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