Re^5: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Phil Stephens
>IF this hypothesis were objectively shown to be true, a person providing
>fantasy materials to someone with this deficit would become liable,
>under common law, for civil damages in the amount of the harm thus
>caused. It is likely that providers would then require proof of the
>ability to use the materials safely, just as car rental companies
>will not rent a car to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to
>use it without endangering others. I see no constitutional problems,
>and no need for legislation if the testing were done by private firms.
A startling idea, but it makes sense on further thought (*if* the alleged
dangers can be established for some subset of entertainment, and *if* some
way of assessing ability to use responsibly is available).
Automobiles are not the only example already in place; explosives for
construction are *very* dangerous, and some restrictions apply. Also
guns. Many areas require attending a class before you are allowed to
legally carry "mace". Heavy equipment and bus driving have stricter
requirements than passenger sedans etc. All of these examples are
*orders of magnitude* more dangerous than the *worst* porn.
Oh, those are all *productive* items (except the weapons? sort of).
How about entertainment? Fireworks technicians, stuntmen, race car
drivers, animal trainers, acrobatic pilots, high-wire artists...
all are or could reasonably be subject to qualification requirements.
Legalisticly quite reasonable. Not quite the same, but comparable.
Not that it will happen. We will either have censorship or we won't.
Hysteria will either prevail or it won't. "It's that simple".
[question about "degrading enough" being banned...]
>No. The trouble with the "degrading" category is that it is not objective
>(different people experience different things as "degrading") and thus
>fails to meet a civilized society's standard for legal restriction.
Good answer to one of MT's *major* points of contention with (many of)
the rest of the net. Thanks again, Adam.
> Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
- 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.
Rex Ballard
>In article <7...@mtund.UUCP> ad...@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes:
>
>>It is likely that providers would then require proof of the
>>ability to use the materials safely, just as car rental companies
>>will not rent a car to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to
>>use it without endangering others. I see no constitutional problems,
>>and no need for legislation if the testing were done by private firms.
How novel, a sane approach to Censorship!! :-).
>A startling idea, but it makes sense on further thought (*if* the alleged
>dangers can be established for some subset of entertainment, and *if* some
>way of assessing ability to use responsibly is available).
How about some sort of "ID card", which parents, probation officers, spouses,
or the person himself could use to identify material which he/she should
not be reading. Possibly a picture ID with things that the bearer can
watch not punched out. With no record, you can watch anything you want.
If you are a minor, your parents can say, "no indescriminate violence,
oral sex, beastiality, or ...). If you are a convicted rapist, you might
not be able to purchase sexually explicit materials. If you were convicted
of a violent (non-sexual) crime, you might not be able to watch/purchase
violent materials. Makes some sense.
>
>Not that it will happen. We will either have censorship or we won't.
>Hysteria will either prevail or it won't. "It's that simple".
>
Considering the implications of true censorship, and the impact on first
amendment issues, it is unlikely that total censorship of any materials
will ever become a state practice.
Even now, what might currently be called "censorship" is more an issue
of restricting distribution. Zoning laws, proof of age requirements,
ratings, and other "inconveniences" have been used to restrict where,
how, and to whom, sexually explicit materials may be sold, but seldom
stop distribution entirely.
Under the current laws, sex is the most regulated area. Moves have been
made to curb violence, with little success. Material sympathic to
racism, ethnic exploitation, and anti-feminine views has come under
tighter control.
If one considers the basic goal of "censorship" preventing people from
being exposed to matter they (or their parents, spouses, doctors,
ministers, paroll officers, probation officers,...) consider offensive,
there may be methods of achieving these goals without actually Banning
of the materials in question.
It is unfortunate, but when one considers that a can of soup provides
more information about it's contents than a videotape, television listing,
film, magazine, or book, it is possible to see that it is possible for
someone to pay for the privelidge of being offended. At the very least,
it is possible for them to pay for materials which they do not consider
entertaining.
The existing laws and restrictions are actually counterproductive to
the industries involved, the consumer, and the public in general. A
sane approach using the goal described above might not only recieve
support from the "anti-smut" movement, but from anyone who has purchased
materials which did not provide the type of entertainment expected.
As to the argument that some people are adversely effected by certain
materials, this too may be a valid argument for restricting those people
from purchasing those materials. This is not a valid argument for
restricting the sale of such materials to "normal" people.
A law as simple in principle as one corresponding to the labling of food
using relative amounts of contents in the "ingredients list" might provide
a useful service which politicians, customers, and suppliers could support.
If I want to buy a jar of Apple juice, I can choose between the jar labled
"Juice (from concentrate), water, sugar", or the one labled "Juice (from
concentrate), water". For myself, I might prefer the sweet stuff, but
for a baby, I would probably prefer the tarter product.
In the same way, if given the choice between one movie labled "Sex, dialogue,
violence" and "dialogue, sex, violence", I might prefer the first for myself,
but the latter for me and my wife. I might even let my kids watch one
labled "dialogue, music, romance, sexual situations". This could be something
like "Can Can" or any number of 30's movie musicals.
Phil Stephens
>In article <1...@oliveb.UUCP> p...@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes:
>>In article <7...@mtund.UUCP> ad...@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes:
>>
>>>It is likely that providers would then require proof of the
>How novel, a sane approach to Censorship!! :-).
>How about some sort of "ID card", which parents, probation officers, spouses,
Thank you for further expanding on this idea. You have taken a more
serious look at it than I did, and I think I could be talked into this
approach in the "real world"; a few nagging doubts, but...
>>Not that it will happen. We will either have censorship or we won't.
