From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:48:51 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 08:44:56 GMT

> Phil Ryan says ...

> I find your views as expressed here even more repressive than those that 
> were expressed in your original posting.

I am sorry you feel that way ! That was not my intention at all. You see,
I think that your censorship proposal is repressive.

I also think that you are perhaps misunderstanding me, and that we are both
really believe essentially the same thing, just have slightly different
priorities. We both seem to agree that -

 - women are oppressed in most if not all societies, and that this is
   undesirable, and effort should be made to correct the injustice

 - freedom of speech is nice, but there may be extra-ordinary circumstances
   under which its suppression (ie. censorship) is justified.

Where we differ appears to be on the basis of -

 - whether or not pornography perpetuates the oppression.

 - if it does, to what extent it does, and whether correcting the situation
   would make any practical difference.

 - if it is worth trying to reduce the effect of pornography, how to
   go about doing it

 - is sacrificing one right, the right to produce and view pornography,
   justified by the possible gains in achieving another right, that of
   women to be perceived and treated as equals

If I interpret you correctly you believe that yes it would make a significant
difference and yes it is worth sacrificing free speech to achieve it. I
believe the converse.

I don't think either of us is going to change our opinion without some
real, hard, non-circumstantial, evidence to back up our arguments. I don't
think either of us is going to come by that data, so I think we are going
to have to agree to disagree unfortunately.

To specifically answer some of your points in your last response, yes, I
agree that many women in the sex industry are exploited. And yes I agree
that many of them would rather have other jobs. However given that
unemployment is heading for the 15% mark, and many of these workers have
the choice of be exploited or be unemployed, either through lack of
opportunity, education, talent, or outright discrimination, some make
the choice. I do not agree that this is always the case however, and I
think that you have a stereotype in your mind of the downtrodden
exploited prostitute, stripper, or model. That may often be valid but is
by no means universal. Many of the women I know in the industry do it
because they actually enjoy it, or because they like the high cash flow -
very few people, men or women, in regular employment can match these
kinds of incomes. I see this as opportunity, not exploitation, if anything
it is the customers who are being exploited ! :)

How many female anti-pornographers do you know who actually claim to have
been exploited personally in this manner, and how many are just looking
out for their down-trodden sisters who actually just want to get on with
the job, in the practical world that they have to live in. Idealists are
fine so long as they don't do too much harm and actually achieve something
worthwhile. I will take a pragmatist over an ineffectual idealist any day.

> Now, to help to bring you back to reality: why don't you ask some women 
> that you know - of any socio-economic class - if, for the same money, they 
> would rather be topless barmaids or porn stars, than what they do now.

You are presuming a lot about the women I know !

> You can choose to ignore the evidence of women's oppression in our society. 
> You can choose to consume pornography. You can choose to believe that some 
> women enjoy having a penis down their throat six inches. But you should 
> start looking at the other side of the coin.

I do not. I do occasionally. I know some do. And I have looked at both sides,
very carefully, and come to what I consider a rational opinion based on what
little evidence is available to me.

> (feel free to use any of this material in further postings to the net. 
> Interestingly, I was expecting to get many pro-porn postings, but it turned 
> out that it was about 50/50 on the question that I put in my original note.)

That is interesting. Most of the posted replies have been on the pro-porn
side. You should ask some of the anti-porn mailers to post their opinions
to balance things out a bit.

david

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk