people to? Or
perhaps it's not great art. The business of art is beauty, not good works.
Russell Bornschlegel
Tim Robinson wrote:
>
> Either be...@iona.nospam.please.wereirish.com or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
> >Peeler sez "you're under arrest."
> >
> >Our boy sez "under what charge?"
> >
> >Peeler sez "resisting arrest."
> >
> >Laughter. Eventually we went off and the two flatfeet went in other
> >direction (without arresting anyone). A very minor victory.
>
> Heh... I always wondered if a cop ever tried that. I suppose a cop
> could try to arrest you for "interfering with the duties of a police
> officer" which is actually a crime in the USA.
An acquaintance of mine, who is a radio geek, has a large number
of radio antennae on his car, and frequently monitors police radio
traffic. He happened to be driving near the site of a undercover
narcotics operation, and monitored the cops as the cops were
wondering what was up with the car with all the antennae.
He wound up talking to the cops over the radio (not on a police
channel, possibly CB?), and they told him to clear out, because
his distinctive antenna-laden car might tip the suspects that
something was up. Fellow asserted his right to drive his car
along public streets. Cops drove after him and told him to
"stop following them". Fellow asked how he could be following
the cops when the cops were behind him. Cops followed him
home, where they chewed him out for some time for "interfering
with police", while a friend caught the whole thing on a
video camera.
I have to say, I'd rather have cops than no cops, but sometimes...
-Russell Bornschlegel
(Jose Diaz)(JRDelirious)
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 16:18:39 GMT, bogus@@see.sig.for.for.reply (Tim
Robinson) wrote:
>Either buo...@webspan.net (Robert William Vesterman) or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
>>If a person below the age cutoff for legal pornography makes an
>>indisputably pornographic film about himself or herself
>>and, upon turning 18, wants to loose it upon the world, is that legal?
>>
>>
>Or an 18 year old husband and minor wife could do that. By the letter
>of the law, they could arrest the guy for possession of pornographic
>images of a minor, but could you imagine trying to get that past a jury?
> What would complicate the issue is if they had gotten divorced while
>she was still a minor.
Hmm . . . would probably fall under a privacy-rights (civil) rather
than child-porn (criminal) case.
>
And then there are many jurisdictions wherein his/her parents' act of
granting consent for the marriage constitutes a conditional grant of
legal emancipation, to become effective upon completion of the
marriage proceedings. HOWEVER, in most cases the laws regarding age
and pornography address the age-18 datum as standing on its own
*regardless* of the person's legal status for other purposes.
>Then there is the business with Tracy Lords.
Um, that's "Traci", with an "i". But of course, what else would it be
for a nom-de-porn? (Nora Kuzma definitely is *not* a showbiz name)
>She was underage when she
>made her first porno films,
All but *one* of them, actually. And if we're going to take into
account publishers' lag times, some of her first nudie mag pics must
have dated from age 15.
> but lied about her age. It wasn't until
>years later that she revealed that.
When she decided she wanted out of the biz
> So without any change in the laws
>or change in the films, suddenly a bunch of law-abiding citizens who
>happen to own one of her early films are transformed overnight into
>criminal pedophiles based on Tracy's say-so years after the fact.
Yep, that's how it works. And the obligatory comment that she may
have been under 18, and might have been exploited, but was
definitely no "child", is worthless in a court.
JRD
John Vogel
Robert William Vesterman (buo...@webspan.net) wrote:
: If a person below the age cutoff for legal pornography makes an
: indisputably pornographic film about himself or herself, without the
: help or knowledge of anyone else (especially not any legal adults),
In the eyes of the law, is that person (the "actor/actress") qualified to
make such a decision as a minor?
John
jvo...@i1.net
Robert William Vesterman
"...upon turning 18..."
Roger B Jones Jr
I don't think it would much matter. I think that distributing it
would be considered distributing underage porn, even if it were the
subject of the film doing the distributing. Possessing it would
qualify for possession of illegal material as well, even for the
person so depicted. The law, in my understanding, doesn't qualify the
content by how it was produced or who possesses it; your example,
while trying to follow the spirit of the law (keep kids from being
abused), falls afoul of the letter of the law (stuff showing kids
having sex is illegal).
I also suspect that even if it were legal, they'd prosecute anyway. Better,
in the eyes of most politicians (including district attorneys), to try to
prosecute and fail, screaming about how your hands are tied by too-lax
laws, than to pay attention to whether you actually have a legal case.
However, I Am Not A Lawyer. Do Not Consider This As Valid Legal Advice.
Close Cover Before Striking. Not For Internal Use.
BJ
--
Brad Jones (rjo...@us.oracle.com), Senior Technical Staff, Project Bali
All opinions are mine, not Oracle's.
"If people think nature is their friend, then they sure don't need an enemy."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
John Vogel
Russell Bornschlegel (kal...@rahul.net) wrote:
:
: He wound up talking to the cops over the radio (not on a police
: his distinctive antenna-laden car might tip the suspects that
: something was up. Fellow asserted his right to drive his car
: along public streets. Cops drove after him and told him to
: "stop following them". Fellow asked how he could be following
: the cops when the cops were behind him. Cops followed him
: home, where they chewed him out for some time for "interfering
: with police", while a friend caught the whole thing on a
: video camera.
