Commission on Pornography -- reply to GWSmith
Phil Stephens
>
>Ok. At least we are talking about issues and principles. Let me ask you
>then about specifics.
[The following arbitrarily edited, fresh list needed anyway...]
>would you support specific public health laws to address this situation by
>requiring that the booths be closed to each other and that the occupants be
>visible from the outside? (Or pick another remedy of choice ...)
>photographs are sometimes seized when alleged pedophiles are arrested, would
>you support closing the loopholes in evidence requirements under existing
>statutes regarding interstate distribution of such materials?
>Would you allow a person who is not old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages
>to act in films whose sole purpose was sexual arousal of the viewer, or could
>the same (or similar) requirements of age be acceptable or appropriate?
>a few such places would seem to call for no less regulation than, say, the
>restaurant industry.
>*THESE* are the kind of actions that the Commission recommended! Yes, they
Thank you. But please be even more specific, quoting the recommendations
verbatum so that those of us who want to may respond to the report rather
than to a mixture of their suggestions and your suggestions. Since most
of us don't have the report *yet*, you can facilitate non-flame discussion
by posting this.
Some of what you present in this posting (ie closing loopholes re pedophiles)
is reasonable enough to discuss in terms of how it can be implemented without
undesirable side-effects (such as accidentally outlawing family-oriented
nudist magazines by defining child-pornography too broadly, as one proposed
law would have done).
>*do* recommend that we take notice that there may be harms resulting from
>other kinds of material. Yes, they recommend that California change its
>State requirements for community laws to match the *Miller* standard, rather
>than the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. But if you want to take issue with a
>finding or a recommendation, know what it is. *THEN* argue.
Not sure I caught that, could you also please include (briefly) how the
*Miller* standard differs from the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. Just
so we know what is being recommended. (If you said earlier, I forgot it).
>It's true that I presented the concerned statements of two of the Commissioners
>because they were eloquent. But if you examine the specific *recommendations*
>of the report, they are almost never as strong as you would expect, given the
>harms that the Commission believes exists. Instead, they call for further
>study.
>
>The two exceptions are kiddie porn and loopholes in existing laws.
In case it isn't obvious, my request is for quotes of the *action*
recommendations, as calls for more study are not contoversial.
References to studies, page numbers, etc, will be a good idea later,
when more of us (presumably) will have cheap copies of the report.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
- Phil
Reply-To: p...@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Quote: Everybody bops. _on blackboard or something in "She Bop" video.
Dave Richards
points.
In article <15...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>
>Yes, if indeed it were the only case. On the other hand, how do you really
>ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a
>camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years
>later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide
>where to draw the line in the work rules for this material?
At the present time, I believe that only adults over 18 can legally appear in
a porn film. I always thought this was because we assume that someone of that
age is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. If that is not
true, then we have other, much larger problems. When someone believes in their
convictions and is honest about themselves up front, there are no "skeletons in
the closet" that can be dragged out later, and hence no embarrassments.
[regarding porn magazines as opposed to "outdoor" type magazines]
>On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and
>risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the
>welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than
>dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in).
In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec-
tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel-
ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most
comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap-
peared in Hustler magazine. I guess that those type of magazines are the only
forum where sexual situations can be discussed in *frank terms*.
>>... You don't need porn for this, just buy a copy of "The Joy of Sex".
>> (Unless sex manuals are ipso facto porn?).
>
>Does ``The Joy Of Sex'' demonstrate whippings that cause bleeding, or provide
>photographic depictions of people being tortured by having their penises,
>labia, or nipples pierced? Does it depict acts that are difficult, degrading,
>or harmful? Does it encourage non-consensual acts, or acts under duress?
>
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not been ex-
posed to this type of material, although I'm sure it exists for those willing
to spend the effort to find it. This seems to be a good place to reiterate my
request to help break the connection between sex and violence. One way to aid
this campaign is to not use the two terms together. Try to replace the stan-
dard phrase "sex AND violence", with "sex OR violence" wherever possible. It
seems like such a small thing, but I don't know of a better way to start.
Dave
m.terribile
>> And with William O. Douglas. But not with the other eight Old Men on that
>> bench.
> ^^^
>
>Oh, my God, Sandra Day O'Connor retired and I never heard about it! :-)
>
> Evelyn C. Leeper
>The future exists first in the imagination, then in the will, then in reality.
Either you are making fun of your opponent when he satirizes himself (which
seems like an awful self-defeating thing to do) or you really DON'T know
what the phrase ``Nine Old Men'' refers to.
FDR, as part of his New Deal, pushed through a bunch of reforms that were
declared unconstitutional. Today, I don't think that they'd raise any
eyebrows, but then they were hopelessly radical and the rather staid court
knocked them down. Anyhow, FDR and his supporters grumbled about the ``Nine
Old Men'' and tried to pack the bench (increasing the number of Justices). It
didn't work; it seemed like anytime someone was appointed, he'd change his
views to those prevailing beforehand.
If you can suggest a pithy phrase to replace the Nine Old Men, I'll be happy
to use it the next time I fell inclined to satirize my own position.
Now what was that about our school systems not doing their job? B^{
On another topic, I apologize for misspelling ``orgasms'' a couple of times.
It's a word that I don't type that often and my fingers haven't learned it
yet. (Is a smiley appropriate there ...) while, continue, for, int, struct,
my fingers are pretty good at. They're also beginning to get the hang of
``pornography'' after a few early typos. And I'm not making any promises about
``honorificalitudinibus''! Besides, Evelyn, I thought that you were above
such things as spelling flames.
--
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)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
m.terribile
> *Miller* standard differs from the unprosecutable *Roth* standard. Just
> so we know what is being recommended. (If you said earlier, I forgot it).
