From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: frightening law
Summary:  There's feminism and then there's feminism...
Originator: jkogan@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:46:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.055744.3899@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@yaya (Lawrence C Foard)
reproduces a proposed law banning non-educational use of pornography.  The text
of his message is reproduced in full below.  In brief, I'd just refer you
to American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut (771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985), in 
which the lovely Seventh Circuit struck down a similar ordinance enacted in
Indiana.  However, that ordinance outlawed speech "subordinating" women;
the Court stated that such a statute constituted "thought control" and
"viewpoint discrimination," e.g., stating that speech portraying women as
equals was better, somehow, than speech subordinating them.  

Feminist groups
have formed an odd coalition with fundamentalists to try to get some sort
of pornography ordinance passed; they've been hitting a lot of states, and
their legislative successes seem to fail subsequently in court.

I'm not sure how I feel about these ordinances, which are based on a 
Model Ordinance cooked up, I believe, by Catherine McKinnon and Nan Dworkin.
I certainly oppose sexism, unwanted male subordination of women, and
especially unwanted violence directed at women.  (I also oppose unwanted
female subordination of and violence toward men, although such incidents
are reported very rarely.)    

But the research demonstrating that violent pornography causes violence
towards women seems to show at best that violent material causes violent
conduct.  (some would argue that violent material is cathartic, rather 
than stimulating; however, research has apparently proved the opposite.)
 
The slippery slope problem is that "Road Warrior" might also
cause a guy to get violent, and if his girlfriend is the weakest thing
around, he might sock her anyway.  Should we ban Mel Gibson's movies?
Clearly not, say I.

At heart, I think my sympathies toward protecting freedom of expression
don't allow me to go with the feminist flow -- especially with a law
like the one below, which doesn't even restrict itself to *violent*
pornography, since *all* porn allegedly causes male subordination of
women.  I'd dispute the latter assertion, anyhow:  I've known a few
mature men who dealt with women as equals, yet read porn.  Were they
exceptionally strong in casting off some subliminal influence exerted
by Larry F.?  I'm interested in others' sentiments, although of course
the nets are male-dominated (hey, guys, this isn't sexism; it's the
facts)... but if there are any pro-Model Ordinance folks out there,
what do you think?

At any rate, the text of Lawrence Foard's article is as follows:
>The following was recently sent to me after I requested more info about
>something appearing in alt.censorship, if I'm reading it right this would
>outlaw all pornography in Massachusetts. 
>
>From a newspaper article on it --
>"A bill of divorcement: women are split on anti-pornography law," by
>Thomas C. Palmer, Jr., Boston Globe, March 29, 1992, p.69 -- I've
>gotten part of it, though:
>
>    Sec.2(e): It shall be sex discrimination to produce, sell,
>    exhibit, or distribute pornography, including through private
>    clubs.  This subsection applies only to pornography made using
>    live or dead human beings or animals...
>
>    City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private
>    and public university and college libraries in which pornography
>    is available for study, including on open shelves but excluding
>    special display presentations, shall not be construed to be
>    trafficking in pornography.
>
>    Any woman may bring a complaint hereunder as a woman acting
>    against the subordination of women.  Any man, child, or
>    transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the way women
>    are injured by it may also complain.
>
>The fun part is that, according to the Globe article:
>
>       The provision that would define trafficking in pornography as
>    sex discrimination, which is already illegal and subject to
>    triple damages, is the most far-reaching and dangerous one,
>    according to an opponent, Nan C. Hunter, a cofounder of the
>    Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force.
>
>       It is something of a "stealth" provision, buried in the bill
>    but one opponents believe would be used the most -- and of the
>    greatest harm to free expression.  "There is no proof of harm
>    required," Hunter says.  "The other sections at least try to
>    address situations that involve harm and coercion."
>
>As a technical note, the use of the word "illegal" may be misleading
>-- sexual discrimination is a civil offense, not a criminal offense,
>in Massachusetts.  You can't go to prison or be fined for it, but
>you sure as hell can be sued for everything you own...
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>
>-------------------------------
>End repost
>
>Obviously if this is for real we have some serious problems. I don't think
>USENET will survive in its present form if this passes.

...but I don't think you have to worry about it passing, b/c the courts
are, as I said, likely to strike it down -- in this state, in NY, and
in other supposed judicially liberal bastions -- if for no other reason
than that the judges probably all enjoy traditional porn (I'm not
talking Susie Bright here).




-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.  Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27!   |  I pass the Bar, and I'll tell you the truth. 
Newsgroups: alt.censorship