From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 04:17:21 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <xczmsjg.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>... But I know that the way to counter lies is with
>>truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
>>freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
>
>     Again you are generalizing the argument and then taking
>examples from the specific area that falls outside what I was
>talking about.  I am not against censoring reasoned argument
>that, for instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with
>adults" (much as I abhor that position).  I am for censoring
>certain material that makes no arguments, presents no opinions,
>and can have the effect of reinforcing and encouraging rapists
>and child molesters.

	And who decides what is censorship of ideas, and what is the
other kind? Why, the censors, of course :-).

	Your statement avoids all the hard questions. Let's come back to
alt.sex.bondage for a moment. Is it correct to state that it's good to
censor it, given that it isn't "cleaned up"? Well, bang, there you are
censoring ideas, by your own admission, since you admit that only a
small percentage of what's there deserves censorship. There are ideas
there, Jamie, opinions stated.

	It is not an isolated example. If you require an opinion in it
to make it publishable, porn books featuring rape will put in opinions.
And it works the other way, too. Writers with something to say find
it necessary to put rape scenes in their work from time to time. Even
Shakespeare did. So now you're either censoring all _kinds_ of stuff, or
you've got your censors playing the old mental telepathy game: "is the
artist serious, or just lurid?" And either way, the "harm" question has
been set aside, in tacit admission that it was never important to begin
with.

	You've got a choice, Jamie. Either you bite the bullet and come
up with a standard of what's censorable that's specific enough to
answer questions like this, or else your argument comes down to allowing
anything to be censored, by popular vote or other mechanism. Is that
what you want? Not a content-based standard of what's censorable, but a
popularity-based standard?

>     No, I think that "harm" is exactly the basis of what I am
>saying.

	That may be what you say, but it is not what you describe when
we get down to cases. Let's be serious, here: if a person can be
weak-minded or sick enough to rape because he read porn featuring rape,
it's at least as likely that someone would rape because they read a
well-written essay extolling the virtues of rape for keeping women in
their place. You say you won't censor that essay because it's ideas, but
then you say your test is "harm" and the essay surely can't pass that
test if porn can't. No, Jamie, you are using some other standard, as
well; what is it?

>You diminish certain freedoms (like Absolute Freedom of
>Speech) so that other freedoms are reinforced more strongly.

	_What_ other freedoms? Not pretty phrases, but freedoms that
have the same degree of legal protection in our countries as does
freedom of speech and press? What are you balancing against?

>>[US "obscenity" exception to 1st amendment rights]
>>The theory behind the
>>exception goes like this: porn expresses no ideas; rather, it is akin to
>>a sideshow entertainment, whose only justification is titillation.  The
>>intent of the 1st Amendment is read as protecting the free expression of
>>_ideas_, and since porn expresses no ideas, it is not under the
>>protection of the 1st Amendment.
>
>     That's about what I feel too, though I would say "opinions"
>rather than "ideas".  The difference between me and the
>lawmakers you speak of is that I don't believe that titillation
>is inherently wrong.  Titillation that reinforces seriously
>damaging behaviour is.

	Then shouldn't _anything_ that "reinforces seriously damaging
behavior" be equally censorable? If there's nothing wrong with
titillation, then titillation has nothing to do with it. Make up your
mind. If it has to be simultaneously titillating and damaging to be
censorable, you have to explain why titillating is relevant.

	I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
all. The Bible probably helped turned a man that was good to begin with
into St. Francis of Assisi, but it also likely helped turn Torquemada
(whom I suspect was a _rotten_ kid :-) into the Grand Inquisitor.

	But you don't give porn the same benefit of the doubt. For
every study suggesting that vicarious violence encourages violence,
another suggests that vicarious violence is cathartic. I've been
willing to concede the first possibility is as likely as the second;
will you do the same? If you do (and what basis is there to do
otherwise?), what basis is left for censorship?

>> ...[Some antiporn people] accuse porn of supporting and defending pernicious ideas:
>>sexism, the dehumanization of women, etc. Ironically enough, were that
>>actually true, it would vacate the logic of the traditional "obscenity"
>>exception, and give porn the same protection that any other work of
>>politics or philosophy enjoys.
>
>let me just say that you've got this wrong.  It is
>not an idea, but an irrational prejudice that is being reinforced.

	But I thought the _definition_ of "irrational prejudice" was
"ideas I hate" :-). Don't be ingenuous, Jamie. You can't avoid the
paradox that way. You're still trying to have it both ways, to prevent
your "harm" without censoring ideas. But your whole modern case against
porn is that it is _giving_ some men ideas. Eventually you'll have to
make up your mind.

>>	Think it through, Jamie.
>
>     Oh please Kenn.  What is this, "proof by patronization"?

	Don't overinterpret minor rhetorical flourishes.

>> No one presently has the
>>power to control what gets posted to the group. If you give someone that
>>power you've got censorship, and all that entails. You certainly _don't_
>>have Usenet any more.
>
>     This is disingenuous, Kenn.  You and I both know that
>Usenet chugged along very well for many years with admins
>cancelling other people's articles all the time.

	Well, I've been around here since 1984, and I've not heard about
it. When it has happened it's been unusual enough to be discussed all
over the net. The net's as close to perfect free speech as anything I've
seen. Depending on what site you're at, of course.

>> Well, I've decided to change my
>>name to John Norman and write a philosophical work arguing that the
>>natural role of women in society is as slaves to the men, and that a
>>firm hand (beat 'em up occasionally) is best.
>
>     Fine.  I'll argue against your *opinions*.  If you progress
>into all-out fictional glorification of rape (as Norman never
>has done), I'll want it censored.

	_Norman_ has never engaged in "all-out fictional glorification
of rape"?????

	[...]

	Sorry, I'm back; had to clear my throat :-)

-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:7106 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2620 alt.censorship:6982