From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Feminist pornographers, was ( Re: Shibboleth )
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

[...]
 
>| >Calling something "censorship" doesn't say very much; it's
>| >propagandistic.  As I just pointed out, most people believe
>| >in a great deal of suppression of free expression, for
>| >example laws against libel, copyright laws, laws and regu-
>| >lations against harassment, laws against fraud, zoning,
>| >and so forth.  Are all these "censorship"?  No, because
>| >somebody likes them.  
>
>And so Hillel replies
>
>| That was very nice, now please tell us if you, *personally* see
>| see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship.
>
>As I said -- this is twice now, although in different words
>-- I find the term "censorship", devoid of context,
>virtually meaningless.  If you mean by it "tending to more
>restriction of expression than I myself care for" then, yes,
>MacKinnon's law is "censorship", and so is Playboy (an ongoing 
>cultural project, Kenn) and quite possibly your politics as 
>well.  I'm pretty radical on freedom of expression.  So what?  
>I have to get along with the overwhelming majority who are
>not as radical in these matters as I am, and my personal
>beliefs are pretty irrelevant.

If censorship is such a vague nebulous concept to you that it is
essentially meaningless, how is it that you can handle the much
more nebulous concepts espoused by Mackinnon, etc???
 
>Besides, I think the whole censorship thing is sort of
>fictitious anyway.  

Oh, you do not really understand the term, therefore it does not exist.

>                          Censorship is about detectives in
>fedoras busting sleazy skin magazine parlors back in 1951.

Talk about having blinders on.

>The proliferation of media, both in quality and quantity, is
>going to make suppression a dead issue, if it isn't already.

Are you implying that the media is porno? Look at the uproar over
the album by Ice_T. The police want to censor it, make it unavailable.
Do they wear fedoras?

>I'm sure people in Canada, which has no freedom of speech as
>we know it, get all the pornography they want.  They
>certainly did when I lived there, back in the 1970s.  

It might be interesting to go back, and see what effect MacKinnons
leglislation has had. You seem to be inferring that it will have no
effect, feel free to clarify.

>The really big question seems to be how much money you can make off it.

Some of us here thing that there are other big questions.

>But that's not the point, is it?  The point is to conjure 
>the demon DworkinMacKinnon, and thereby attack feminism in
>general.  

If attacking Dworkin and MacKinnon is attacking feminism in general,
then they must represent feminists in general. But it looks to me like
you have firmly made up your mind and will not discuss the issue any
further. You just keep repeating the above. 

But the important thing that I see is that you are asserting that
Dworkin and MacKinnon represent feminists in general. I am at a loss
to explain Muffy's posts however. Either she is not a feminist, but
claims to be one, or...

>Otherwise, there would have been an equally long
>discussion of free-expression feminists and even feminist
>pornographers.  But there ain't, surprise, surprise.

So why not start one? I have changed the subject line to facilitate
this. 

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Rich

payner@netcom.com