The Pornography Commission's Report
Paul M. Dubuc
>In article <15...@cbdkc1.UUCP> p...@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes:
>>The minority report is ignored by those who cite the report in suport
>>of porn.
>
> Come on, come on. Can't you recognize the difference between
>"supporting" something and "defending" it? Or is this another of
>those arguments like the one that pro-choice spokesmen "support"
>abortion? Or that the ACLU "supports" the American Nazi Party?
OK, have it your way. (It's a BIG difference, isn't it?) Replace "support
of" with "defend" in my statment. The point (made more explicit in
the part of my article you *haven't* quoted) is that those who cite
the Nixon Commission's report in DEFENSE of porn ignore the evidence
presented by the minority of the Commission. What kind of basis is
that for a DEFENSE? Are you the one who said the report was so trustworthy?
If you didn't know that there were two parts to the report then I
suggest that your trust is based on something else than the content
of the report itself.
> All of these are absurd. I can and will defend someone else's
>right to be wrong just as vigorously as I will defend my right to
>be right. I guess that's what those of you who seem to want to
>repeal the Bill of Rights don't understand.
>
> -- David desJardins
Love that last sentence, Dave. Do all your quarell's over semantics
end with accusing those who are of a different opinion than yours of
wanting to repeal the Bill of Rights? Makes me wonder how much you
have in common with those you criticize.
--
Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
Robert H. Averack
>
> I will grant the commission that it was correct. That their is a link
> between violence and ponography. It still does not take away personal
> responsibility for the act. It is time government got off the back of
> the people and let them be responsible for their own actions. If people
> want to read smut let them. If they act violently after the fact that
> will be dealt with by the justice system. Allowing government the power
> to protect people from responsiblity for their own decisions and actions
> is wrong. I personally believe that censorship in any form is wrong.
>
> Brian Mahoney
Brian,
I'm not quite sure how I stand on the Meese Commission yet, because it,
indeed, is wrestling with the fine line between literal interpretation
of the Constitution (i.e. 1st Ammendment) and *preventive medicine*.
What I mean is, well, our society has passed various ordinances which
allegedly impose on the rights of individuals, but which serve the
collective good (by heading something off before it becomes a problem).
Some examples include:
o Drunk Driving Laws o Gun Control o Speed Limits
o Workplace Safety Laws o Toxic Waste Control o Etc. Etc. Etc.
If a clear relationship can be established between Pornography and
subsequent acts of violence, then doesn't it make sense to head-off
its chance to drive a person to that act of violence, rather than be
poised to incarcerate the person after the fact. By doing this, we've
spared the life of that potential victim, hence, we've served the
greater good of society.
I am usually a fundamentalist of the Constitution, but maybe you and
I need to bend a little in this matter. Think about it.
Bob Averack
--
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! (Robert H. Averack @ Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, Ct.) !
! !
! ## "...it is better to have loved USENET: bunker!rha !
! #OO# in lofts than to never have UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool !
! ###### loved at all!" /uucppublic/averack !
! ##\/## - Julius "Groucho" Marx OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. !
! ###### ("Monkey Business" - 1930) Trumbull, CT 06611 !
! L L !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
m.terribile
>
>
>
> I will grant the commission that it was correct. That their is a link
> between violence and ponography. It still does not take away personal
> responsibility for the act. It is time government got off the back of
> the people and let them be responsible for their own actions. If people
> want to read smut let them. If they act violently after the fact that
> will be dealt with by the justice system. Allowing government the power
> to protect people from responsiblity for their own decisions and actions
> is wrong. I personally believe that censorship in any form is wrong.
> Brian Mahoney
Ok. I will assume then that you wish to see those who molest children
prosecuted. There are now loopholes in our current laws and peculiarities
of the rules of evidence that prevent this. That Report which you are not
going to read contains specific recommendations on what laws should be changed
in order to rectify the situation.
How do you feel about these?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
David desJardins
>Love that last sentence, Dave. Do all your quarell's over semantics
>end with accusing those who are of a different opinion than yours of
>wanting to repeal the Bill of Rights?
No, some of them end with me quarreling with their spelling and
placement of apostrophe's.
> Makes me wonder how much you
>have in common with those you criticize.
Not much. I'm not trying to tell you what to write, and certainly
not trying to put you in jail for writing it.
