Catherine A. MacKinnon, the Nutty Law Professor
Fred Cherry
In Message-ID: <m2qB5.6939$144.2...@news1.onlynews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pork2000 Lies Again! Unbelievable!
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:12:34 GMT
Michael Snyder <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
> Fred Cherry wrote in message ...
> >
> >sim...@aol.com (Steven Imparl) writes:
> >
> >
> >>>> >{Parg} There is nothing of value that men have to offer that women
> >>>> >cannot get for free.
> >>>>
> >>>> Free? So, now sperm is free? You silly, misinformed girl.
> >>>
> >>>Well, mine was. :-)
> >
> >>That is your delusion. Given your blatant misandry, I do not believe
> >>that any man would ever choose to mate with a bigot like you.
> >
> >A masochist would. Consider Andrea Doria (oops, that's Andrea Dworkin.
> >I'm constantly confusing Andrea Doria with Andrea Dworkin.) Andrea
> >Dworkin has a man living with her.
>
> Yes, but he does not MATE with her. In fact, they are married,
> but Andrea does not practice intercourse.
>
> However, Andrea claims to have been raped recently in Paris.
> Now THAT guy must have been a MASOCHIST!!! ;-)
If you go to any pubic library that has The New York Times on microfilm,
and look at the issue of 8/26/85, page B7, you will see a large article
concerning Andrea Dworkin titled: "Joining Hands in the Fight Against
Pornography." That article specifically states that Dworkin and her stooge,
John Stoltenberg, are NOT married. Has she gotten married since then?
The article says that Dworkin is the leader in the fight against
pornography. Incidentally, I would like to mention that I am a connoissewer
of pornography, and that I was a pro se litigant in a case in which I
almost opened the floodgates. If I had succeeded, the floodgates would have
opened, the United States would have been inundated in a torrent of filth,
AND THE ENTIRE MORAL STRUCTURE OF THIS GREAT NATION WOULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY
DESTROYED!
Just kidding, folks. My case involved the right to import pornography for
private use. See United States of America v. Various Articles of "Obscene"
Merchandise, 315 F. Supp. 191. I was challenging the constitutionality of
19 U.S.C. 1305, which prohibits the importation of pornography. Let me show
you what a great amateur lawyer I am. Steven Imparl refuses to admit that
I, even though an amateur, am a better litigator than he is. Nowadays when
a case is filed in federal court, it is assigned by lottery to a single
judge for all purposes. It wasn't that way when I was litigating my case. I
knew that best judge to pass on my motion to convene a three-judge court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2282-2284, was Judge "Marvelous" Marvin Frankel. So,
I made may motion returnable on the first day possible. I knew that the
Assistant United States Attorney would not agree to my schedule. I knew
that the Assistant United States Attorneys are always asking for
postponements. So, when he asked for a certain date, I asked for another
date even further in the future, Knowing that the date I asked for would be
a date when Judge Frankel would be hearing motions. The Assistant United
States Attorney agreed to my proposed date, not having a clue as to why I
wanted that date.
Here is what subsequently happened. When my case came before the Suepreme
Court, the United States Attorney conceded that I had the right to import
pornography for private use, and brought up ANOTHER case with the same
issue. That case was decided in 1973 in which the Soupreme Court held that
there was no right to import pornography for private use.
There was something very strange about that case. The title of that case
was United States of America v. 12 Reels of Super-Duper 8 mm Film
(Paladini, Claimant). Here is what was strange about that case. The twelve
reels of film were IDENTICAL. So, I ask, how could it be claimed that the
importation was for private use? And furthermore, when I tried to locate
this person Paladini, he could not be found. I believe that such a person
never existed, and that the "Justice" Department came up with this
fictitious litigant to avoid litigating against me.
Anyway, enough of that. Let's get back to Stoltenberg.
The New York Times article about Dworkin and her "mate" says that he does
all the housework, while she writes books and and "delivers frequent
passionate speeches against pornography on the national lecture circuit at
$2,500 each."
There is one thing that you must understand about Dworkin. Her definition
of pornography only covers pornography showing women. She has no objection
whatsoever against homosexual pornography.
Here is another item about Stoltenberg you can find in The New York Times
on microfilm. This was published in The New York Times on 11/13/92, page
B16. The Article is titled: "Furor on Exhibit at Law School Splits
Feminists."
This is about something that happened at the University of Meshugas (Oops,
excuse me. I meant the University of Michigan. If you want to know what
meshugas means, post an inquiry in soc.culture.jewish) It seems that there
was an art exhibit on prostitution at the University of Michigan. The
article says, in part: "It is no accident that the furor occurred at the
University of Michigan, whose law faculty includes Catherine A. MacKinnon,
a leader in the fight against pornography and one of the moving forces
behind a newly organized student publication, the Michigan Journal of
Gender & Law, which sponsored the art exhibit as part of a three-day
conference on prostitution that began Oct. 30.
Ms. MacKinnon has long been at odds with other feminist lawyers over
support of legislation that would allow women who could show that they had
been harmed by pornography to sue the producers and distributors of the
material and to stop it from being distributed.
Carol Jacobsen, the Detroit artist who put together the art exhibit at
the request of the journal staff, has been an outspoken critic of Ms.
MacKinnon's anti-pornography efforts, and she supports abolishing laws
against prostitution. Her exhibit, part of which opened more than a week
before the conference, included her own video interviews with Detroit
prostitutes, who are referred to as "sex workers" by conference organizers.
When the conference began, she also installed a two-hour videotape
featuring five works, including one by Veronica Vera, a former prostitute.
Ms. Vera's work included footage from sex films and a brief clip of her
testifying against an anti-pornography measure before a United States
Senate committee.
The next morning, that videotape was removed by a group of law students
from the journal staff who said they were acting in response to complaints
by two of the speakers, Evelina Giobbe, the director of an
anti-prostitution group in St. Paul [Minnesota] and John Stoltenberg, a New
York writer.
"We really didn't think of it as a censorship issue, but as a safety
issue, because two of our speakers said that based on their experience at
other events, the tape would be a threat to their safety," said Bryan
Wells, one of the students. "It wasn't our place to assess the threat. It
was our position to trust our speakers. Seven of us from the journal made
the decision to remove the tape, and while I regret the that it made people
unhappy, I don't regret the decision."
Ms. MacKinnon, who stressed that she was not involved in the decision to
pull the videos, said she supported the students' action."
Okay, if that isn't wacky enough for you, there is even worse. MacKinnon
has since authored a book titled: "Only Words." In the first part of the
book she keeps repeating the urban myth about the existence of "snuff
films." A snuff film is supposed to be a film in which an actress is
actually murdered. Everybody on the set knows about this, except the
purported victim. Do you see how insane this notion is? Who would be crazy
enough to sell the evidence of his own crime? No commercial snuff film has
ever been found. Of course there have been one or two psychopathic
murderers who have taped themselves murdering women, but they keep those
tapes for themselves.
Then MacKinnon wants to abolish the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. She says that women cannot achieve equality as long as men
are free to criticize women like herself. She specifically calls the First
Amendment: "a fetish."
jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)
Grand Duke of Yugoslobia
Duke of Vulgaria
Grand Muff-Diver of Jerusalem
& Elector of Homophobia
Timothy Scott Sanders
also, since there are snuff films in existence, i think it's perfectly
reasonable to limit or abolish all forms of verbal and non-verbal
expression and communication.
goodness!
(but why post this to umich.forsale. are you SELLING something?)
Fred Cherry
Timothy Scott Sanders <timo...@umich.edu> writes:
>dude, you're crazy. my mom makes snuff films all the time!
>also, since there are snuff films in existence, i think it's perfectly
>reasonable to limit or abolish all forms of verbal and non-verbal
>expression and communication.
>goodness!
The next time your mother makes a "snuff film", ask her to put YOU in the
starring role.
And so, in conclusion, I say unto you
in the immortal words of Gene Ward Smith:
"Fuck your ass with broken glass!"
(Copyright 1995 by Gene Ward Smith)