I'm surprised they didn't at least ticket him. I think using a scanner in an
automobile is illegal in some areas. I take mine in my car sometimes, but only
when listening to air traffic or when severe weather is occuring. I keep a low
profile, nonetheless.
John
jvo...@i1.net
nur...@yahoo.com
al...@primenet.com (Alan Hamilton) wrote:
> [To summarize: man is imprisioned for a crime, tries to escape three times
> and consequently serves life sentence for escape, even though original
> conviction is eventually overturned.]
>
> I don't really know what to think about this case.
Hmm. A sticky proposition. I know! Let's let Socrates handle it!
Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am
about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name
which you like), and the laws and the government come and
interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you
about? Are you going by an act of yours to overturn us -- the
laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you
imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in
which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside
and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer,
Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially
a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the
evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be
carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has
injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?
[...] Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a
victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for
evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you
have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, that
is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry
with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will
receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to
destroy us. Listen, then, to us and not to Crito.
Translation (for those who skipped Humanities classes in college): Socrates
found himself unjustly accused of corrupting the young and facing a death
sentence. His pupil Crito arreanged a means for Socrates to escape from jail
and flee. Socrates, ever the patient teacher, explaines to Crito that
escaping would violate the laws, and that even though Socrates himself was
unjustly accused, he must honor the laws, lest he sink to the level of those
who falsely accused him. To put it simply, Socrates' answer is "two wrongs
don't make a right," and thus, he refused to escape and was finally put to
death.
Ditto to the guy (woman?) in Alabama. Even assuming he was falsely accused
of the crime, civilization demands that people adhere to the laws, even if
those laws are occasionally applied incorrectly. By taking the law into his
own hands and attempting to escape, no matter how unjust he felt his
imprisionment was, he acted contrary to the interests of a civilized society
and should rightfully be punished for it.
Realistically speaking, it's tough for just about everyone buyt martyrs to
follow Socrates line of thinking, and most people, if offered the opportunity
to escape an unjust imprisonment would have done so. But, who said
civilization was easy?
------------
-Nurlman
Russell Bornschlegel
John Vogel wrote:
>
> Russell Bornschlegel (kal...@rahul.net) wrote:
> :
> : He wound up talking to the cops over the radio (not on a police
> : channel, possibly CB?), and they told him to clear out, because
> : his distinctive antenna-laden car might tip the suspects that
> : something was up. Fellow asserted his right to drive his car
> : [snip]
>
> I'm surprised they didn't at least ticket him. I think using a
> scanner in an
> automobile is illegal in some areas.
Presuming that the scanner is legal and off-the-shelf, on what
basis could using it in the car be illegal? I know some laws
don't have a lot of logical basis, but it would seem a valid
civil liberty to enjoy listening to a scanner in a car.
He and other people I know use scanners in-car, with plenty of
conspicuous antennae, and have done so for many years, so I
can't imagine that it's actually illegal in the SF Bay area.
-Russell Bornschlegel
Curtis Cameron
Russell Bornschlegel wrote:
>Presuming that the scanner is legal and off-the-shelf, on what
>basis could using it in the car be illegal? I know some laws
>don't have a lot of logical basis, but it would seem a valid
>civil liberty to enjoy listening to a scanner in a car.
>
>He and other people I know use scanners in-car, with plenty of
>conspicuous antennae, and have done so for many years, so I
>can't imagine that it's actually illegal in the SF Bay area.
Until recently (three or four years ago I heard this might have
changed), the FCC considered it to be a fundamental right of the
citizens to listen to anything on the airwaves. I believe they had
this interpretation because of first amendment reasons.
However, they were considering changing it because of the increasing
use of cellular phones and privacy issues. Seems like it's illegal to
listen to cellular conversations now, but everything else is fair
game, but I could be behind the times on this.
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
Shack Toms
nur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Hmm. A sticky proposition. I know! Let's let Socrates handle it!
On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson had a different slant...
"It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws in
opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of
death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them. The law
of nature impels every one to escape from confinement; it should not,
therefore, be subjected to punishment. Let the legislator restrain his
criminal by walls, not by parchment."
He did, however, recommend that those who aid in a jailbreak be
considered "accessaries after the fact".
The above is from "A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments"
that he had offered.
Thus, under Jefferson's scheme, Crito would have been guilty of a
crime in springing Plato, but a Jeffersonian society would not have a
law against Plato's leaving--so Plato could have escaped his
punishment with the clear conscience that he was not defying the state
in so doing. (Though perhaps he could not have a clear conscience in
helping Crito to spring him.)
Another problem for Plato, however, was that he did not consider
anywhere but Athens a proper place to live, so he had nowhere to
escape to. The Jeffersonian stance doesn't help there.
iv...@my-dejanews.com
In article <357D94...@rahul.net>,
kal...@rahul.net wrote:
>
> John Vogel wrote:
> >
> > I'm surprised they didn't at least ticket him. I think using a
> > scanner in an
> > automobile is illegal in some areas.