Misspelling provokes me to violence. Maybe it should be illegal?
-- David desJardins
mah...@bizet.dec.com
>Ok. I will assume then that you wish to see those who molest children
>prosecuted. There are now loopholes in our current laws and peculiarities
>of the rules of evidence that prevent this. That Report which you are not
>going to read contains specific recommendations on what laws should be changed
>in order to rectify the situation.
>
>How do you feel about these?
>--
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
I feel that pornography dealing with children or molestation of children
in other ways should be stopped. If there are children being abused because
of loopholes these holes should be filled in. I do not think anyone on this
net would support abuse of children in any form. Also laws that allow rape
of women in pornographic settings should also be plugged.
My problems start when one group of adults want to stop another group of
consenting adults from doing whatever they want. If all the people want to
have an orgy let them. If this group of people want to take drugs, let them.
If these people want all this put on film and sold I don't see a problem.
I personally find most of this stuff disgusting but I will not take
away another's right. That is something I find even more disgusting.
Brian Mahoney
SEVENER
>
> I'm not quite sure how I stand on the Meese Commission yet, because it,
> indeed, is wrestling with the fine line between literal interpretation
> of the Constitution (i.e. 1st Ammendment) and *preventive medicine*.
> What I mean is, well, our society has passed various ordinances which
> allegedly impose on the rights of individuals, but which serve the
> collective good (by heading something off before it becomes a problem).
> Some examples include:
>
> o Drunk Driving Laws o Gun Control o Speed Limits
> o Workplace Safety Laws o Toxic Waste Control o Etc. Etc. Etc.
>
> If a clear relationship can be established between Pornography and
> subsequent acts of violence, then doesn't it make sense to head-off
> its chance to drive a person to that act of violence, rather than be
> poised to incarcerate the person after the fact. By doing this, we've
> spared the life of that potential victim, hence, we've served the
> greater good of society.
>
> I am usually a fundamentalist of the Constitution, but maybe you and
> I need to bend a little in this matter. Think about it.
>
> Bob Averack
Your analogy is flawed. In every one of those cases above we are
talking about *actual harm being done to others*. There is no
doubt that drunk driving endangers others lives. And the MADD campaign
has been very successful in reducing drunk driving. But how was it
done? Have we reinstituted Prohibition? Did MADD ever say
"You should never drink one drop of liquor ever because it is a sin"?
No.
They took the *reasonable* approach which is preventive and not
repressive. They said, "It is your decision to drink or not. But
it is irresponsible and endangers others lives to drink and drive."
This is manifestly NOT the approach of Meese, Reagan et al.
Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease
selling erotic materials. This would be the equivalent of MADD going
around trying to close down liquor stores. I don't recall that MADD
ever did that, do you? At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't
work very well at all, now did it?
Moreover, if one is talking about what causes *violence* then there
can be little doubt about it: *violence* causes violence and
sympathetic portrayals of violence are far more likely to provoke
violence than any erotic movie. As I pointed out in Brazil a policeman
shot 3 people when he went haywire after seeing "Cobra".
I see kids where I live playing "Rambo", playing with guns and
emulating the violence they see on TV. As I have mentioned many
times the Meese Commission never even mentions this. How could they?
When Meese's Commander in Chief goes around killing 9 month-old babies,
when he "jokes" about destroying a whole nation in nuclear war, when
he waxes enthusiastic about Rambo and takes up the invitation to
violence of Clint Eastwood's persona "Make my day", how then can
he criticize the glorification of violence? Reagan and his regime
glory in violence. Even after Cory Aquino's remarkable nonviolent
revolution, her success in getting 10,000 Communists to lay down their
arms within months of taking power, her recent peace accord with
Islamic militants, all the bloodthirsty militarists in Reagan's
administration can do is say: "Oh, Cory, you don't understand,
you have to *kill* those Communists like Marcos did"
Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
mah...@bizet.dec.com
> Brian,
>
> I'm not quite sure how I stand on the Meese Commission yet, because it,
> indeed, is wrestling with the fine line between literal interpretation
> of the Constitution (i.e. 1st Ammendment) and *preventive medicine*.
> What I mean is, well, our society has passed various ordinances which
> allegedly impose on the rights of individuals, but which serve the
> collective good (by heading something off before it becomes a problem).
> Some examples include:
>
> o Drunk Driving Laws o Gun Control o Speed Limits
> o Workplace Safety Laws o Toxic Waste Control o Etc. Etc. Etc.
>
> If a clear relationship can be established between Pornography and
> subsequent acts of violence, then doesn't it make sense to head-off
> its chance to drive a person to that act of violence, rather than be
> poised to incarcerate the person after the fact. By doing this, we've
> spared the life of that potential victim, hence, we've served the
> greater good of society.
>
> I am usually a fundamentalist of the Constitution, but maybe you and
> I need to bend a little in this matter. Think about it.
>
> Bob Averack
I did not see this posted until Tim responded to it. Tim I think
forgot or missed where I stated I will accept that pornography
may cause others to commit violence. Going on that premise still,
I will try to answer your question.
The problem comes in that we as a people are getting to ready to
hand over personal responsibility. It is still the responsibility
of that person to control there own emotions. If pornography can
push someone to an act of violence then 1) that person needs serious
help 2) he is still responsible. Society must protect itself this
is true the question is how far should it go? I think that the
more restrained the better. Personal freedom must be protected or
our society will wither away.
As Tim said the act of drinking is not against the law it is drinking
and driving that is against the law. Drinking makes some people more
prone to drive drunk yet we do not outlaw drinking. We outlaw the act
that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with pornography itself. What is
wrong is the acting out of pornography on unwilling people. There is
nothing wrong with owning a gun and using it in sporting events. It is
wrong to use it to kill someone. Toxic Waste and Work Safety Laws I
think are somewhat different. I admit I am probably drawing an arbitrary
line. The thing there will always be an arbitrary line drawn. The
question is where and why do you draw it. I draw it here because I see
it definitely as collective entities. Toxic Waste effects the
environment something that everyone has a right to. You can not step
on someone else's rights. Work Rules are little harder but I think
the same argument can be used. Your rights do stop where another's begin.
There are to many things in this world that can cause one thing or another.
That it is time for society to say it is up to the person to take
responsibility, or we will eventually legislate all our rights away.
With freedom comes responsibility. If we legislate away responsibility
we legislate away freedom.
Brian Mahoney
Rex Ballard
>In article <12...@whuxl.UUCP> o...@whuxl.UUCP writes:
>>Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease
>>selling erotic materials. This would be the equivalent of MADD going
>>around trying to close down liquor stores. I don't recall that MADD
>>ever did that, do you? At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't
>>work very well at all, now did it?
First, Meese did nothing but organize the commission. Second, the
commission only sent letters reporting that the stores involved had
been named in a commission report on pornography. The fact that
they were named by a witness who simply cited every retailer of
Playboy or Penthouse magazine was not included in the letter.
MADD has not advocated closing of liquor stores. However they have
advocated penalties for selling alcohol to minors and intoxicated persons
which include revocation or suspension of liquor licences, seisure of
inventory, and or imprisonment of the licence owner. The results are
not always the results intended. In New York, if a person does not
have proof of age when stopped by the police, but has liquor with
the name of the retailer marked on the reciept, the retailer is
subject to penalties, whether the person in question was of age or not.
>Tim, I said in my response to Brian that I am not totally resolved as to
>the Meese Commission, although I am in agreement as to their findings of
>a relationship between pornography and violence.
The Meese commission found that there *may* be correlations between
certain types of pornography and certain types of violent crime, yet
found that there *was not* a correlation between violent entertainment
and any types of violent crime. A little inconsistant if you ask me.
Considering the material used as a basis for the conclusion was heavily
loaded with violence and only mildly sexual in content, it is almost
abuse of their power.
>The reason for my lack
>of resolution is, as you have pointed out, their technique in handling
>this most sensitive issue.
>
>>did he criticize the glorification of violence? Reagan and his regime
>>glory in violence.
>>Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting.
>> tim sevener whuxn!orb
>
>I am in complete agreement with you here, Tim. I find the Ronbo Regime
>completely repulsive. We're really not that far apart. I'm only
>offering that we need to be especially cautious with the fine line
>between *Freedom of Expression* and *Clear and Present Danger*.
You are correct, here. Unless there is a situation of *Clear and Present
Danger*, Freedom of Expression should always be given preference.