Assuming Mr. Talese is serious, his problem is a colossal inability to discriminate, and it is ironic that just this inability is what many First Amendment zealots charge against the American people. They claim that free citizens are not capable of discriminating between pornography and Ulysses . But those who cannot discriminate between the condition of Andrei Sakharov and that of Mr. Larry Flynt are dubious judges of the judiciousness of others. There is a continuum from the total ban of pornography to total license. I see no reason why communities cannot opt for a policy that fits in between these two extremes.
Intelligent people can distinguish pornography from art.
The rights of the pornographer can be balanced against the rights of a community that judges pornography baneful. One can make pornography less accessible without banning it totally. The claim that by regulating pornography's availability America glissades down a slippery slope toward total censorship is pristine and exquisite balderdash. No doubt speed limits put us on a slippery slope toward eliminating motion. The absurdity of the slippery slope argument stands up and roars for attention when one considers that those who use it to preserve and protect pornography are the very statists who so often demand strict regulation of commerce, affirmative action, busing, and other such tyrannies.