From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:58:22 GMT


From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.190804.30054@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>>Actually I don't think that "degrading" is the issue.  The constitutional
>>guarantee of freedom of speech was to ensure that dissenting political
>>ideas could not be suppressed.
>
>That was only one reason that freedom of speech was protected. It was
>also protected because it has, in the opinion of many, value in and of
>itself. Freedom of speech is part of being a free people.  It was also
>protected because it is needed for a free marketplace of ideas, the
>best way we know move toward truth.

It was protected because under England's governance they were not
free to express dissenting ideas.

There may be justification for making all pornography illegal, but
I am *not* certain that the 1st amendment, which is primarily focussed
on ideas would be it.  Perhaps the 9th (as you point out below) should
be brought in.

I admit that I am on shakey ground.  I am in favor of "erotica" 
remaining legal.  To be honest I could care less if most porn
remained legal as well.  (Although to be honest, bear in mind
that this whole issue *did* start w/ a Canadian university, not
an American one -- and they *do* have more explicit laws on pornography).

As long as such laws are chosen by the people, and not the government,
I have little trouble with them (not to say none...).  

Actually my prime interest is in keeping child pornography illegal
because (as I have been discussing in another thread) it is not
possible to place a child in sexual situations (with or without
penetration) without it being a form of child abuse.

>>This has since become expanded to the point of ridiculousness.  To the
>>point where a cross dipped in urine is not only touted as "freedom of
>>_expression_" (note the change in the phrase), but somehow must ALSO
>>be funded by the taxpayers!
>
>The change in phrase is the result of combining "freedom of speech"
>with "freedom of the press" and recognizing that function, not
>technology, is the defining feature. Are you saying that unamplified
>speech and mechanical presses are protected from the government? What
>about the Ninth Amendment:
>
>   "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con-
>strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nope.  I am saying that no "artist" has the *right* to demand
that his work be funded by the taxpayers.  If he cannot make
money on his own, then his work (probably) isn't worth the
money.  If the government wishes to establish some sort of
aid to subsidize the arts, they have a responsibility to the
taxpayers to not spend that money on every tom dick or harry
that *thinks* they are an artist -- but to excercise some
form of judgement on who might deserve such aid.

One of the main problems w/ the government spending policies
in ALL areas (not just the arts) is that they just spend the 
damn money without any regard to finding out whether they are 
getting reasonable value in return.  I'm sure we've all heard 
the stories about $16000 hex wrenches, and studies to determine 
if cutting the legs off of frogs makes them go deaf.

>>  Nowhere in the constitution does the 
>>freedom to "express" get tied to the government's obligation to PAY
>>for everything anyone wants to come up with.
>
>Nowhere in the NEA debate (or anywhere else) did I hear anyone suggest
>that the government had an obligation to pay for everything anyone
>wants to come up with.

Perhaps not on USENET.  People *have* defended that artist's
"right" to be paid for his "work", and noone was paying except
the NEA.  (Sorry if I don't remember his name.)

>>To bring this back to the topic of pornography, there is no *idea*
>>conveyed by pornography to be protected.
>[...]
>
>Then the rational (rationalization?) for the new Canadian definition
>of obscenity is invalid. It takes as its premise that obscenity
>conveys the idea that women are unequal.

That's Canada's problem if the wrote the law wrong....  :-)

Then again, Canada is not covered by the U.S. Constitution, so
all this talk on the 1st & 9th amendments doesn't apply anyway...




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Blasting, bursting, billowing forth with	|
the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes,	|	-Richard Hartman	
Man, with his flaming fire,			|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has conquered the wayword breezes.		|
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk