Swinging fists (was AG's Commission ...)
Jerry Natowitz
> of material involved either the kind of exploitation that you have named,
> or else the ``it was that or starve'' question? Not knowing whether a
> given film was or was not made under these conditions, could you, in
> good conscience, view it?
>
> 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)
> ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
I work for a living because the alternative would be to starve to death
(a very long process in my case, but an eventuality non-the-less).
I think way over 65% of my co-workers are in the same boat. Does
this mean that we are exploited and that the government should attempt
to keep our products out of the marketplace?
What did you say? We wouldn't starve if we weren't working. That's
right, minimum wage at McFast-food or welfare.
I don't see your logic at all.
--
Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division)
Bell Labs HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (no CORNET)
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin
or ihnp4!opus!jin
Isn't it interesting how the beautiful little red flower in the forest
becomes so ugly when you discover it's a candy wrapper.
Joe Arceneaux
> > "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> > -- generally attributed to Will Rogers
> >
> > -- johnmill
>
> I'd like to point out that if I have a heart condition, your right to swing
> your fist may well end a good deal further away than that; and if you don't
> have good evidence that I don't suffer from a heart condition, you'd better
> be prepared to expect that I do, or you might find out in a way that would
> probably leave you rather sorry.
Ah, but if I swing my fists in alone in my own home, then there's no
problem. Furthermore, if you have such a heart condition, then you
are more an exception than a rule and would have to avoid quite a few
situations which would not affect 'normal' people, and hence would
surely not be ceased because of your particular condition.
--
Joseph Arceneaux
Lafayette, LA
(ut-sally!usl!jla, jla%usl.CSNET)
Karen Christenson
>> -- generally attributed to Will Rogers
>>
>> -- johnmill
>
>I'd like to point out that if I have a heart condition, your right to swing
>your fist may well end a good deal further away than that; and if you don't
>have good evidence that I don't suffer from a heart condition, you'd better
>be prepared to expect that I do, or you might find out in a way that would
>probably leave you rather sorry.
>
> (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
Any action can have unforeseen consequences - the ripple effect and all
that. So *anything* I do, even something seemingly minor (like brushing my
hair), could conceivably have negative consequences. I can't prove that it
won't. So maybe I should do nothing. Only that might have negative
consequences, too ....
I realize you said "good evidence" of a condition. Is there also "good
evidence" that swinging a fist at someone with a heart condition will is
hazardous to his/her health? Anything is possible; the question is whether
it's probable. If we can't be omniscient, at least we can be sensible.
What bothered me about the posting is that it takes a general principle,
not a hard-and-fast rule, and tries to tie it down with a bunch of what-ifs.
It's a common tendency, but usually not a very productive one.
Karen Christenson
"Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea
Have an adequate day.
Dale Worley
> >
> > At this time I personally believe that it is anyone's right to view any
> > kind of flick their little hearts desire, and for anyone to produce or
> > act in any kind of production they wish, PROVIDED that no exploitation
> > or coercion is employed in that production. I make NO distinction in
> > this regard as to whether the end result is porn or not.
>
> What if it were the case that the production of, say, 65% of some class
> of material involved either the kind of exploitation that you have named,
> or else the ``it was that or starve'' question? Not knowing whether a
> given film was or was not made under these conditions, could you, in
> good conscience, view it?
*work* for a living? The underlying lossage in the term
"exploitation" is the assumption that there is some standard of
"fairness" inherent in the universe that determines whether submiting
to a given unpleasant necessity is considered being "exploited".
(There's a saying among prostitutes that the only difference between
being a secretary and being a prostitute is the parts of your body you
are renting out and the price you get for it.)
The only underlying reality is that in each generation, only a certain
fraction are going to "survive" (i.e., produce viable offspring).
People will do almost anything to get into that fraction. (For more
details, see "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.)
