From: russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter)
Subject: Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?
Summary: ...who does it encourage it among?
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:51:42 GMT

My wife and I had a discussion about this when the Massachusetts
Anti-Pornography Bill came about, and came immediately to the same
conclusion about it.

To clear up any potential confusion, the bill does NOT ban "pornographic
materials".  What it DOES do is permit any woman (yes, "woman"-- more
discriminatory legislation here) who claims to have been harmed in any
way as an indirect result of any kind of pornography to sue the STORE
that sells it.

Intended scenario:

Fred Guilty buys a magazine or rents a videotape that that gets him so
excited that he sexually assaults Jane Innocent, the next woman he sees.

Fred is arrested for the crime and sent to jail for the rest of his life.
However, this doesn't compensate Jane for the mental anguish she suffered.
The police find a copy of Playboy on Fred's floor, implicate it in the
"crime" (perhaps Fred tried to force Jane to wear a lace teddy in the same
style as this month's centerfold), and know that a convenience store
across the street happens to sell this magazine.

Jane and her battery of lawyers proceed to sue the convenience store and
its corporate owners, making many millions and putting the store out
of business forever.  She (and her lawyers) proceed to live the rest of
their lives in peace and luxury.

Other stores, fearful of a similar fate, immediately stop selling
everything that might lead to any woman's harm, and no woman is ever
threatened or injured again.


Likely "real" scenario:

Stores, video rental outlets, even public libraries pull even the least
questionable materials to avoid lawsuits against them, thus imposing
the true Victorian "community standards" that the Commonwealth always seems
to want to impose.


Now, the conclusion we both came to:

For someone to commit such a crime as a "result" of exposure to pornography
really means that the criminal had some substantial pathology to begin
with.  A normal person does not suddenly exhibit violent behavior upon
exposure to ANYTHING he or she might read or watch.  So, this comes down
to the question:

Even *if* pornography provokes certain misguided individuals to commit
heinous acts, who is responsible?  The authors, the sellers, or the
individuals themselves?

Suppose, for example, there exists one neurotic individual who happens
to go on killing rampages each time he sees a pink lawn-flamingo (due to
some childhood trauma, no doubt).  Is the owner of the flamingo to be held
responsible for the damage this person does upon seeing it?  I think not.

The law generally holds you responsible for consequences like this only
when the effect applies to a "normal" person with "average good judgement".
We've already stretched the law a bit to cover people with darn poor
judgement-- people who stick their hands underneath running lawnmowers,
for example.  This bill is less than a step away from prohibiting the
expression of all IDEAS that criminals might find useful, at which point
we might as well admit that the criminals have "won" at last.

--- Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.COM]
    std. disclaimers apply.