In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, the Supreme Court declared that
there *were* materials which, by nature of a combination of obscenity and
lack if ``ideas'', the dissemination of which are protected by the First
Amendment, could (but did not have to be) subject to restriction by the
States. It was in that case that the phrase ``utterly without redeeming
social importance'' crept into the constitutional law. All ideas, according
to this decision, are protected, and material with ``even the slightest
redeeming social importance'', no matter how overtly and explicitly sexual,
could not be restricted. In simple words, a cheap moral would justify any
story with any pictures, or any movie.
The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little:
Material may be obscene under law if all of these three tests are met.
1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would
find the that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest [in sex]; and
2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by the applicable state or federal law;
and
3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value.
These words have been litigated and deliberated to death and decisions have
been handed down clarifying nuances and conditions under which prosecution may
take place (a book may be found to be obscene, but if it is one of only a few
such books in a bookstore, and there is no reasonable expectation that the
proprietors could have known that it would be found be obscene, the proprietors
cannot be prosecuted, etc.) Also, this decision does not cover child
pornography; that is considered to have the potential for such grave and
immediate harm that it can be much more closely restricted.
Note that item (1) requires a judgement of the sensibilities of the ``average''
individual within a community, item (2) requires that the laws be specific,
and item (3) requires that the work's value be judged on an equal scale
across the entire country (no ``community standards'' here ...)
In the case of *Jenkins v. Georgia*, in 1974, a conviction was brought against
the f;im ``Carnal Knowledge''. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying
that regardless of the standards of the community, the First Amendment
prohibited any community from finding that a work such as that film appealed
to the prurient interest or was patently offensive. With *Jenkins*, the
Court effectively limited the range of community standards that could be
accepted before the court.
It is *still* possible that a work that would not be obscene under the
community standards tests in lower Manhattan would be obscene in Salt Lake
City, but the range is narrower than you might think.
My source for the details of this (though not the basic facts) is the portion
of the Commission's report that deals with history and constitutional issues;
I think that even if you disagree with the conclusions of the Commissioners
(and I'm sure that Phil does) you would find the treatment relatively even-
handed. I'm not about to type the whole thing in, but there's one section
that might be relevant to this discussion. It will generate, I am sure, a
few flames, but there may be a surprise or two. I can also understand an
``absolutist'' being scared out of his breeches, but I think that most people
(though perhaps not most people on these newsgroups) will see some of the
issues addressed, and some questions that they had not thought to ask
themselves asked and answered.
3.4 *The Risks of Abuse*
Although we are satisfied that there is a category of material so
overwhelmingly preoccupied with sexual explicitness, and so overwhelmingly
devoid of anything else, that its regulation does not violence to the
principles underlying the First Amendment, we recognize that this cannot be the
end of the First Amendment Analysis. We must evaluate the possibility that in
practice, materials other than these will be restricted, and that the effect
therefore will be the restriction of materials that are substantially closer to
the the First Amendment ought to protect than the items in fact aimed at by the
*Miller* definition of obscenity. We must also evaluate what is commonly
referred to as the "chilling effect," the possibility that, even absent actual
restriction, creators of material that is not in fact legally obscene will
refrain from those creative activities, or will steer further to the safe side
of the line, for fear that their protected works will mistakenly be deemed
obscene. And finally we must evaluate whether the fact of restriction of
obscene material will act, symbolically, to foster a "censorship mentality"
that will in less immediate ways encourage or lead to various restrictions, in
other contexts, of material which ought not in a free society be restricted.
We have heard in one form or another from numerous organizations of publishers,
booksellers, actors, and librarians, as well as from a number of individual
book and magazine publishers. Although most have urged general anti-censorship
sentiments upon us, their oral and written submissions have failed to provide
us with evidence to support claims of excess supression in the name of the
obscenity laws, and indeed the evidence is to the contrary. The president of
the Association of American Publishers testified that to his knowledge none of
his members had even been threatened with enforcement of the criminal law
agains obscenity, and the American Library Association could find no record
of any prosecution of a librarian on obscenity charges. Other groups of people
involved in publishing, bookselling, or theatrical organizations relied
exclusively in examples of excess censorship from periods of time no more
recent than the 1940s. And still others were less helpful, telling us, for
example, that censorship was impermissible because "This is the united States,
not the Soviet Union." We know that, but we know as well that difficult
issues do not become easy by the use of inflammatory rhetoric. We which that
many of these people or groups had been able to provide concrete examples to
support their fears of excess censorship.
Throughout recent and not so recent history, excess censorship, although not
necessarily prevalent, can hardly be said not to have occurred. As a result,
we have not been content to rest on the hollowness of the assertions of many
of those who have reminded us of this theme. If there is a problem, we have
our own obligations to identify it and remedy it, even if witnesseses before us
have been unable to do so. Yet when we do our own researches, we discover
that, with strikingly few exceptions, the period from 1974 [42] to the present
[ 42: 1974 seems the most relevant date because that was the year in which the
Supreme Court, in *Jenkins v. Georgia*, 418 US 152 (1974), made it clear that
the determinations of obscenity were not primarily a matter of local
discretion. ]
is marked by strikingly few actual or threatened prosecutions of material that
is plainly not legally obscene. We do not say that there have been none.
Attempted and unsuccessful actions against the film *Caligula* by the United
States Customs Service, against *Playboy* magazine in Atlanta, and several
other places, and against some other plainly non-obscene publications indicate
that mistakes *can* be made. But since 1974 such mistakes have been extremely
rare, and the mistakes have all been remedied at some point in the process.
While we with there would be no mistakes, we are confident that the application
of *Miller* has been overwhelmingly limited to materials that would satisfy
anyone's definition of "hard core."