Dale
Rex Ballard
>> > Incidentally:
>> >
>> > At this time I personally believe that it is anyone's right to view any
>> > kind of flick their little hearts desire, and for anyone to produce or
>> > act in any kind of production they wish, PROVIDED that no exploitation
>> > or coercion is employed in that production. I make NO distinction in
>> > this regard as to whether the end result is porn or not.
>>
>> What if it were the case that the production of, say, 65% of some class
>> of material involved either the kind of exploitation that you have named,
>> or else the ``it was that or starve'' question? Not knowing whether a
>> given film was or was not made under these conditions, could you, in
>> good conscience, view it?
>
>Hey, if it weren't for "that or starve", would any of us actually
>*work* for a living?
Actually, many of us would work for a living. We might be doing something
other than what we are doing now, but boredom, lonliness, and a desire
for better things (assuming work for pay) would be good motivators.
As to the "that or starve" issue. There are other alternatives, such as
working at lower paying jobs. Minimum pay for a film is usually over
$100/day. With film schedules running several weeks. Add royalties,
residuals, and side income such as interviews, and you have a tidy sum.
Replace "that or starve" with "that or sell my caddy", and you have a
better picture.
Actors DO risk extended periods of unemployment, even starvation. This
is a choice, and not necessarily an irreversable one.
If there were still 65% of some material that was filmed coercion, I would
still seek to protect the 35% who do not use coercion. If that group
was persecuted in the same way as the 65% indiscriminately, the 35%
would go out of business, while the 65% would find a larger market.
In other words, why turn 65% into 100%?
One important issue here. Neither the federal government nor the
locals are allowed to ban the sale and distribution of pornography
entirely. It can be restricted to adults, sold only in certain
"red light districts", liscenced, rated, or otherwise regulated.
It is even legal to harass dealers, if there is reason to believe
that other activities (prostitution, public sex, drugs, other crimes)
are also being committed.
If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
The growth of that market might "crowd out" the coercive and unethical
segment of the market.
I saw "Deep Throat" before it became public that the lead actress was
beaten and otherwise coerced into performing in the film. I didn't
particularly enjoy it then. I won't watch it now. The irony is that
this film is available at the suburban video club, while other movies
with willing partners in situations such a bondage, unusual costumes,
cross-dressing, and/or various other themes is only available in a very
"intimidating" part of the inner city.
Mario O. Bourgoin
>>> "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
In >> Mark Terrible tries to expand the meaning of this quote to
include the effects of threats upon another person. Karen points out
that all actions including no action can have unforeseeable
consequences and that probability of a consequence should be the guide
in deciding whether to do an action or refrain. She goes on to say:
> What bothered me about the posting is that it takes a general
> principle, not a hard-and-fast rule, and tries to tie it down with a
> bunch of what-ifs. It's a common tendency, but usually not a very
> productive one.
The example that Mark chose to illustrate his point appears to me to
represent a very probable sequence of events. Heart failure is one of
the major causes of deaths in the US which leads me to believe that a
heart condition is not as rare as what you appear to believe. Can
agressive behavior towards a person with a heart condition lead to
heart failure? I don't have evidence on hand but I can easily accept
this. Ask a heart disease specialist. The situation that Karen
compares Mark's example with, namely brushing her hair, is rather poor
in probable adverse consequences and therefore is a poor comparison
with what Mark proposes.
I submit that you did exactly what you claim bothers you: you took the
general principle that "Anything is possible" and tried to tie it down
with improbable what-ifs to make it say that Mark's example does not
contribute to the discussion. I find your comment to be irrelevant to
the discussion. It is unproductive.
--Mario O. Bourgoin
P.S. I'd like to hear about a "hard-and-fast rule" that you know
about.
m.terribile
> Actually, many of us would work for a living. We might be doing something
> other than what we are doing now, but boredom, lonliness, and a desire
> for better things (assuming work for pay) would be good motivators.
>
> As to the "that or starve" issue. There are other alternatives, such as
> working at lower paying jobs. Minimum pay for a film is usually over
> $100/day. With film schedules running several weeks. Add royalties,
> residuals, and side income such as interviews, and you have a tidy sum.