>>Hysteria will either prevail or it won't. "It's that simple".
Maybe I *was* oversimplifying here, and too pessimistic about politics.
Rational policies *do* sometimes get instituted, even with reguard to sex.
Your linking of the card idea to truth-in-packaging is essential to the
issue being taken seriously, and I thank you for your thoughtful article.
(And MT for goading us all into thinking so hard, even if he does raise
my bloodpressure sometimes... )
m.terribile
>Adam Reed:
>> >2. Determine whose behavior is adversely affected by fantasy materials.
>> >The existing evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that adverse
>> >behavioral effects are confined to people suffering from a specific
>> >cognitive deficit, ... Behavioral studies might be conducted to evaluate
>> >this hypothesis empirically. We could also learn how to diagnose this
>> >(at this point hypothetical) deficit, and how to remediate it (for
>> >example, by teaching the art of distinguishing between fantasy and
>> >reality to those affected, if it turns out to be a teachable cognitive
>> >skill).
>Mark Terribile:
>> As far as identifying people *before* they become offenders: how do you propose
>> to do this? Mandatory psychological testing seems even more invasive than
>> mandatory drug testing, and a lot more dangerous from the constitutional
>> standpoint than either drug testing or the restriction of specific material
>> depicting specific acts that the *Miller* standard permits.
>
>IF this hypothesis were objectively shown to be true, a person providing
>fantasy materials to someone with this deficit would become liable,
>under common law, for civil damages in the amount of the harm thus
>ability to use the materials safely, just as car rental companies
>will not rent a car to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to
>use it without endangering others. I see no constitutional problems,
>and no need for legislation if the testing were done by private firms.
There are certain limitations to the civil remedy, and certain dangers as
well. First, how do you determine that the material came from a specific
vendor? With rent-a-cars you have the registration of the vehicle. Will
it be illegal to sell the material under question without the vendor's name?
What if the user digs it out of the trash? Etc.
And what happens if the work that triggers the effect is a work of considerable
literary or political value -- something that is clearly protected by the First
Amendment in the current interpretation of the law?
Because civil law requires not the ``proof beyond a reasonable doubt'' but
only a ``preponderance of evidence'', the ``chilling effect'' upon legitimate
authors and booksellers could be more severe than any criminal law.
The Commission recommended the use of civil law to recover damages; I think
that they may not have considered the current state of our tort system. Of
course, if you have a demonstration that the material either was legally
obscene or could have been legally obscene had the legislature so declared
it, you have a point from which to begin arguments in the civil law case; if
the work was not legally obscene, but protected by the First Amendment, then
you get down to the issues of whether the material actually defamed an
individual or a class.
Viewed in this light, the use of laws based either on the *Miller* standard,
or a similar standard, requiring that the material be offensive (whatever
that means) to the ``average person'', *then* requiring it to violate certain
objective criteria set forth by the legislature, *then* exempting all material
with serious claims to First Amendment protection looks far more enforcable
and less open to abuse, aw well as less likely to pose a ``chilling effect.''
Look at the inability to secure insurance in many circumstances caused by
the potential for abuse of the current tort law.
>> Does this mean that you have fewer objections to restrictions of these
>> materials than of other materials? Can ``degrading'' materials be included in
>> the first item, if they are degrading enough?
>
>No. The trouble with the "degrading" category is that it is not objective
>(different people experience different things as "degrading") and thus
>fails to meet a civilized society's standard for legal restriction.
>Some people believe that sexuality is degrading per se, and hence would
>view all sexually oriented art as "degrading". This is exactly what
>happened whenever "degrading" materials were legislated against.
The question was asked of Kee, but your answer is a fair one. Would you object
to attempts to determine if there is any consenus on what people consider
degrading, or if there is some small set of criteria that people use in various
ways?
There are relatively few people who believe that all sexuality is degrading;
there are a variety of opinions beyond that. But if objective criteria could
be established that would fall within what most people considered degrading,
would you continue to stand by this objection?
--
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
>
> >How novel, a sane approach to Censorship!! :-).
>
> >How about some sort of "ID card", which parents, probation officers, spouses,
>
> Thank you for further expanding on this idea. You have taken a more
> serious look at it than I did, and I think I could be talked into this
> approach in the "real world"; a few nagging doubts, but...
>
> >>Not that it will happen. We will either have censorship or we won't.
> >>Hysteria will either prevail or it won't. "It's that simple".
>
> Maybe I *was* oversimplifying here, and too pessimistic about politics.
> Rational policies *do* sometimes get instituted, even with reguard to sex.
>
> Your linking of the card idea to truth-in-packaging is essential to the
> issue being taken seriously, and I thank you for your thoughtful article.
> (And MT for goading us all into thinking so hard, even if he does raise
> my bloodpressure sometimes... )
I'm happy to oblige. Actually, I think that we are doing a Good Thing here
by finding a point upon which most of our values *can* be satisfied. I *do*
have serious reservations about anything that would put the burden of
enforcement upon our current, overworked, abused, and rather ill system of
tort law.
Alas, I think that this would ``make too much sense'' and that the way to get
it is to first try applying mildly restrictive laws (see my replies to Rex B),
and then using a combination of the backlash from those and the reasoned
approach that might occur after the blood lust is settled to move in this
direction.
Remember, where the industry currently operates underground, it will be much
harder to make it respectable than it was to create, say, a diving equipment
rental industry that will not rent you gear unless you have a certifying card.
(remember also that in that industry there is a much more tangible and
expensive asset involved than the transaction than a magazine or videotape ...)