There has been debate on pornography recently in the pages of
the New York Times Book Review with the first sally offered by
novelist John Irving. (of World According to Garp fame)
He is opposed to the pornography victims’ compensation bill
and ties his opposition to a number of issues, particularly
censorship, labelling those feminists who would curtail
pornographic publishing,"The New Puritans."
This past weekend the Book Review printed a length reply by
Andrea Dworkin. I have been a hedge-sitter on this issue,
but Dworkin has definitely turned my head. As for their
writing, in this case I found Irving’s argument glib and
poorly organized–he seemed to strike out at a wide range
of perceived enemies, but finessed the problem of circumstances
which demand censorship. It’s not considered a free speech
issue to arrest someone for wrongly yelling "fire" and you can
be prosecuted for making obscene phone calls. As for Dworkin’s
piece, I’ll just say that it is very close to the bone, and
to me stunning.
Should there be censorship–of course! What should be censored?
That’s much more complicated and must be pieced together, and
negotiated among us. Not everything I don’t like, and certainly
not John Irving. But, I think it is O.K., in fact essential, for
communities to make statements about what is acceptable to them
right now, with the recognition that these things do change. To
Irving, the worst persecution may be when a great novelist like
James Joyce doesn’t get published right away because of the
public’s puritanism. I don’t agree with that view anymore.
I think there are worse persecutions.
B
—
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <1992May05.234815.247…@cs.cmu.edu> bar…@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Barbara Katzenberg) writes:
>There has been debate on pornography recently in the pages of
>the New York Times Book Review [...]
Since I don’t read the NYT, I haven’t seen any of these articles.
Therefore, I’m responding to what you wrote and hoping that you will
elaborate on the places where you have left out information.
[...John Irving is on one side, Andrea Dworkin is on the other...]
[Irving]
>he seemed to strike out at a wide range
>of perceived enemies, but finessed the problem of circumstances
>which demand censorship. It’s not considered a free speech
>issue to arrest someone for wrongly yelling "fire" and you can
>be prosecuted for making obscene phone calls.
Yes, but neither of those is a censorship issue. I do not believe (as
you seem to) that there are *any* "circumstances that demand
censorship," and I suspect that Irving, rather than "finessing the
problem," feels the same way and therefore does not consider that it is
necessary to outline these circumstances, since there are none.
The issues you mention are issues of harrassment and endangering other
people, not "free speech." I have been involved in many obscene phone
calls and neither of us minded (since we knew each other…*grin*). I
would only object if it was someone I did not know or did not want to
hear from (and I had made that clear). Such speech is not "censored,"
rather, specific people are prosecuted for using such speech in an
attempt to injure others. Analogously, people are free to buy kitchen
knives. Those people who use them to commit murders are prosecuted.
Those who used them to slice vegetables are not. It would only be
"censorship-analogue" if no one was allowed to buy kitchen knives.
>As for Dworkin’s
>piece, I’ll just say that it is very close to the bone, and
>to me stunning.
Actually, it would help quite a lot if you would point out the things
which convinced you. So far, all we know is that you think her piece
was better-written. Good writing is not enough to make her *right*.
>Should there be censorship–of course!
Absolutely not.
>What should be censored?
Nothing.
>That’s much more complicated and must be pieced together, and
>negotiated among us.
Who is us? You? Me? I would probably allow things that you would not
(actually, I wouldn’t censor anything, but let’s pretend that I would
only allow the things I liked). At which point, you’d probably call for
more censorship. Where does it end? Once we’ve censored everything
*you* think needs to be censored, then we would have to go to what your
neighbor thinks, and so on. There wouldn’t be much left. On the other
hand, if you’re calling for censorship by consensus, you won’t get
anything censored as long as my friends and I are alive.
>[...] But, I think it is O.K., in fact essential, for
>communities to make statements about what is acceptable to them
>right now, with the recognition that these things do change.
Why do you think it is essential? How do you propose that we build in
this "recognition that things change"?
>[...] To
>Irving, the worst persecution may be when a great novelist like
>James Joyce doesn’t get published right away because of the
>public’s puritanism.
If you start censoring things, how will James Joyce *ever* get
published? Things may change, but they tend to change rather slowly,
and they tend to change *because* things get published. Joyce would
likely die and his work be thrown out long before anyone got around to
reviewing it again to see if it was okay to publish it now.
>I don’t agree with that view anymore.
Why not? What were the persuasive arguments that made you change?
>I think there are worse persecutions.
Like what? Also, does this mean that, since there are "worse
persecutions," the "lesser persecutions" are now okay, to your mind?