Even absent successful or seriously threatened prosecutions, it still may be
the case that the very possibility of such action deters filmmakers,
photographers, and writers from exercising their creative abilities to the
fullest. Once it appears that the likelyhood of actual or seriously threatened
prosecutions is almost completely illusory, however, we are in a quandary
about how to respond to these claims of "chilling." We are in no position to
deny the reality of someone's fears, but in almost every case those fears are
unfounded. Where, as here, the fears seem to be fears of phantom dangers, we
are hard pressed to say that the law is mistaken. It is those who are afraid
who are mistaken. At least for the past ten years, no serious author,
photographer, or filmmaker has had anything real to fear from the obscenity
laws. The line between what is legally obscene and what is not is now so far
away from their work that even substantially mistaken applications of current
law would leave these individuals untouched. In light of that, we do not see
their fears, however real to them, as a sufficient reason now to reconsider our
views about the extent of First Amendment protection.
Much more serious, much more real, and much less in our control, is the extent
to which non-governmental actions or governmental but non-prohibitory actions
may substantially influence what is published and what is not. What television
scriptwriters write is in reality controlled by what television producers will
buy, which is in turn controlled by what sponsors will sponsor and what viewers
will view. Screenwriters may be effectively censored by the extent to which
producers or studios desire to gain an "R" rating rather than an "X", or a
"PG" rather than an "R", or an "R" rather than a "PG." Book and magazine
writers and publishers are restricted by what stores are willing to sell, and
stores are restricted by what people are willing to buy. Writers of textbooks
are in a sense censored by what school districts are willing to buy, authors
are censored by what both bookstores and librarians are willing to offer, and
librarians are censored by what boards of trustees are willing to tolerate.
In all of these there have been excesses. But every one of these involves some
inevitable choice based on content. We think it unfortunate when *Catcher in
the Rye* is unavailable in a high school library, but none of us would
criticize the decision to keep *Lady Chatterly's Lover*, plainly protected by
the First Amendment, out of junior high schools.
We regret that legitimate bookstores have been pressured to remove from their
shelves legitimate and serious discussions of sexuality, but none of us would
presume to tell a Catholic bookseller that in choosing books he should not
discriminate against books favoring abortion. Motion picture studios are
unable to support an infinite number of screenwriters, and their choice to
support those who write about families rather than about homosexuality, for
example, is not only permissible, but is indeed itself protected by the First
Amendment.
Where there have been excesses, and we do not ignore the extent to which the
number of those excesses seems to be increasing, they seem often attributable
to the notion that the idea of "community standards" is a carte blanche to
communities to determine entirely for themselves what is obscene. As we have
tried once again to make clear in this report, nothing could be further from
the truth. Apart from this, however, the excesses that have been reported to
us are excesses that can only remotely be attributed to the obscenity laws.
In a world of choice and scarce resources, every one of these excesses could
have taken place even were there no obscenity laws at all. In a world without
obscenity law, television producers, motion picture studios, public library
trustees, boards of education, convenience stores, and bookstores could still
all choose to avoid any mention or discussion of sex entirely. And in a world
without obscenity laws, all of these institutions could and would still make
censorious choices based on their own views about politics, morals, religion,
or science. Thus the link between obscenity law and the excess narrowness, at
times, of the choices made by private industry as well as government is far
from direct.
Although the link is not direct, we are in no position to deny that there may
be some psychological connection between obscenity laws and their enforcement
and a general perception that non-governmental restriction of anything dealing
with sex is justifiable. We find the connection unjustifiable, but that is not
to say that it may not exist in the world. But just as vigorous and vocal
enforcement of robbery laws may create the environment in which vigilantes feel
justified in punishing offenders outside of legal processes, so too may
obscenity law create an environment in which discussions of sexuality are
effectively stifled. But we cannot ignore the extent to which much of this
stifling, to the extent that it exists, is no more than the exercise by
citizens of their First Amendment rights to sell or make what they wish.
Choices are not always exercised wisely, but the leap from some unwise choices
to the unconstitutionality of criminal laws only remotely related to those
unwise choices is too big a leap for us to take.
m.terribile
> points.
>
> >ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a
> >camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years
> >later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide
> >where to draw the line in the work rules for this material?
>
> At the present time, I believe that only adults over 18 can legally appear in
> a porn film. I always thought this was because we assume that someone of that
> age is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. If that is not
> true, then we have other, much larger problems. When someone believes in their
> convictions and is honest about themselves up front, there are no "skeletons in
> the closet" that can be dragged out later, and hence no embarrassments.
First of all, in New York State, the age limit is 16, not 18. A little too
young. Secondly, it is claimed that in making films for certain audiences,
*not* pedophilic in the usual sense, there is a great deal of pressure to
use women (and men) who are younger. Because of loose recordkeeping require-
ments and because the ``stars'' are usually paid in cash, it's hard for the
State labor authorities or child welfare authorities to keep tabs on this
properly.
Also, many people who make just a couple of explicit sex films (including
Sylvester Stallone, by the way) do so to keep from starving. It's quick
money, cash that you con't have to report to the taxman, and a couple of
films will pay the rent and buy you hot dogs and crackers for a few weeks.
The ``informed, rational, adult decision'' view isn't quite appropriate. If,
as Oleg K. has said, people who sell their bodies in the street are victms of
society, can we rule out the possibility that people who sell their bodies
on film are likewise victims?
In the face of testimony by people who have made such films under these
circumstances, trying to stay n school or find a legitimate job, the ``stars''
might well be said to be victims of circumstances, if not society. The
technologies of photography, cinematography, and electronic video have
increased the hazards by creating a permanent record that cannot be explained
away the way a drawing or painting could be.