>
> basis could using it in the car be illegal? I know some laws
> don't have a lot of logical basis, but it would seem a valid
> civil liberty to enjoy listening to a scanner in a car.
>
> He and other people I know use scanners in-car, with plenty of
> conspicuous antennae, and have done so for many years, so I
> can't imagine that it's actually illegal in the SF Bay area.
>
Scanners are illegal in CA "in furtherance of a crime." While
I doubt that the scene described constitutes furtherance, one
can see why a cop might feel he had a case.
There are fairly minimal Federal laws on passive devices, but
State statutes vary considerably. A rundown can be found at:
http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/
chuc...@bellsouth.net
>nur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Trouble was, the girl never existed. It was a police detective on the
>> > other end of the computer the whole time.
>> >e offense.
>Impeccably well written and argued. Thanks for taking the time.
>
>I still have gut reaction to the charge as being not right, but you have
>me on the ropes with your explanation, and I'll definitely have to
>rethink my argument :-)
I think the detective's actions in this case are the key. If he goes
into a chat room saying "any of you horny old goats want to chat with
a hot, sexy underage girl", that would probably be entrapment. If he
just takes on the role of a 14 year old girl, and the man was the one
who "talked her into it", I think he's guilty of soliciting an
unlawful act with a minor. In your Heroin example, the entrapment is
clearer. What if theere were a series of auto thefts in a particular
part of town, where the thieves favored a certain model. Can the
police park one of those models on the street and stake it out to
catch the theives? Would it matter if the car was unocked? If the
keys were in the ignition?
chuckpro
Francis Lapeyre
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/605.shtml
contains an applicable Federal law. Basically, if you hear something over
the air that was not a broadcast, or from an amateur radio station or from a
ship or aircraft in distress, you cannot use for your own gain or divulge
the information. Period. Doesn't make it illegal to own a scanner, but you
can't share with the rest of the world.
Francis
---------------
Francis Lapeyre
Remove the obvious in my address to reply.
WARNING: Spammers will be hearing from their ISPs.
I WILL track you down and complain!
"An nescis, mi filli, quantilla prudentia mundus rogatur?"
iv...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6lmkv8$7d8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Charles A. Lieberman
Terry Nielsen
> A man was charged after arranging to meet a fourteen year old girl for
> sex. He had struck up a conversation with her on the internet which was
> carried on for some time. Eventually the suggestion was made that they
> made in a motel. He was arrested when he got to the motel.
>
> Trouble was, the girl never existed. It was a police detective on the
> other end of the computer the whole time.
>
> commit? No matter what he *thought* he was doing, he wasn't actually
> communicating with an underage girl about sex.
And if they hadn't agreed to rendezvous (and I tend to suspect a real girl
wouldn't have), would he have been doing anything wrong? I can see a guy
fantasizing about a 12- to 14-year-old non-innocent ("she" didn't flee as
soon as he mentioned sex).
--
Charles A. Lieberman http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.html
Brooklyn, New York, USA
"The child is father to the man" --Oedipus
Tim Robinson
Either cali...@bu.ed.u (Charles A. Lieberman) or an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards typed:
>Terry Nielsen
>> A man was charged after arranging to meet a fourteen year old girl for
>> sex. He had struck up a conversation with her on the internet which was
>> carried on for some time. Eventually the suggestion was made that they
>> made in a motel. He was arrested when he got to the motel.
>>
>> Trouble was, the girl never existed. It was a police detective on the
>> other end of the computer the whole time.
>>
>> So my question has always been...what offense did the guy actually
>> commit? No matter what he *thought* he was doing, he wasn't actually
>> communicating with an underage girl about sex.
>
>And if they hadn't agreed to rendezvous (and I tend to suspect a real girl
>wouldn't have), would he have been doing anything wrong? I can see a guy
>fantasizing about a 12- to 14-year-old non-innocent ("she" didn't flee as
>soon as he mentioned sex).
We're talking about law here. In US law, a guy on his 18th birthday who
has sex with his girlfriend who is a day before her 18th birthday is
afoul of the same law making it illegal for a 40 year old man to have
sex with a 5 year old girl. I understand a lot of european countries
don't make it a crime if you are within X years of your partner if the
partner is under 18. That is, 18 and 16 is ok, but not 40 and 16. Not
perfect I suppose, but a tad more reasonable if you ask me.
Dave Wilton
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:32:16 GMT, bogus@@see.sig.for.for.reply (Tim
Robinson) wrote:
>We're talking about law here. In US law, a guy on his 18th birthday who
>has sex with his girlfriend who is a day before her 18th birthday is
>afoul of the same law making it illegal for a 40 year old man to have
>sex with a 5 year old girl. I understand a lot of european countries
>don't make it a crime if you are within X years of your partner if the
>partner is under 18. That is, 18 and 16 is ok, but not 40 and 16. Not
>perfect I suppose, but a tad more reasonable if you ask me.
As in most cases, the law in the US varies with the state. A lot of
states have laws similar to the European laws you describe. Also, if
you cross state lines with the intent to have sex with a minor you
have violated Title 18, Section 2423 of US Code--a federal crime.
