Re^5: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Adam V. 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
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.
> By the way, would you educate me on the difference, if any, between
> ``remediate'' and ``remedy''?
Gladly. To remediate is to attempt a remedy. There is of course no
guarantee that the attempt will succeed.
> Adam, one more question: I'm truly sorry to have to ask this, but our newsfiles
> do get purged periodicaly. Did you say that Donnerstein felt that his work
> on was misinterpreted by the Commission?
This might have been mentioned by someone else - I don't remember
doing so - but yes, Donnerstein is on record saying that the
Commission misinterpreted the work. This was reported in one of the
newsmagazines (probably Time, although it may have been USN&WR or
Newsweek) in a cover story on the commission report. I have
not studied Donnerstein's work closely enough to comment on it.
> 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.
Adam Reed (mtund!adam)