> Replace "that or starve" with "that or sell my caddy", and you have a
> better picture.
Almost. What about a student carrying a full workload, or a person with
skills that require a sophisticated job to take advantage of? Minimum wage
can't keep you housed in many cities.
Also, things like royalties and residuals may be common in the more legit
side of the sex film industry, but apparently there are many places where
the ``actors'' are paid for their time on stage or for the number of acts,
and get no further monies from the film.
> Actors DO risk extended periods of unemployment, even starvation. This
> is a choice, and not necessarily an irreversable one.
The legit film industry and the sex film industry have very little in
common. Even the sex film recruiter and the ``models'' who spoke before
the Commission indicated that if you were interested in acting, sex films
of the sort they were involved with were the *worst* thing you could do.
> If there were still 65% of some material that was filmed coercion, I would
> still seek to protect the 35% who do not use coercion. If that group
> was persecuted in the same way as the 65% indiscriminately, the 35%
> would go out of business, while the 65% would find a larger market.
> In other words, why turn 65% into 100%?
Fair enough. But there are still some problems (mentioned in another article.)
> One important issue here. Neither the federal government nor the
> locals are allowed to ban the sale and distribution of pornography
> entirely. It can be restricted to adults, sold only in certain
> "red light districts", liscenced, rated, or otherwise regulated.
> It is even legal to harass dealers, if there is reason to believe
> that other activities (prostitution, public sex, drugs, other crimes)
> are also being committed.
Not quite. When the material falls into the domain of true legal obscenity,
distribution (though not posession) can be prohibited. If you don't want
it prohibited, write your legislator.
> If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
> better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
> The growth of that market might "crowd out" the coercive and unethical
> segment of the market.
Fair enough. Is there a way to put a ``union label'' on these films?
I hope to soon post the three ``dissenting'' statements that were written by
three of the Commissioners. They are lengthy, and it takes a while for me to
type them. I hope that you examine them carefully.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
Rex Ballard
>> Actually, many of us would work for a living. We might be doing something
>> other than what we are doing now, but boredom, lonliness, and a desire
>> for better things (assuming work for pay) would be good motivators.
>>
>> As to the "that or starve" issue. There are other alternatives, such as
>> working at lower paying jobs. Minimum pay for a film is usually over
>> $100/day. With film schedules running several weeks. Add royalties,
>> residuals, and side income such as interviews, and you have a tidy sum.
>> Replace "that or starve" with "that or sell my caddy", and you have a
>> better picture.
>
>Almost. What about a student carrying a full workload,
You might get more sympathy with "that or quit school", but the end isn't that
much different. In fact, it's even admirable.
>or a person with
>skills that require a sophisticated job to take advantage of?
I couldn't be a nuclear phsysicist that week, so I took a porn job?
>Minimum wage can't keep you housed in many cities.
That isn't porn's fault. Roommates, house sharing, and federal aid are
available.
>> Actors DO risk extended periods of unemployment, even starvation. This
>> is a choice, and not necessarily an irreversable one.
>
>The legit film industry and the sex film industry have very little in
>common. Even the sex film recruiter and the ``models'' who spoke before
>the Commission indicated that if you were interested in acting, sex films
>of the sort they were involved with were the *worst* thing you could do.
This is partially true, and unfortunate. Too much "snobbery". To get
into legit, you have to agree to give up as much as 75% of your income
for as much as 7 years. This is assuming you have good connections.
>> If there were still 65% of some material that was filmed coercion, I would
>> still seek to protect the 35% who do not use coercion.
>Fair enough. But there are still some problems (mentioned in another article.)
>> One important issue here. Neither the federal government nor the
>> locals are allowed to ban the sale and distribution of pornography
>> entirely. It can be restricted to adults, sold only in certain
>> "red light districts", liscenced, rated, or otherwise regulated.
>> It is even legal to harass dealers, if there is reason to believe
>> that other activities (prostitution, public sex, drugs, other crimes)
>> are also being committed.