> [regarding porn magazines as opposed to "outdoor" type magazines]
> >On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and
> >risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the
> >welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than
> >dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in).
>
> In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec-
> tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel-
> ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most
> comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap-
> peared in Hustler magazine. I guess that those type of magazines are the only
> forum where sexual situations can be discussed in *frank terms*.
And to the extent that these things are done, and to the extent that the
advice is sound (my guess is that it is) the publications are serving a
useful purpose to their subscribers. But not all the remarks are directed
at Hustler (although some may be) and not all the remarks are directed at
magazines. What about the ``XXX Sex Dreams of a Sorority Girl XXX'' (the
name is one I just made up, folks ...) films that get run in the ``adult
theaters''. Do they have write-in sections on sex with medically sound
advice?
> >>... You don't need porn for this, just buy a copy of "The Joy of Sex".
> >> (Unless sex manuals are ipso facto porn?).
> >
> >Does ``The Joy Of Sex'' demonstrate whippings that cause bleeding, or provide
> >photographic depictions of people being tortured by having their penises,
> >labia, or nipples pierced? Does it depict acts that are difficult, degrading,
> >or harmful? Does it encourage non-consensual acts, or acts under duress?
> This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not been ex-
> posed to this type of material, although I'm sure it exists for those willing
> to spend the effort to find it. This seems to be a good place to reiterate my
> request to help break the connection between sex and violence. One way to aid
> this campaign is to not use the two terms together. Try to replace the stan-
> dard phrase "sex AND violence", with "sex OR violence" wherever possible. It
> seems like such a small thing, but I don't know of a better way to start.
>
This seems like a good place to point out that, although there is a sorry
lack of reliable social science evidence, and (according to Adam R.) reliable
studies asking simplistic questions of this complex phenomenon (yes, Adam, I'm
adding a little to what you said ...) would not indicate direct links for
most of the population, clearly there *is* a subpopulation for whom sexual
pleasure is enhanced by violence or by degrading others. And materials of
the sort which (as you say) do not interest you *do* affect them when sex and
violence are juxtaposed (in slasher flicks) or combined (in certain types of
pornography).
Because the interaction of the two affects people (victims) of these
individuals, and because patterns of victimization are not always simple and
evident (look at columns by Ann Landers, look at articles on this newsgroup
about dogs and cleaning the house) the simple remedy of ``well, leave him''
does not protect these victims adequately. Further, where force or threat of
bodily harm is involved, that remedy is simply not available.
By the way, one of the few types of direct research that the Commission *did*
undertake was a survey of materials available at ``adult bookstores''. The
methods included taking the title of every nth current magazine or book that
had any sexual reference on the cover. Various materials were also purchase,
and other materials siezed by law enforcement officials were provided.
I'm sure that the places examined were the ``worst'' in terms of the strength
of material. On the other hand, within several major cities, these materials
were avalable to anyone who would walk into a store which advertised itself
as an adult bookstore. They are not hard to get.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
Steve Blore Howard
>
>lack of reliable social science evidence, and (according to Adam R.) reliable
>studies asking simplistic questions of this complex phenomenon (yes, Adam, I'm
>adding a little to what you said ...) would not indicate direct links for
>most of the population, clearly there *is* a subpopulation for whom sexual
>pleasure is enhanced by violence or by degrading others. And materials of
>the sort which (as you say) do not interest you *do* affect them when sex and
>violence are juxtaposed (in slasher flicks) or combined (in certain types of
>pornography).
>
>Because the interaction of the two affects people (victims) of these
>individuals, and because patterns of victimization are not always simple and
>evident (look at columns by Ann Landers, look at articles on this newsgroup
>about dogs and cleaning the house) the simple remedy of ``well, leave him''
>does not protect these victims adequately. Further, where force or threat of
>bodily harm is involved, that remedy is simply not available.
>
This is as valid an argument for gun control or banning religion as it
is for pornography legislation. Watch this: Although we don't have very
much evidence about the general population, there is a subpopulation which
uses firearms in the commission of crimes. And the legality of firearms
does make it easier for them to obtain guns and commit these crimes. Because
these crimes have victims, the simple remedy of "well, just arrest the
criminals and leave us law-abiding citizens alone" does not protect these
victims adequately.
Or: Although most church-goers are quiet, nonviolent people, there is
a subpopulation for whom religious fervor leads to bigotry and political
oppression. Since this affects people (victims), and since the patterns
of political oppression are not always simple and evident, the simple
remedy of "well, don't listen to loonies like Jerry Falwell" does not
protect these victims adequately.
--
"The king is gone but he's not forgotten.
This is the story of Johnny Rotten."
Steve "Blore" Howard, a Fun Guy from Yuggoth
{hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard
or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
Ed Hall
Your opponents generally seem to feel that the Meese Commission Report
is biased, and was undertaken with a specific outcome in mind. Since
I consider Ed Meese to be only slightly more liberal than Atila The
Hun, and since several commissioners already where on record as having
strong opinions on pornography (all against!), I find the accusation
of bias a reasonable one. It seemed very, very clear that great pains
were being taken not to make the same ``mistakes'' that Nixon did
fourteen years ago.
You've done little to rebutt this charge of bias. I think you need to
do so--going back to the politics which generated the commission and
the way they discharged their mission--before you continue to use it
in your anti-pornography arguments. Why rely on this report to
buttress your arguments when the people you're arguing against don't
support it as a source of unbiased information?
More to the point: where are your other sources? Surely there are
many out there--some of which support a benign view on pornography.
Look them up, study them, see where the logical fallacies and
statistical inaccuracies lie. Certainly there have been studies since
the Nixon era that support a viewpoint contrary to the Meese
Commission. Where are they wrong? You can't claim to have an open
mind on the subject until you've done some digging for opinions
different than your own.
[Yes, I've read up on the anti-pornography side, from Meese to Dworkin
to Linda Lovelace. I've got better things to do with my time than
read an entire rambling thousand-plus page report, though. Besides,
most porn really isn't to my taste, and the pages and pages of
explicit plot summaries in the report--have YOU read them?--are
nothing but porn in themselves. Funny that they'd do that--you don't
see the government handing out cocaine just so people can see how bad
it is!]
Remember that two commissioners--two women!--publically repudiated
many of the findings of the male majority, claiming the majority had
no factual basis to support said findings. Have you investigated
this? Have you read the Nixon-era report? Have you visited adult
bookstores and moviehouses so you can see with your own eyes just what
it is you're talking about? [I've not an extensive amount of
experience here, but my suspicion is that the S&M-laced stuff the
Meese Commission concentrated on is pretty uncommon, and that scenes
of domination feature women in the dominant role as often as men.]
One final comment: the discussion seems to be degenerating into a
religious argument (and anything based upon American Protestant Ethics
is a religious argument at core). Consider that some of the most
sexually explicit paintings and writings of other cultures come from a
religious base. Consider also that one of the most productive
industrial nations on Earth--Japan--has one of the lowest rates of sex
crimes yet consumes enormous amounts of often violent pornography. We
consume less, condemn it far more, yet rate number one in terms of sex
crimes. The reasons for this difference are doubtless complex, as is
the issue of pornography--far, far more complex than the Meese
Commission ever considered, which is why I dismiss its findings as
superficial propaganda and seek the truth elsewhere.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
Dave Richards
m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>
[regarding age of porn film actors]
>First of all, in New York State, the age limit is 16, not 18. A little too
>young. Secondly, it is claimed that in making films for certain audiences,
>*not* pedophilic in the usual sense, there is a great deal of pressure to
>use women (and men) who are younger. Because of loose recordkeeping require-
>ments and because the ``stars'' are usually paid in cash, it's hard for the
>State labor authorities or child welfare authorities to keep tabs on this
>properly.
I'm not sure that this is a valid reason for preventing these willing people
from working. Just because it may be difficult for the government to stick
their nose into something, does not mean it should be made illegal.
Example: It is hard to keep track of people who wander around the country
and have no permanent address. Should we outlaw this, and throw nomads (or
gypsies, or whatever you want to call them) in jail?
>> [regarding porn magazines as opposed to "outdoor" type magazines]
>> >On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and
>> >risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the
>> >welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than
>> >dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in).
>> In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec-
>> tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel-
>> ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most
>> comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap-
>> peared in Hustler magazine.
>
>And to the extent that these things are done, and to the extent that the
>advice is sound (my guess is that it is) the publications are serving a
>useful purpose to their subscribers. But not all the remarks are directed
>at Hustler (although some may be) and not all the remarks are directed at
>magazines. What about the ``XXX Sex Dreams of a Sorority Girl XXX'' (the
>name is one I just made up, folks ...) films that get run in the ``adult
>theaters''. Do they have write-in sections on sex with medically sound
>advice?
As can be seen by the quote I included, I was responding to the comparison of
porn MAGAZINES with "outdoors" or "sports" MAGAZINES. If you want to change
the subject to films, fine, but obviously what I said has no bearing on this.
[description of porn as having pictures of people being tortured, nipples or
penises pierced, etc.]
>> This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not been ex-
>> posed to this type of material, although I'm sure it exists for those willing
>> to spend the effort to find it.
>....... one of the few types of direct research that the Commission *did*
>undertake was a survey of materials available at ``adult bookstores''. The
>methods included taking the title of every nth current magazine or book that
>had any sexual reference on the cover. Various materials were also purchase,
>and other materials siezed by law enforcement officials were provided.
Unfortunately, that type of survey ("every nth current") does not say much
about the relative volume, or popularity of each type of pornography avail-
able. Using the same survey technique in a supermarket, one could infer
that a person is just as likely to buy a bottle of tabasco sauce as they
are to buy a potato, because they are both equally available. The false
conclusion is that the demand for all items is equal.
Obviously I'm guessing here, but I would imagine that the largest volume of
porn is that which is in Penthouse, Playboy, Playgirl, and so forth, simply
because of the multitude of convenience stores that sell them. So who can
really say what PERCENTAGE of porn sold is of the violent, sadomasochistic
or torture type. Let's say that this 'violent' porn amounts to 1/100 of
the total pornography market. I don't think that is cause for concern.
Of course it may be more. Did the commission examine that issue? Or did
they merely say that 'some exists'?
Dave
>Mark Terribile
>>Dave
m.terribile
>
> Your opponents generally seem to feel that the Meese Commission Report
> is biased, and was undertaken with a specific outcome in mind. Since
> I consider Ed Meese to be only slightly more liberal than Atila The
> Hun, and since several commissioners already where on record as having
> strong opinions on pornography (all against!), I find the accusation
> of bias a reasonable one. It seemed very, very clear that great pains
> were being taken not to make the same ``mistakes'' that Nixon did
> fourteen years ago.
As I've said, it *IS* clear that a number of the Commissioners were aware
of real harms that they associated -- rightly or wrongly -- with either the
production, consumption, or distribution of certain sexually explicit
materials. On the other hand, I also think that, given the difficulties
involved, they made a compelling case that *some* of the harms do stem, if
not from the material itself, then from the manners and circumstances in
which it is produced and distributed, and maybe consumed.
As far as the 1970 Commission: do you disagree with the assertion that the
circumstances surrounding that statement are no longer true? How do you
feel about the British and Canadian Commissions, which found at least the
possibility of harm?
As far as outcomes being predetermined: if the Commission was set up with
as right-wing, righteous, and bible-thumping an agenda as some seem to feel,
it obviously failed, indicating that it felt that there should be *no*
restrictions on the ``written word'' (so long as it is non-pedophilic) and
deploring the shoddy state of current research, relying as little as possible
on it. (and then you cry that the Commission didn't use scientific methods!)
And why the lengthy discussions about just what *constitutes* pornography
(as opposed to erotica as opposed to ... )? Evidently there must have been
a majority which felt (perhaps on rational grounds, perhaps on simple personal
bias ...) that *not* all such material is harmful, or indecent, or whatever
grounds one might have for condemning it, and that it was important to
*not* condemn that material.
> You've done little to rebutt this charge of bias. I think you need to
> do so--going back to the politics which generated the commission and
> the way they discharged their mission--before you continue to use it
> in your anti-pornography arguments. Why rely on this report to
> buttress your arguments when the people you're arguing against don't
> support it as a source of unbiased information?
Because I think that we've got a constructive discussion going. Even if we
don't agree on the things that are in that Report, we are getting things
aired, and apparently it is worth the while of the folk engaged in the
discussion to engage in it.
And *yes*, I *am* interested in what Adam has to say, and I've had to do
some thinking to see where he and I really do agree, and at what point the
disagreement begins. (Obviously we expect to see different results when
certain hypothetical studies are done; obviously I take a conservative view
in many ways; but the differences are more subtle than that ...)
> [Yes, I've read up on the anti-pornography side, from Meese to Dworkin
> to Linda Lovelace. I've got better things to do with my time than
> read an entire rambling thousand-plus page report, though. Besides,
> most porn really isn't to my taste, and the pages and pages of
> explicit plot summaries in the report--have YOU read them?--are
> nothing but porn in themselves. Funny that they'd do that--you don't
> see the government handing out cocaine just so people can see how bad
> it is!]
The ``pages and pages'' are one small section of the report; unfortunately
it *would* be improper to issue a report without an attempt to show what
they were talking about.
I agree that the prose of the report could be tauter; could you have done
better under the same circumstances? (Never mind, I know that you wouldn't
have bothered.)
> Remember that two commissioners--two women!--publically repudiated
> many of the findings of the male majority, claiming the majority had
> no factual basis to support said findings. Have you investigated
> this? Have you read the Nixon-era report? Have you visited adult
> bookstores and moviehouses so you can see with your own eyes just what
> it is you're talking about? [I've not an extensive amount of
> experience here, but my suspicion is that the S&M-laced stuff the
> Meese Commission concentrated on is pretty uncommon, and that scenes
> of domination feature women in the dominant role as often as men.]
I've been trying for six days to get the time to type those dissenting
sections in. I think that you'll find that the essence of the dissent
(which involved 3 statements by 3 Commissioners in combination) wasn't
quite as simple as that. The strongest statement was a basic anti-censorship
statement which acknowledged the possibility of harms.
And the Commission itself (shall I find the page?) wrote that they could not
be certain how representative the stuff was. On the other hand, it *was*
representative of the things that some of them had seen in their work with
individuals who *were* harmed as a (possibly indirect) result of *someone's*
*production*, *consumption*, or *distribution* of explicit material.
In this case, it may be argued (and I suspect it is the case) that much of
the stuff they surveyed was *exactly* representative of the material that
is associated with harms, and *not* representative of the material that most
of the consumers here are familiar with. And if *that* is the case, maybe
we *can* find a place to draw lines between material that is involved in
patterns of harm, and the material that people here are into.
And maybe it isn't the case. But we ought to try to get around to that
question; we've nibbled at it a few times, but never really taken a bite
out of it.
> One final comment: the discussion seems to be degenerating into a
> religious argument (and anything based upon American Protestant Ethics
> is a religious argument at core). ...
If you are arguing that it is either unreasonable or improper for a society
to at least *display* (if not entirely hold to) a minimal set of common mores,
then I wonder how you define a society or a culture?
> ... Consider that some of the most
> sexually explicit paintings and writings of other cultures come from a
> religious base....
But *not* photographs of people actually doing it, nor video depictions.
Perhaps there is no difference; somehow I don't buy it. By presenting these
depictions, are we not in some way violating the very notions of sexual
privacy that are so often argued on this group? Perhaps not. As a matter
of personal opinion (to keep this from growing any longer) I think we are.
> ... . Consider also that one of the most productive
> industrial nations on Earth--Japan--has one of the lowest rates of sex
> crimes yet consumes enormous amounts of often violent pornography. We
> consume less, condemn it far more, yet rate number one in terms of sex
> crimes. ...
Didn't someone recently point out that sexual violence often goes unreported
in Japan and is a *big* problem?
> ... The reasons for this difference are doubtless complex, as is
> the issue of pornography--far, far more complex than the Meese
> Commission ever considered, which is why I dismiss its findings as
> superficial propaganda and seek the truth elsewhere.
I will agree that the phenomona are complex, and that we will probably
never understand them all. I will argue that in the face of certain harms to
an admittedly small class of individuals, by an admittedly small and abnormal
group of offenders, it is not acceptable to throw up our hands and say ``I
don't understand'' and not try remedies whose chance of harm is very small
indeed, whose chance of at least partial and temporary success is fairly
good, while trying to better understand what is happening so that we
can both repair current damage and prevent future damage.
Rex Ballard
>
> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>>
>[regarding age of porn film actors]
>>First of all, in New York State, the age limit is 16, not 18. A little too
>>young. Secondly, it is claimed that in making films for certain audiences,
>>*not* pedophilic in the usual sense, there is a great deal of pressure to
>>use women (and men) who are younger. Because of loose recordkeeping require-
>>ments and because the ``stars'' are usually paid in cash, it's hard for the
>>State labor authorities or child welfare authorities to keep tabs on this
>>properly.