Simply chatting with a minor about sexual matters might net you a
"lewd and lascivious behavior" or "corrupting a minor" charge--a
state, not federal, crime.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
Shaw Terwilliger
Tim Robinson <bogus@@see.sig.for.for.reply> wrote:
> We're talking about law here. In US law, a guy on his 18th birthday who
> has sex with his girlfriend who is a day before her 18th birthday is
> afoul of the same law making it illegal for a 40 year old man to have
> sex with a 5 year old girl.
I believe these consent laws vary by state, and it's not a federal law
at all. I seem to remember from the news that Illinois has similar consent
laws to the European laws, where if the two people straddle the 18 year
fence, and the difference between the two is 4 (?) years or less, then it's
legal.
Of course, I could be completely mistaken about the law or the cutoff or the
differences; this _was_ the local news (better than Comedy Central!).
--
Shaw Terwilliger (tw...@advancenet.net)
Perry Farmer
-> We're talking about law here. In US law, a guy on his 18th birthday who
-> has sex with his girlfriend who is a day before her 18th birthday is
-> afoul of the same law making it illegal for a 40 year old man to have
-> sex with a 5 year old girl. I understand a lot of european countries
-> don't make it a crime if you are within X years of your partner if the
-> partner is under 18. That is, 18 and 16 is ok, but not 40 and 16. Not
-> perfect I suppose, but a tad more reasonable if you ask me.
Depends on the state and the age of both.
Perry
Shack Toms
j...@radix.ignorethis.net wrote:
>What, pray tell, does Michelangelo's David inspire people to? Or
>perhaps it's not great art.
Well, I haven't seen it in person but I hear that it is inspiring.
Among other things, Michelangelo's David might inspire people to
consider that even the unlikeliest person may be elevated to greatness
if he is faithful and chosen. David is a case study against the ad
hominem. That is, the purpose of the art might be to convey a
meditation on the story.
>The business of art is beauty, not good works.
A thing that is beautiful but not inspiring is a traitor to its
beauty. It is good to have the notion of an ideal of beauty, but it
should not be just a matter of decoration or fashion. Those things
may be fun and nice, but they certainly aren't great art.
Greg Goss
sh...@esinet.net (Shack Toms) wrote:
>j...@radix.ignorethis.net wrote:
>
>>What, pray tell, does Michelangelo's David inspire people to? Or
>>perhaps it's not great art.
>
>Well, I haven't seen it in person but I hear that it is inspiring.
>
>Among other things, Michelangelo's David might inspire people to
>consider that even the unlikeliest person may be elevated to greatness
>if he is faithful and chosen. David is a case study against the ad
>hominem. That is, the purpose of the art might be to convey a
>meditation on the story.
>
>>The business of art is beauty, not good works.
The thing I find interesting about the David/Goliath myth is that
Goliath was attempting to defend his homeland against invaders. That
was something that was de-emphasized in the sunday school comics of my
youth.
Alan Rothenberg
In alt.fan.cecil-adams, SJF 1959 wrote:
>In article <359235d0....@shack.news.esinet.net>, sh...@esinet.net (Shack
>Toms) writes:
>
>>... That is, the purpose of the art might be to convey a
>>meditation on the story.
>
>... but I think it's possible for great art to be neither narrative nor
>even representational.
>
>There's a story (ahah! another narrative!) that I vaguely recall, in which
>someone listens to a symphony and asks the composer to tell him/her what it's
>about. The composer replies, "I just did." I'm not sure if I have the story
>right, but I like my version. Sometimes a work of art just is what it is.
Indeed, some folks who spend a lot of time pondering matters of musical
ontologics (?) would say that music by its very nature cannot be narrative
or representational. It can *allude* to such things (such as a the
"story line" to Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique"), but it is not
inherently narrative.
There are numerous stories and "sound bites" from composers and others
expressing these ideas - my current favorites are:
"If I could express it in words I wouldn't have to write music"
- Ellen Taafe Zwilich
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible
is music"
- Aldous Huxley
Understanding what music is "about" can lead to some pretty murky
philosophical waters pretty fast. The student is referred to the
writings of Kivy, Zukerandl and Ingarden.
For a taste of the complexity of these problems - consider this one.
When we talk about a piece of traditional visual art, like a painting,
its identity is pretty clear. What IS Modrian's "Broadway Boogie
Woogie"? It's a physical object that we can stand in front of,
touch (as long as the guards aren't looking), and see.
What IS Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? Is it the collection of
scribbles and notations on paper that we call his autograph
manuscript? (But Beethoven didn't put his work on paper just
so that it would be on paper - he wrote it so that it could
be performed!)
Is it the sound in the air when it is performed? (But this is
so ephemeral!)
Is it the performance itself? (But every performance is, in
someway, different!)
Is it what happens when the sound reaches the listener who is then
affected by those sounds? (But this affects each listener differently!)
And then there's the introduction of recordings...
Discuss. On second thought, YOU discuss. I'm going to put some
Spike Jones on the turntable.