>
>Not quite. When the material falls into the domain of true legal obscenity,
>distribution (though not posession) can be prohibited.
Care to give some examples of porn that has been banned entirely, and the
evidence required for an issue to be banned?.
>> If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
>> better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
>
>Fair enough. Is there a way to put a ``union label'' on these films?
Yes!!! Requiring release forms for each release of the material, AFTER
filming. No signature, and the lawsuits could close the picture and
the producer.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Rex B.
Rex Ballard
>distribution (though not posession) can be prohibited. If you don't want
>it prohibited, write your legislator.
Interesting. I have only heard of two types of successful bans.
Snuff films, and child pornography, when containing nothing else of
literary merit, has been banned.
The same films, with social commentary, warnings, and similar literary
"improvements" has been allowed, without further censorship.
Two death row inmates thus far, have arranged for the proceeds from the
filming of their own executions, to be donated to either a charity of
their, or their victim's survivors choice.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
I hear someone is actually planning on making a film version of the
commission report.
You've read the book, now see the movie :-).
m.terribile
> >skills that require a sophisticated job to take advantage of?
>
> I couldn't be a nuclear phsysicist that week, so I took a porn job?
Graphic arts training?
> >Minimum wage can't keep you housed in many cities.
>
> That isn't porn's fault. Roommates, house sharing, and federal aid are
> available.
In NYC? I know people who were paying over 500/month for a ``studio'' that
was little more than two closets, and two people were sharing this apartment.
Why? Because that is where they are studying, where the industry they wish
to break into is located, where ...
> >> If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
> >> better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
> >
> >Fair enough. Is there a way to put a ``union label'' on these films?
>
> Yes!!! Requiring release forms for each release of the material, AFTER
> filming. No signature, and the lawsuits could close the picture and
> the producer.
(Rex B.)
(From the Report of the AG's Commission, admittedly more concerned in this
recomendation with the welfare of minors, but possibly applicable here)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMENDATION 37:
CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT A STATUTE REQUIRING THE PRODUCERS, RETAILERS OR
DISTRIBUTORS OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT VISUAL DEPICTIONS TO MAINTAIN RECORDS
CONTAINING CONSENT FORMS AND PROOF OF PERFORMER'S AGES.
Pornographers use minors as performers in films and other visual
depictions. [Reference given] The consumer demand for youthful performers has
also created a class of pornography referred to as psuedo child pornography.
[ ... Models used in such publications are chosen for their youthful appearance
(e.g., in females, slim build and small breasts); and are presented with
various accourtrements to enhance the illusion of immaturity (e.g., hair in
ponytails or ringlets, toys, teddy bears, etc ... ] The growth of pseudo child
pornography has made it increasingly difficult for law enforcement officers to
ascertain whether an individual in a film or other visual depiction is a minor.
Minors deserve special protection ...
The proposed legislation should afford protection to minors through
every level of the pornography industry. The recordkeeping obligation should
be imposed on wholesalers, retailers, distributors, producers, and any one
engaged in the sale or trade of sexually explicit material as described in The
Child Protection Act.
...
Producers would be required to obtain proof of age of the performer
and a signed release form if the performer engages in any sex act which would
be in violation of The Child Protection Act.
...
The name, official title and location of the responsible person or
corporate agent supervising such records would also be listed to avoid use of
corporate shields. The release forms should be available for inspection by
any duly authorized law enforcement officer upon demand as a regulatory
function for the limited purposes of determining consent and proof of age.
The information contained in these records should not be used as evidence of
obscenity or related offenses in a grand jury proceeding or by a petit jury
or trier of fact, but should only be used for prosecution of this offense.
This exception from use in evidence is necessary to secure compliance by the
largest number of persons and avoid Fifth Amendment problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement that the forms be handled by distributors, retailers, etc,
could be accomplished by incorporating the information in extra frames of
film, etc, in the material itself.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile