Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Dworkin and MacKinnon Rule!
From: econrad@cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:51:30 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Apr16.051549.1963@Veritas.COM>, by rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman):
	[About McKinnon and sexual harassment...]
> Well, I don't think that she invented anything.  She may well have
> named it it for the crime it is.  Now that it's been named, I think
> that it's pretty clear what it means.

In response to a quote from a campus newspaper editorial briefly making
fun of a feminist censor, a number of people reading this newsgroup
agreed with the target of the quip that the editorialist was "sexually
harassing" her.  Since the editorialist made exactly one reference
to this censor, it seems clear to me that most people don't have the
vaguest idea what harassment is.  And if they don't have the damnedest
inkling of what harassment is, how can they hope to be clear about
sexual harassment.

[Anyone want to do a poll to see how clear people are about SH?  Maybe
ten yes/no questions.   If people are clear, then there shouldn't be
much variation in the responses, even if the answers are generally
wrong.]

>                                        I think it's also pretty clear
> that condoning it doesn't make this a better or a freer or a more
> powerful society.  Quite the contrary.

To protect people from being offended requires suppression of
freedom of speech.  For the government to say that I cannot talk
about masturbation with a co-worker on my lunch break because
it might offend some women (and is therefore sexual harassment)
is just plain unconstitutional.  For the government to say I
cannot hang a calendar on a wall at work because it might offend
somebody is likewise unconstitutional.  Even the current crop
of reactionaries on the Supreme Court agrees that "indecent" speech
is protected by the constitution.

To protect people from being offended using "sexual harassment" as
a cover is a major assault on freedom of speech and opinion.  Plain and
simple.

>                                         And so, and no doubt despite
> their feelings about _her,_ people have recognized the truth in it.

Perhaps.  But when will "people" recognize the deceitful side as
well?

> MacKinnon wasn't able to push her anti-porn agenda.

Getting an unconstitutional law passed in Indianapolis that was
largely written by her doesn't count as "pushing"?  This is like
saying that the prohibitionists weren't able to push their agenda
because the prohibition amendment was eventually repealed.

>                                                      One can argue
> the case that porn isn't a crime.  One would be hard pressed to argue
> the case that sexual intimidation or blackmail is a form of protected
> speech.

But the use of sexual harassment complaints goes much further than
intimidation and blackmail.  How can you possibly consider hanging
a swimsuit calendar "intimidation" or "blackmail"?  Offensive?  Maybe.
Insensitive?  Maybe.  Rude?  Probably.  Inconsiderate?  Yes.
Intimidation?  No way.  Blackmail?  Out of the question.
 
> So, is she really all that powerful and threatening?  Or did she
> just happen to get one right?  (And if she got one right, doesn't
> it behoove us to grant her that?)

She [or at least some of her followers] certainly is a very real
threat on the censorship score.  (Not to mention the massive waste
of tax dollars that could be spent on something more useful.)  Like
you, I don't know what connection she might have with the development
of harassment law.  But if she did, she doesn't seem to have gotten
it right.

--eric
-- 
-- Eric Conrad
This space for rent.