From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 12:28:50 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer)
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:32:52 GMT

 
In sfu.general article <1992Aug14.184417.32@NCoast.ORG> you wrote:
> As quoted from <z=5my6g.barry@netcom.com> by barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry):
>
As someone who has been following this debate for quite some time, I think
It would be wise to recall the original purpose of the discussion - ie. the  
question of the graphic material on the altnet system at SFU...  This is a very  
concrete circumnstance, and the abstract debate concerning freedom of speeck  
notwithstanding, one that continues to require a serious response.  IMHO, the  
issue here comes down to the question of whether it is legitimate for an  
institution of higher education, that claims to be so strapped for cash that  
they've cut back on scholarships this fall, to dedicate some of these precious  
resources to the provision of  material that couldn't even be displayed in the  
Dean of Arts office, and which, moreover, makes some students incredibly  
uncomfortable.  The needs of this particular community need to be taken into  
account when determining what material is appropriate to the public computer  
monitors in labs around campus.  I wouldn't feel too damn comfortable if  
someone I had to work beside was busy admiring the commodified sexual display  
of some man or woman - especially if this activity was being conducted by  
several fellow students.  We don't sell soft-core porn magazines on this campus  
for much this same reason; that doesn't mean I think that it shouldn't be  
available anywhere, just that as a woman at SFU I don't want to be confronted  
with it as part of the social environment I have to accomodate myself to in
order to get an education.
 
> > 	I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
> > people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
> > much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
> > all. The Bible probably helped turned a man that was good to begin with
> > into St. Francis of Assisi, but it also likely helped turn Torquemada
> > (whom I suspect was a _rotten_ kid :-) into the Grand Inquisitor.

It affects everyone, but the causal link between violence and pornography in  
this discussion has been a little bit too simplistic.  The argument linking  
porn to violence is really a little more subtle than either side of this debate  
have acknowledged.  Pornography, and by this I'm referring to the explicit  
display of women for consumption by men, is part of the reproduction of  
cultural meaning in our society.  It DOES discuss ideas. It addresses the  
question of what is the cultural standard for a sexually desireable woman, and  
what her power relation is to the man who can have access to a commodified  
version of her sexuality through the purchase of a representation of this  
idealized sexuality.  IMHO, the exploitation of women through porn can't be  
separated from advertising and other media in our culture that address women  
only in their role as consumers, and which presents their sexuality in the form  
of a commodity that they exchange in their relations with men for security and  
other values that they are presumed to be incapable of acquiring on their own.   
Pornography is particularly pernicous, though, because it exposes women's most  
intimate selves, through a representation that is designed purely for its  
ability to provide voyeristic pleasure to others they individually may not ever  
choose to relate to in this manner, and through its mass distribution, porn
exposes a homogenized idea of women's sexuality to the culture at large.  This  
idea is designed for male consumption in a patriarchial context.  This is not a  
version of our sexuality that women have chosen for themselves - it has been  
imposed with as much authority as any censor could muster, in fact more so  
because these values are internalized by women themselves.  The number of women  
today suffering from eating disorders is proof enough of the extreme  
difficulties many women experience trying to remake their bodies according to  
these images so that they can reclaim the sexuality that is denied them because  
some men defend the right to freedom of expression.

> 
> An EXCELLENT point.  If we can have a Pornography Victims Compensation Act, 
> there's no constitutional reason why we can't have a Religious Doctrine  
Victims
> Compensation Act.  Anybody who claims that a LOT more people HAVEN'T died 
> under hideous circumstances, because of religion, is being diplomatically 
> speaking, "differently honest"....

Yes, many people have suffered due to religious persecution.  This is a far  
more serious type of discrimination than being asked by your sysadmin not to  
store 2nudes.gif on SFU's system.  The patriarchy of traditional religion and  
sexism share more than a few values in common, however.

Pornography also reproduces power relationships between men and women.  It 
confirms in the minds of men and women that its OK for women to be objectified.
Studies of rape and violence together with pornography consistently show that  
it is the link between these concepts that is explosive in terms of inciting  
violent attitudes in viewers.  There is no question that exposure causes  
desensitization to the material shown.  This does not establish the link  
between an individual's attitude and their tendency to act in a violent manner,  
but it does affect what in considered by the culture to be acceptable.  Where  
the net effect is a society that is increasingly violent, and indifferent  
toward the violence perpetuated toward women, the question of what factors  
contribute to that violence must be answered.  I suspect that violent
pornography might play a role.  I also suspect that non-violent porn, which  
purports to compensate men who feel increasingly helpless in their daily lives  
by offering them a representational power over women's sexuality, also  
consitutes an element.  Both of these factors contribute to a climate where  
human contact is reduced to the level of commodity exchange, and in which tacit  
social approval is granted to the idea that women's sexuality exists only to  
satisfy men's desires and on men's terms.

The question of censorship is a tricky one, however, because censors after all,
exist to censor, and they don't usually act in the interests of women when they  
doit - they act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say  
the least.

However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex  
groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if  
these are of interest to them.  All they have to do is turn on the television,  
if they want access to the ideas.  Sexually explicit pictoral material is  
available in many places.  I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have  
been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for discourse, and do  
not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an  
unencoded .gif file has a way of doing...  Freedom of speech is not absolute.
In a community, such as SFU, it is both relevant and important to consider the 
needs of the various constituants in order to provide a tolerant and inclusive
environment for learning.  This includes the unlearning of sexism.

Theresa Kiefer  
kiefer@sfu.ca
> 
> 
>