- A. Rothenberg
Cary Kittrell
In article <199806242255...@ladder03.news.aol.com> sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) writes:
<
<There's a story (ahah! another narrative!) that I vaguely recall, in which
<someone listens to a symphony and asks the composer to tell him/her what it's
<about. The composer replies, "I just did." I'm not sure if I have the story
<right, but I like my version. Sometimes a work of art just is what it is.
<
<
I was told someone asked Eliot, at a lecture, what he had meant
by "Lady, three white leopards sat under a juniper tree in the
cool of the day...~ etc. etc,. to which Old Possum replied, "Oh,
that's simple enough: I meant 'Lady, three white leopards sat'"...
-- cary
SJF 1959
In article <6murmr$d56$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) writes:
>
>I was told someone asked Eliot, at a lecture, what he had meant
>by "Lady, three white leopards sat under a juniper tree in the
>cool of the day...~ etc. etc,. to which Old Possum replied, "Oh,
>that's simple enough: I meant 'Lady, three white leopards sat'"...
And this from a poet who provided all those footnotes to "The Waste Land."
:-)
Still, that's his perogative.
Regards from Deborah
http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Yiddishkeit code: S- Fa1,c=0 Ng M- K- H tI SYrc/A
Te!a P FO/s/m/sL/co D Tz+ E++ L Aw Ha hc--
Shack Toms
gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>The thing I find interesting about the David/Goliath myth is that
>Goliath was attempting to defend his homeland against invaders. That
>was something that was de-emphasized in the sunday school comics of my
>youth.
Sometimes I think it is too bad that Sunday Schools tend to avoid the
hard parts of Scripture. It makes Scripture seem to describe a world
that is unlike the one we know, in which all of the "good guys" are
uniformly good and there is nothing to say on behalf of any of the
"bad guys".
In the real world, it isn't as clean as that. People really do
desire (for example) for God to favor them over their enemies, as it
says in Psalm 23:5 to feed themselves a banquet where their enemies
can see how God favors them above all others.
One of the really great things about Scripture is that it depicts
God's dealings with people as people really are. In Scripture,
God's people are not very nice, to put it mildly. But God
repeatedly acts to maintain the relationship despite this.
The Sunday School cleanup of Scripture leads to the heretical notion
that God only loves those who are good, and even worse, to the notion
that we need only love those who are good. These lessons are clearly
refuted by Scripture.
Perhaps it is my bad reaction to the Sunday School cleanup of
Scripture in a false image that makes me so skeptical of the Jesus
Seminar's attempt to pick and choose those parts of scripture whose
message seems most consistent.
The message of Scripture is not superficially consistent. Life isn't
superficially consistent. The underlying consistencies are deep, and
require dealing with a lot of unsettling and confusing images to
reach.
Shack Toms
sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) wrote:
>I dunno about that. Maybe you are making too stringent a requirement - that in
>order to be great art is has to be narrative.
No, not narrative. Just inspiring to that which is best. In the
case of David I don't think that the art can be separated from the
story, but that is a particular case.
The depiction need not be positive itself, so long as the reaction in
the viewer to a negative depiction is ultimately inspiring to that
which is best. For example, "The Scream" isn't a positive image but
as a meditation on angst and anxiety it is a message (not a narrative
but a message nevertheless) that a person who lives fully must deal
with.
Shack Toms
sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) wrote:
>Shack, why don't you read her book "Vamps and Tramps,"
>and let me know what you think about her argument?
>
>I'm still revolving it in my mind, and I have to say that I'm
>impressed by her attack on prissy ideas about great art.
>Stop me before I become a Camille Pagliacolyte!
OK, I have read the book. There is some great stuff in there. Here
are some impressions. You may remember that I am something of a
Paglia fan myself, even though these impressions may seem to focus
more on the negative. Pagliacolyte! That's good. But I am too
much of a Shackolyte to follow anyone else too closely. Though
Paglia does not mention her, I though that there was a lot of Ayn Rand
in Paglia's views. Did it seem that way to you?
I think that Paglia's argument is not quite sound, or maybe just not
quite complete, but that an awful lot of her observations are on
target.
Unfortunately she peppers her book with a lot of unsupported
libertarian assertions, such as that the government must stay out of
what people do in private by mutual consent and that no pleasure
should be denied. In part, the latter is justification for her
pro-porn stance, but I don't think it is the weighty one. I think
that emblematic of her political confusion is that she is a
libertarian who supported Clinton. I was pleased that she seems to
recognize the mutual relationship between capitalism and liberation.
She notes that women are powerful. This is correct. It has always
seemed odd to me that NOW's vision of feminism appeared to be based on
the notion that women are weak and not quite necessary--and that the
proper terms under which women should gain self esteem are those terms
that have enslaved men (the ability/requirement to be "one of the
boys"). Furthermore, the notion of equal pay for equal work as a
matter of justice is insulting to women, again because it implies that
women don't have what it takes to negotiate compensation without
society forcing the matter. I think that Paglia says that also. But
further, I think that Paglia ought to address the inequality of pay as
a possible counterexample to the notion of women's power. (I think
that there is an answer to the challenge, but I am not sure that
Paglia would agree with my answer.)
Paglia sees women's power as associated with sex. I don't think that
the power is necessarily associated directly with sex. Perhaps more
with sex difference. There are lots of powerful women who would be
unapproachable as objects of lust. But I think that there is a
relationship between sex and power. Paglia is right that a lot of
young women seem to send sexual cues without realizing what they are
doing. In other words, these women are just playing dress-up without
considering (much less understanding) the cultural, psychological, and
biological context.
The extreme example of this, perhaps, is the fashion model. There
are some fashion models nowadays who actually do wield power, but it
is surprising how many think that they are illustrating style without
understanding the power consequences of style. Maybe that is because
the designers tell them it is a matter of style. Maybe it is because
models tend to be young. One of the odd aspects of culture is that it
is implicit, so people don't necessarily know what their true
motivations are. And the NOW notion that alluring attire detracts
from female power is nonsense, as Paglia points out but illustrates
with the somewhat strange example of the drag queen.
There is some mention in the book of the historical masculinization of
western culture. She attacks NOW-feminism for simply giving up on
this culture instead of learning from it and augmenting it with the
missing half. I think that Paglia misses the important question that
arises immediately from her observation that women are powerful.
That question is "How did men seize power in western civilization?"
(If it is clear that men did seize that power.)
Paglia intuits that the answer has something to do with sex. (This
isn't intended as a put-down, Paglia's intuition clearly has been
honed with a remarkable education--but Paglia seems to come to her
opinions through hot passion rather than cold reason.) She hints that
motherhood is actually of some importance, and not just a male plot.
That there is, contrary to the view of the NOW-feminists, a link
between sexual repression and male power. I think that this, rather
than a mere pleasure principle, is the more interesting link between
pornography and feminism that Paglia seems to lead toward.
It seems that she is leading to the statement that NOW, by accepting
the masculine model of success (success as a breadwinner) and the
repression of sex and sex-difference, has created culturally-male
women seeking equality in society essentially as males in women's
bodies. And by doing this women give up a lot of inherent power
(inherent as a matter of some of the biological imperatives that
Paglia recognizes).
NOW has framed the issue as women entering a man's world, rather than
creating a new world in which the power of women as women is better
recognized. This goes along with the demeaning (to both sexes)
notion that there is no difference between men and women except for
plumbing. NOW seems determined both to emasculate men and defeminize
women. No wonder so many people (many of whom agree with the notion
of equality of rights and power) find that organization threatening.
I agree with NOW over Paglia's objection that the workplace is not a
good place for sexual intrigue. Sexual repression in the office is
probably not such a bad thing. At least so long as the office is
defined in the traditional mode of a collection of players chosen for
their talents. I think that there may also be a place for a true
"family business" in which the office staff is chosen simply because
they are a part of the family rather than because of how they can be
exploited for profit. That might make for a more natural way to
live. But the office is a male invention, so it shouldn't be
surprising that it is (properly) a sex-free zone.
Paglia comes to the conclusion that the ultimate destiny of women is
to rule men. I don't think that is quite right. I think that the
penultimate destiny of women is to rule boys. The problem is that
she confuses male virility with male power. The ultimate in male
virility is the 18-year-old. But among men, an 18-year-old has very
little power. Perhaps this mistake is an outgrowth of her being an
academic. Universities are surprisingly stagnant (perhaps not so
surprisingly, given that the purpose of a school is to impose a
culture on the young--the whole point of a university is, in a way,
cultural stagnation).
She seems to be stuck in the 60s. But in the 60s there was a popular
slogan "Don't trust anyone over 30". I think that this slogan arose
from the recognition that older men had a power advantage over younger
men, that the younger generation was rebelling against. Clearly this
power advantage is not a matter of virility.
I think that some of her thoughts on rape (rape fantasies, women
choosing to live in abusive relationships) don't describe rape, but
describe something that exists. There is in feminism an
identification between rape and a woman being overcome by male power
(men have power too, but a different kind of power that is largely
lacking in boys younger than, say, 30-40 years old). I think that
Paglia is right to find fault with this, but she seems to find the
wrong error. The correct conclusion is not, as Paglia seems to
assert, that the possibility of rape is a fact of life that women
should deal with out of their own personal power. The correct
conclusion is that it is wrong to identify rape fantasies or the
submission of a powerful woman to male power with actual rape.
By confusing the two, it seems to excuse rape and abuse while leading
people away from a productive interplay of the sources of male and
female power. Emotionally healthy and powerful people want their
spouses to be emotionally healthy and powerful, they also want mutual
respect.
I think that Paglia is correct that actual rape is a crime that is
committed by a male who believes himself to be powerless. In my
opinion this is a male who is not quite mature--under 30. And it is
a crime of a male's reaction to his own powerlessness, despite his
virility and physical strength. On the recent death of Eldridge
Cleaver, I went back and read Soul on Ice and Soul on Fire. The
description in Soul on Ice of Cleaver's going on a rape spree I think
illustrates the point that rape is a crime committed by someone who
feels powerless.
It seems to me that Paglia's development has been stunted in
admiration of a boy's male physique in the disorienting time in the
life of a male between the built-in subservience to women that men
have as children and the power that men have later in life.
I think that she misses the boat when she fails to explore the
relationship between the *many* myths in which power is available only
to the man who can control his lusts and the notion that she proposes
that pornography is a crucial element in giving women power over men.
There are a lot of archetypal elements that seem to be implicit in
what she is writing. She seems to sink into the notion that
pornography is good because sex is fun and thus misses what I think
are a lot of interesting avenues to explore about the relationship
between sex and power.
To me the best answer is the recognition that there are differences
between men and women and that men and women tend to be powerful in
different ways even in similar contexts. Though power can be related
to the availability of pleasures, it is as often related to
self-control over lusts as to the giving in to lusts. There is a
certain amount of power involved in getting what one wants, but even
more power involved in being able to pass it up as a matter of
personal choice in order to obtain that which is available only
through delayed gratification.
Furthermore, I think that men and women are attracted to people of the
opposite sex who are powerful. You have stated, for example, that
people often send you unsolicited marriage proposals by email. I am
sure that these people are sincere in their hopes, but I cannot
imagine that you would consider an offer from someone who has so
demonstrated his utter powerlessness. Powerlessness just isn't
attractive. Or rather it is only attractive to wimps and bullies.
So if it is true (as Paglia observes) that much male-created women's
fashion, uncomfortable as it may be, empowers women, and also true
(contrary to Paglia) that men have had a historical desire to dominate
women and that (as Paglia points out) women have these fantasies of
submission to a dominant male (which both Paglia and the feminists
confuse with rape), then why do men want women in these power-clothes?
I think the answer is obviously that submission from a position of
weakness isn't particularly erotic. No powerful person wants a weak
mate.
But it seems that Paglia is stuck somewhere thinking of the masculine
ideal as a male who is physically mature and beautiful but not very
powerful. With this ideal as being seemingly attractive to women it
is not surprising to me that she has trouble attracting a female date.
Anyway, the relationship between sex, lust, and power is fascinating
and though I enjoy many of Paglia's observations and also her wit, I
think she leaves a lot of dangling threads in her argument. I would
like to read something by her akin to Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand
Faces", but drawing parallels between her views on sex and the myths
that depict lust as the enemy of power. Perhaps Augustine's
contrasts between caritas and concupiscence should be explored also,
where lust is not only the enemy of power, but the enemy of salvation
and godliness. Paglia seems to think that the suppression of lust
is a "Judeo-Christian" deviation from a Pagan norm, but I think it may
in fact be the other way around, that asceticism in Christianity arose
from pagan sources. Note that Augustine's views on lust have origins
in Plotinus.
A couple of more comments about the book (the book is a rich source of
opinions so it is hard to stop). She seems to fall into a trap that
I first heard described by Joseph Campbell. In an interview, he
expressed regret that his study of religions was double-edged. That
it simultaneously put him in the position of being able to see how the
symbolism worked for those within the cultures, but also robbed the
symbols of their power to work for him. There is a difference
between knowing a culture as an outsider and living a culture.
Paglia seems to recognize this problem when she attributes here
clumsiness at seducing women with an inability to play the game with
the intensity of an insider. She knows the game from the outside too
well.
Paglia proposes that we ought primarily to live in a mainstream
culture, with recognition of our cultural roots. She proposes an
anthropologists understanding of all cultures as an appropriate goal
of education. I agree that there is not only a lingua franca, but
also a common cultus which people use for cross-cultural interchange.
But I disagree that this is appropriate as a person's primary culture.
People ought to have a native culture within which the symbols are
meaningful. It is important to be a part of a culture in order to
have access to the archetypal elements from the inside. The ineffable
truths cannot be understood in anthropological terms.
And, of course, that is just what Paglia seems to want to do. She
maintains the Randian view that the notion of God is the highest
invention of man.
James Leatherwood
SJF 1959 wrote:
<snip real message>
>
> Still, that's his perogative.
>
writing.
SJF 1959
sh...@esinet.net (Shack Toms) writes:
>OK, I have read the book. There is some great stuff in there. Here
>are some impressions.
Oh, my! I was specifically referring to her contention that there is no
meaningful line of division between great art and pornography. You have given
me a great deal more to think about. Not that I'm complaining.
> You may remember that I am something of a
>Paglia fan myself, even though these impressions may seem to focus
>more on the negative. Pagliacolyte! That's good.
Thanks. I made it up on the spur of the moment, though perhaps I had 20 years
of preparation. (I was at Bennington College, though not one of her students,
when Camille engaged in her notorious fistfight and left under a cloud.)
> But I am too
>much of a Shackolyte to follow anyone else too closely. Though
>Paglia does not mention her, I though that there was a lot of Ayn Rand
>in Paglia's views. Did it seem that way to you?
Yes and no. Rand hated irrationality - none of this mystical-pagan-dionysian
stuff, thank you. She didn't really have a kind word to say about organized
religion, whereas Camille obviously loves her (mystical-pagan-dionysian)
version of Roman Catholicism.
But there's a kind of temperamental affinity between Rand and Paglia, in that
both are(were) apostles of free individualism and total control freaks, near as
I can tell. Their libertarianism* has such a bullying tone.
I sometimes find myself wishing that Rand were still alive so that I could see
her in a debate on the ideological future of feminism with Paglia against Mary
Daly** and Catherine MacKinnon. Hey, I'd pay big bucks any day to see just
Paglia and Daly square off.