To drag this back to feminism – I think it would be the worst possible
thing for feminists to start endorsing censorship. Even if you believe
that censorship is sometimes necessary, look at it this way:
1. It is generally agreed among feminists that "men" are in power and
are attempting to oppress "women" using that power.
[I use "men" and "women" because it is not all of either group, nor any
specific individual, just the concepts of "men" and "women."]
2. It is the people in power who will be most effective at censoring
things; in particular, they will almost certainly end up being the ones
who get to decide what should be censored, once society agrees that
things *should* be censored.
3. It is extremely likely that these "men" in power will not want to see
widespread publication of feminist ideas, since that would interfere
with their continued holding of power and with their attempted
oppression of "women."
In other words, feminist writings aren’t popular with a lot of people,
and if we set those people free to censor, I suspect we’ll be near the
top of the list. I suspect you just want censorship of, perhaps,
"things which are dangerous to a group of people" – well, who defines
"dangerous," eh?
I think there are other, better arguments against censorship, but this
one is particular to feminism.
Muffy
—
Muffy Barkocy mu…@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
But even more it depends on the way that you see~ – Bruce Cockburn
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <1992May05.234815.247…@cs.cmu.edu> bar…@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Barbara Katzenberg) writes:
>There has been debate on pornography recently in the pages of
>the New York Times Book Review with the first sally offered by
>novelist John Irving.
…
>Should there be censorship–of course! What should be censored?
>That’s much more complicated and must be pieced together, and
>negotiated among us. Not everything I don’t like, and certainly
>not John Irving. But, I think it is O.K., in fact essential, for
>communities to make statements about what is acceptable to them
>right now, with the recognition that these things do change. To
>Irving, the worst persecution may be when a great novelist like
>James Joyce doesn’t get published right away because of the
>public’s puritanism. I don’t agree with that view anymore.
>I think there are worse persecutions.
There are certainly worse persecutions. Most of the people in
the pornography/censorship debate, however, focus on the question
of whether setting up a legal framework for preventing the publication
of certain works (or allowing individuals to collect damages from
their authors and publishers) is a good way to deal with those
persecutions. Enough communities in the U.S. consider unacceptable
things that I value highly so that I for one am very leery of virtually
any censorship.
To put it bluntly, many communities consider homosexuality unacceptable,
they consider sex outside of marriage unacceptable, they consider
women with independent careers unacceptable, they consider men taking
fulltime care of small children unacceptable. They consider racism
acceptable, they consider spouse abuse and child abuse acceptable, they
consider untrammeled greed not merely acceptable but praiseworthy.
If I could successfully censor the texts that are both symptoms and
perpetrators of the patriarchal mess our society is in, _without_
risking the possibility that other people would censor every
unorthodox thought that most of us hold dear, I’d do it in a minute.
But I don’t see how. (I think that parts of the pornography victims
compensation act [sic?] may in fact make sense because they don’t
involve only speech issues, but that’s another matter…)
paul just a little perturbed by this one
—
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
McKinnon’s analysis is so right on; it’ s just her conclusions I
question. But I’ll admit, I’m not sure how do alter the strongly
patriarchal perspective we all carry into the bedroom and still leave a
publishing atmosphere in which, for excample, Yellow Silk would be safe
to print.
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <1992May05.234815.247…@cs.cmu.edu> bar…@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Barbara Katzenberg) writes:
[much stuff deleted, as my news software enforces a ratio]
>Should there be censorship–of course! What should be censored?
>That’s much more complicated and must be pieced together, and
>negotiated among us. Not everything I don’t like, and certainly
>not John Irving. But, I think it is O.K., in fact essential, for
>communities to make statements about what is acceptable to them
>right now, with the recognition that these things do change. To
>Irving, the worst persecution may be when a great novelist like
>James Joyce doesn’t get published right away because of the
>public’s puritanism. I don’t agree with that view anymore.
>I think there are worse persecutions.
The reason yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not considered
protected speech is because it is not considered "speach" per se,
but rather an action that endangers human life directly. "speach"
which endagers other people’s lives, reputation, property, etc.
is banned, but is always banned in a way which does not directly
pertain to speach: yelling fire in a theater, a much overused example
(IMHO) in censorship debates, is usually prosecuted under "endangering
public safety" or some such. "Inciting a riot," "Conspiracy to commit
murder" and "Slander" are other examples of charges stemming from
what a person says (or publishes in writing).
On the other hand, "pornography" has both a very loose definition, and
no directly measurable harmfull effects.
The first problem with banning "pornography" is the very loose
definition and the fact that it varies from location to location. In
the U.S., any materials depicting minors engaged in sexual act is
considered pornography, while in Japan, where there is a law against
any depiction in film of adult heterosexual sex, what would be termed
"Kiddie Porn" in the states is not prosecutable, and in fact a going
concern. (It is also interesting to note that the first laws against
pornography and nudity in japan were made by the U.S. staff there
after WWII. ) Also, one person’s art is another person’s pornography.
Case in point maplethrope and the attacks on the NEA by Sen. Helms.
If you find something offensive, you need not veiw/purchase or
otherwise subsidize it. (Which is a good argument AGAINST public
funding for artists: why should all taxpayers pay for things that only
some think are worthwhile. But that is another can of worms . . .)
And at what level of the government should this be enforced? The U.S.
Justice department’s Obscenity Enforcement Untit, for instance, had
tried mail order companies (some of which, incidentally, cater
primarily to women) in multiple juristicions under local obscenity
ordinances. These companies had to defend themselves in multiple
juristions, and if the community standards of one area exonerated
them, they still had umpteen other juristictions to defend themselves
in. Why should an **entire nation** be limited by the **most
restrictive** comunity standards? And who gets to decide what to ban?
The Second problem is that of directly measurable harmfull effects.
There is no **PROOF** that pornography leads to harm, and for every
study sugesting a pornography/violence link, there seems to be another
claiming that there is none, or that pornography is actually
beneficial. Even Betty Freidan, author of THE FEMENINE MYSTIQUE and
other books, has argued that Femenists should avoid getting
sidetracked into legislation of morality. So at best, the assertion
that pornography is harmfull is harmfull is questionable. And by that
I mean that it can not be conclusively stated whether it is harmfull
beneficial, or niether. (That I choose to belive that it is at worst
harmless is largely irrelevant.).
Guy Seggev
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
[Please try to keep this directly relevant to soc.feminism. Consider sending
general comments about free speech and censorship to alt.censorship instead.
- MHN]
uunet!cmcl2!panix.com…@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Paul Wallich) writes:
>If I could successfully censor the texts that are both symptoms and
>perpetrators of the patriarchal mess our society is in, _without_
>risking the possibility that other people would censor every
>unorthodox thought that most of us hold dear, I’d do it in a minute.
And some of the books you would censor in a minute would contain unorthodox
thoughts that *I* hold dear.
There is nothing so oppresive as living in someone else’s utopia.
–
Paul Ciszek, pcis…@nyx.cs.du.edu | Saddam Hussein still has a job; do you?
—
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
After this article came out, I spent a week trying to get ahold of
the article, to see if there was any points of interest. I didn’t find it.
Several people (who also probably didn’t read it) wrote in opposition
based on freedom of speech and expression. Even though I am pro-pornography,
these types of arguments do not seem adequate to me.
The problem is not that I disparage free speech (I don’t). The problem
is the effect on our opponents that these arguments have.
People who are talking about violent crime are underimpressed with
first amendment freedoms. It is a natural tendancy to sacrifice freedom
when you feel you are threatened. If you are conviced that pornography can
cause rape, you will think "Why should I subject myself to extreme violence
just because of some political theory". Some people have recently suggested
that political minorities (such as feminists) should not embrace censorship
since it is they who will be squelched. But, of course, feminist views
may be censored (as in the famous abortion Gag Rule) even if feminists are
opposed to censorship. Since we do not live in a perfect world, and
censorship is used in real life, why should those opposed to pornography
not try to use the power they have to protect themselves?
These are the arguments that can be used against the responces that have
so far appeared.
I think we need to look beyond the First Amendment to find a very strong
argument against pornography censorship, and when we do, we’ll find other
things of even greater value than the free availiblity of naked breasts.
WHY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
This question is never asked. I think nearly all of us who grew up in
the modern west ake this freedom as obvious. But why? Other societies don’t
embrace this.
I think the answer is this: Words are inherently harmless. By words I
mean expression of ideas, in what ever form you are talking about. This
statment is strong. Words cannot do harm. I won’t rehash the ‘fire’ story.
Even though they endorse radical or violent ideas, we do not feel
threatened by having Marx, Nietzsche, Hitler, or Thoraeu availible at our
libraries. And so we feel about all expression.
Everbody should take a breath, and decide if you believe that statment.
Does a book on bomb-making make the world more violent? Do Marx’s writings
make communist revolutions more likely? Does the availibility of Crack4.0
make your site less safe?
In the end, I think it is the actions of the people who read the books
that determines what happens. You can read radical political articles
without becoming a radical. You can read Main Kampf, and remain unconvinced.
Especially now, in hindsight. Books can be influential, but they cannot
be the determinant of action.