Most magazines I have purchased have had a disclaimer indicating that
all models were over 18, and that captions, etc, may not reflect the views
of the models. They also idicate that records proving the age of the
models can be obtained by appropriate govornment agencies at the publishers
address. This disclaimer is most common in publications produced in
California.
>I'm not sure that this is a valid reason for preventing these willing people
>from working. Just because it may be difficult for the government to stick
>their nose into something, does not mean it should be made illegal.
It is up to the state to decide what the legal age of consent should be.
Once that decision is made, the production is legal or not, depending
on that age.
There is the question of whether the something produced in a state where
legal age is 15, and sold where legal age is 18. It increases the
likelihood that the state with the lowest age of consent could become
the state with the most active "youth" porn industry. Most publishers
seem to be going for the highest, around 18.
There also the question of non-sexual pictorials. If the girl is 14,
but shown posing by herself, not with another man, is this a crime?
If the photographer was also a young girl? Slumber parties could become
a profitable business.
The preventive here of course, is that for the pictures to be published,
the model, or his/her legal guardian, must sign a release. UCC requires
a person to be 18 to do this in most states.
Since the states must depend on the federal government to regulate interstate
commerce, it is a federal problem.
>Example: It is hard to keep track of people who wander around the country
>and have no permanent address. Should we outlaw this, and throw nomads (or
>gypsies, or whatever you want to call them) in jail?
A more accurate parallel would be to throw the landlords who rent to them
in jail, along with the employers who employ them. This is done where
illegal immigrants are involved.
Rex Ballard
>
> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>
>penises pierced, etc.]
>
>>> This is not what I think of when I think of pornography. I have not
>>>for those willing to spend the effort to find it.
You must not have looked in an "Adult Bookstore". This type of pornography
does exist, not in abundance, but in sufficient quantities to be accidentally
purchased. There are two or three types of "bondage" porn. One type is
more like a "fashion magazine", featuring women in suggestive costumes
made of leather, satin, and silk. Another is the "gentle bondage" group,
which has the same "high fashion" with a man or woman restrained in the
background, often also wearing unusual attire. Then there is a third
group where the victim really is tortured but gently, for the purpose
of sexual pleasure. A fourth type, where the victim is savagely tortured,
not enjoying it, often seriously hurt. This last type is extremely rare,
but exists, and is carried by many bookstores. All four types look
nearly identical on the outside. Video tape covers, magazine covers,
and film covers, usually show the "high fashion" in front, with advertizing
on the back.
>>....... one of the few types of direct research that the Commission *did*
>>undertake was a survey of materials available at ``adult bookstores''. The
>>methods included taking the title of every nth current magazine or book that
>>had any sexual reference on the cover.
In this type of survey, I am surprised they found hard core bondage magazines,
unless they were looking for them very hard.
>>Various materials were also purchased,
Under what conditions?
>>and other materials siezed by law enforcement officials were provided.
I am sure this would give a very distorted picture. Law enforcment
officials normally only sieze materials in which a crime has been filmed.
This would lead to lot's of "Hard Core" with little balance.
>Unfortunately, that type of survey ("every nth current") does not say much
>about the relative volume, or popularity of each type of pornography avail-
>able. Using the same survey technique in a supermarket, one could infer
>that a person is just as likely to buy a bottle of tabasco sauce as they
>are to buy a potato, because they are both equally available. The false
>conclusion is that the demand for all items is equal.
There may be some accuracy in assuming that "bondage" is quite popular.
Gentle bondage especially, is very popular among both men and women in
the older age brackets. Many in this same group, however, are offended
by the "Very Hard Core" pain and torture stuff.
>Obviously I'm guessing here, but I would imagine that the largest volume of
>porn is that which is in Penthouse, Playboy, Playgirl, and so forth, simply
>because of the multitude of convenience stores that sell them. So who can
>really say what PERCENTAGE of porn sold is of the violent, sadomasochistic
>or torture type. Let's say that this 'violent' porn amounts to 1/100 of
>the total pornography market. I don't think that is cause for concern.
>Of course it may be more. Did the commission examine that issue? Or did
>they merely say that 'some exists'?
>Dave
>>Mark Terribile
>>>Dave
Actually, many publications frequently run surveys of their audience,
publish the results, and even track trends. Readers, subscribers
especially, tend to get more sophisticated in their tastes, but
newer magazines will bring newer readers along based on their level
of interest.
Circulation figures are available to anyone interested in purchasing
advertising, and certainly could have been requested or subpoenaed
by the commission.
A worthwhile issue to point out here is the percentage of "porn within the
porn". Playboy has a very small percentage of it's magazine dedicated
to erotic pictorials, a similarly small percentage of the printed matter
is sexually oriented.
The goals of the Meese commission seem unclear at this point. Were
they attempting to look at the market as a whole, the worst abuses
within the market, the trends toward abuses, or the effects based on
the trends? They did a terrible job in the first case, an fair job in
the second, a terrible job in the third, and a terrible job on the
fourth.
The report in no way reflects even a random sampling of the market.
This might have been excusable in the absence of any research data,
but porn is one of the most carefully monitored types of material
published. There is a thin line between boring, erotic, and offensive.
Publishers must stay within those lines or lose readers.
They did an adequate job of revealing possible and actual abuses by a
small segment of the market, though they often cited what appeared to
be abuses as actual without providing evidence to support the claims.
While there might be evidence of a trend toward bondage and other assorted
"kinks", this could be attributed to factors ranging from an aging
population, especially the "baby boomers", increased exposure to socially
acceptable violence, or the decline of "fetish material" due to the
lack of restrictions on total nudity (fetish material has always been
popular, even since the days when Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson
exchanged materials (following Jefferson's wife's demise).
Reguarding the "effects of porn". They provided some evidence that
some readers/viewer of porn suffered adverse effects. Several
studies which proved (inconclusively), that violent depictions
may adversely effect behaviour was used to imply that sexually
violent depicitons may effect behaviour. The material used
in the cause/effect research only included sexually suggestive,
rather than explicit material, violently explicit, rather than
suggestive material, and a plot where the antagonist was someone
to whom the protagonist was was sexually attracted.
The shoddy research, deceptive use of studies, and distortion of
the few facts obtained, make this study useless even as pornographic
liturature.
One person on the net wondered why I didn't testify, or at least
suggest avenues of evidence. I wasn't asked, informed of the
study until after it's completion, and would not be considered
a desirable witness. It appears the same applies to anyone else
with significant information.
How much money did this little investigation cost?
Rex Ballard
> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>>> >On the other hand, legitimate sports publications stress safety measures and
>>> >risks, and report deaths and injuries that occur. They are dedicated to the
>>> >welfare of their subscribers (thereby keeping *live* subscribers) rather than
>>> >dedicated to the *addiction* of their subscribers (thereby sucking more in).
>
>>> In more than one of the "skin" magazines I have read, there are write-in sec-
>>> tions that DO answer questions, address disease protection and so forth, dispel-
>>> ling myths and performing a definite educational function. Some of the most
>>> comprehensive articles about "safe sex" (regarding AIDS) that I have seen ap-
>>> peared in Hustler magazine.
>>
>>And to the extent that these things are done, and to the extent that the
>>advice is sound (my guess is that it is) the publications are serving a
>>useful purpose to their subscribers. But not all the remarks are directed
>>at Hustler (although some may be) and not all the remarks are directed at
>>magazines. What about the ``XXX Sex Dreams of a Sorority Girl XXX'' (the
>>name is one I just made up, folks ...) films that get run in the ``adult
>>theaters''. Do they have write-in sections on sex with medically sound
>>advice?
>As can be seen by the quote I included, I was responding to the comparison of
>porn MAGAZINES with "outdoors" or "sports" MAGAZINES. If you want to change
>the subject to films, fine, but obviously what I said has no bearing on this.
Sports media and porn media are very similar markets.
I don't remember the last football game I watched. I do remember a lot
of indescriminate violence, injuries, and intentional abuse. I don't
remember any precautionary material being presented. I do remember
watching one in a public place where a man broke his glass because
someone wasn't being abusive enough. There was lots of shouting,
anger, and drinking. Maybe we should ban football?
:->.
I don't remember precautionary statements in the baseball game about
proper and safe use of a baseball bat. "Warriors" is an example of
how not to use one, but of how they are often used. Maybe we should
ban baseball?
:->
I saw a hocky game on telvision once. I remember them trying to explain
in which ways it was against the rules to beat someone, and in which
ways it acceptable to beat someone. I didn't understand them, but
then appearantly, neither did the players. Maybe we should ban hocky?
Of course, we know that both Magnum P.I. and Miami Vice always have at
least 10% of the show devoted to the safe use of handguns before they
are used to kill those nasty people. Maybe we should ban the use
of guns on television?
Almost every adventure and detective case has at least one car chase,
often lasting at least one minute, usually ending in destruction of
at least three vehicles. Maybe car chases lead to wreckless driving!
Maybe we should ban car chases?
More people have been hurt, disabled, and even killed in all the
"sports events" than have been featured in pornographic films.
Sports are supposed to teach the *participants* values such as teamwork,
cooperation, and instinctive ability. The fact that they teach the
viewers such values as "winning at all costs", "violence for the sake
of the game", and admiration for abuse and violence, means nothing?
You watch sports if you want Mark. I'd rather watch a dirty movie :-).
How about you dave?
>Dave
>>Mark Terribile
>>>Dave
Sex - America's favorite sport.
Rex B.
Opinions are mine alone, and subject to change without notice (But I doubt it).
m.terribile
> > a certain group of people ...]
> >
> >Because the interaction of the two affects people (victims) of these
> >individuals, and because patterns of victimization are not always simple and
> >evident (look at columns by Ann Landers, look at articles on this newsgroup
> >about dogs and cleaning the house) the simple remedy of ``well, leave him''
> >does not protect these victims adequately. Further, where force or threat of
> >bodily harm is involved, that remedy is simply not available.
> >
>
> This is as valid an argument for gun control or banning religion as it
> is for pornography legislation. Watch this: Although we don't have very
> much evidence about the general population, there is a subpopulation which
> uses firearms in the commission of crimes. And the legality of firearms
> does make it easier for them to obtain guns and commit these crimes. Because
> these crimes have victims, the simple remedy of "well, just arrest the
> criminals and leave us law-abiding citizens alone" does not protect these
> victims adequately.
There are a couple of differences. First, with the horrible case of domestic
violence put aside, the victims or crimes committed with guns and the victims
of bigotry do not have emotional attatchments to the people harming them.
Second, people who have been shot or robbed at gunpoint can either be
identified or can identify themselves rather easily; likewise victims of most
overt and harmful acts of bigotry. Third, of all crimes committed with the
threat of use of a firearm, only rape (which does not *require* a firearm)
carries the potential for emotional damage that long-term assault on sexual
dignity (by subtle demands for acts that are painful or that feel degrading)
carries.
In this case:
1) The victims are people with emotional ties to the offenders
2) The victims often cannot identify themselves and no one else can usually
identify them (except after many years when awareness begins to penetrate
the shame and guilt)
3) The potential for extraordinarily deep damage is large.