:-)
You make many other intriguing points, and I'll need some time to consider them
seriously.
Regards from Deborah
* It may be unfair to call Rand a libertarian. Although she undoubtedly
inspired the founders of the movement, I don't think she ever accepted the
label. Paglia, on the other hand, uses the word to describe some of her own
views in "Vamps and Tramps."
** Author of "Beyond God the Father," "Gyn/Ecology," "Outercourse," and other
light classics. A feminist ethicist and theologian who does not permit men to
ask questions when she speaks, and sees them as essentially irrelevant to a
life-affirming spirituality.
Shack Toms
sjf...@aol.com (SJF 1959) wrote:
>Oh, my! I was specifically referring to her contention that there is no
>meaningful line of division between great art and pornography. You have given
>me a great deal more to think about. Not that I'm complaining.
OK. I'll accept that there are probably a lot of works that can be
taken as either art or as pornography. So the line between them may
not be sharp. But I think that there is a meaningful difference.
There is no sharp line of division between hot and cold either, yet
there is a meaningful difference.
I think that pornography is probably art, though not great art. It's
being art doesn't make it worthwhile or good. A huckster's spiel is
art, too.
So the interesting point for me isn't whether pornography is art, but
whether it is worthwhile art. Paglia seems to think, at one level,
that it is worthwhile simply because it is protected speech. I think
that we protect pornography not because it is worthwhile per se, but
because it is hard to make sharp, meaningful distinctions between
pornography and art. I think that she thinks it is worthwhile per
se, and that, to me, is the more interesting part of her argument.
>Yes and no. Rand hated irrationality - none of this mystical-pagan-dionysian
>stuff, thank you. She didn't really have a kind word to say about organized
>religion, whereas Camille obviously loves her (mystical-pagan-dionysian)
>version of Roman Catholicism.
Yes, Rand hated irrationality, though she was at her best at her least
rational, at the notion that (from Nietzsche), "the noble soul has
reverence for itself." Nevertheless I thought there were parallels
between Rand and Paglia on religion. Both reject the notion of
abandoning religion entirely, they just reject its metaphysical
aspects.
From Rand's 1968 introduction to the Fountainhead, "Just as religion
has pre-empted the field of ethics, turning morality *against* man, so
it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language [exaltation,
worship, reverence, the sacred, etc], placing them outside this earth
and beyond man's reach. [...] It is this highest level of man's
emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and
redirected at its proper object: man.
"It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would
identify the sense of life dramatized in _The Fountainhead_ as
*man-worship*."
In other word, Rand, recognizes the spiritual yearning as valid, but
thinks that its object is misdirected by religion toward God rather
than to her ideal notion of the spirit of man (taken as a
non-metaphysical term).
Paglia seems to take the same tack. I don't think that her version
of Roman Catholicism is God-centered. As Paglia writes, "I do not
believe in God, but I believe God is man's greatest idea." And
later, "The Sixties wanted to break the oppressive moral codes of
organized religion, to attain vision by a daring individualism. But
we left the generations who came after us in a spiritual vacuum.
[...] They crave spiritual food, and the elite schools have given them
the bitter ashes of nihilism. Everything inspiring or ennobling has
been befouled for them by their crabbed, callous professors, who do
not deserve the name 'teacher.' My efforts to restore the
unfashionable concept of 'greatness' to critical discourse are part of
my evangelical mission in the service of the Hellenic religion of art,
whose homoerotic prophets have risen again and again since the
Renaissance."
>But there's a kind of temperamental affinity between Rand and Paglia, in that
>both are(were) apostles of free individualism and total control freaks, near as
>I can tell. Their libertarianism* has such a bullying tone.
Certainly neither seems to have any doubt about the correctness of her
ideas. And I think that there is something bullying about
libertarianism. It seems to be the politics of the rude neighbor who
thinks that ownership of his property gives him the full right to live
in a way that reduces the value of neighborhood property, despite the
fact that ownership is not a natural right but is an invention of
society.
>I sometimes find myself wishing that Rand were still alive so that I could see
>her in a debate on the ideological future of feminism with Paglia against Mary
>Daly** and Catherine MacKinnon. Hey, I'd pay big bucks any day to see just
>Paglia and Daly square off.
>
>:-)
My first exposure to Paglia was in some lectures she gave in Ivy
League forums that were televised on C-SPAN. Some of the
questioners in the audience attempted to debate her, but she is so
quick and predatory in her style that it was impossible.
>You make many other intriguing points, and I'll need some time to consider them
>seriously.
I am not sure they are worth serious consideration. They were just
some thoughts that arose while reading the book.
>* It may be unfair to call Rand a libertarian. Although she undoubtedly
>inspired the founders of the movement, I don't think she ever accepted the
>label. Paglia, on the other hand, uses the word to describe some of her own
>views in "Vamps and Tramps."
Point well taken. It is unfair in much the same sense that it would
be unfair to call the Wesleys Methodists (they were Anglicans). I
think that current libertarians look to Rand as a guiding light, but
Rand herself might not have seen herself as that light.