This is what I think we mean when we guarantee freedom of speech. Once
we come to this conclusion, we see then that the safest situation is when
all idea can compete, and that reinforces of point of view.
PORNOGRAPHY
Anybody still with me?
If pornography is to be defended as free expression, then it must be
harmless. Looking at it this way, porn must be without harm or else there
is something wrong with the way we think about freedom. For pornography,
the case may be even stronger. There is very little originality in porn.
Anything that will be produced will have been done by countless other
people in history.
This should lead us to think that by demonstrating the harmlessness
of pornography that we could convince our opponents to change thier position.
People are opposed to pornography because they feel threatened by it. It
is only by removing this feeling that we will truely convince them to
change thier minds.
What evidence is there that pornogrpahy causes harm? Very little, and
the little there is is of suspect quality. I didn’t get a chance to read the
article in question. But I bet it used one or both of the usual anti-porn
tactics. The case against porn is made either by anecdotes, or by
statistics. Anecdotes are notoriously unreliable, and the source of the
statistics is never quite made clear. So much for the anti-pornography view.
Can you prove that anything is harmless? I don’t see how. But I think
this is where real progress will be made. Pornography is very popular, so
it is our opposition that has the uphill battle. If we make calm and rational
arguments against the specifics of our opponents theories, and direct our
attention at alleviating feelings of danger, I don’t think we can fail
to make progress.
DanZ
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions, or
narratives contained herein are not necessarily true, and do not
necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <vepk4INN…@agate.berkeley.edu> d…@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis) writes:
>[...] Some people have recently suggested that political minorities
>(such as feminists) should not embrace censorship since it is they
>who will be squelched. But, of course, feminist views may be censored
>(as in the famous abortion Gag Rule) even if feminists are opposed to
>censorship.
Quite true, but that just makes the argument against actually allowing
*any* censorship stronger. If we’re being censored even in a society
that claims to disallow censorship, how much more are we likely to be
censored if it is allowed?
>Since we do not live in a perfect world, and censorship is used in
>real life, why should those opposed to pornography not try to use the
>power they have to protect themselves?
Why? Well, if they’re feminists, I would hope that they might notice
that most of the restrictions which have been placed on women in our
society were created and enforced under the guise of "protecting"
them. The more power you give society/the government to "protect"
you, the more restrictions it will place on your freedom. This is not
unreasonable, since it is freedom that tends to place you in the most
danger. If I’m not free to cross the street, it’s very unlikely that
I’ll be hit by a car. If I’m not free to go out at night, the chances
of my being attacked go down. etc. However, while it may be
reasonable from the government’s point of view, it’s not so reasonable
to me… *smile*.
>[...] I think we need to look beyond the First Amendment to find a
>very strong argument against pornography censorship, and when we do,
>we’ll find other things of even greater value than the free
>availiblity of naked breasts.
Why trivialize this? I don’t give a damn about naked breasts – I can
see them whenever I want to. But that isn’t all that pornography is,
no matter how much anti-pornography people try to devalue it. They
say "oh, it’s just trash anyway, why are you fighting for it?" This
sort of value judgement just muddies the waters. Even if they are of
poor value, we may not buy things because they are of poor quality,
but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be allowed to produce them. If
they are not (as I am sure that many things which have been labelled
pornography) are not, then the argument is invalid anyway. You seem
to be arguing against censoring pornography, so why buy the assertions
of the other side?
>[...] >If pornography is to be defended as free expression, then it
must be >harmless. Looking at it this way, porn must be without harm
or else there >is something wrong with the way we think about freedom.
For pornography, >the case may be even stronger. There is very little
originality in porn. >Anything that will be produced will have been
done by countless other >people in history.
I don’t see that this is any more true for pornography than any other
form of art. What about the claim that there are only half a dozen or
so plots, and all novels use them. Again, you’re buying the assertion
that pornography is "just trash."
>This should lead us to think that by demonstrating the harmlessness
>of pornography that we could convince our opponents to change thier
position. >People are opposed to pornography because they feel
threatened by it. It >is only by removing this feeling that we will
truely convince them to >change thier minds.
You might think that, but it does not seem to be true. First, as you
point out, it is actually impossible to *prove* that it is harmless.
Second, even if they were convinced that it was harmless, I wouldn’t
be surprised if they continued to try to censor it. People’s distaste
for pornography is not based only on a feeling that it is dangerous.
The thing is, some people are just not comfortable with sex,
particularly public discussions, depictions, etc. Earthworms are
harmless to me, and I know this, but I still say "yech" and flinch if
someone tosses one at me. In addition, people feel threatened in
another way – the whole "beauty/perfection" issue – both women and men
are threatened by the images of "perfect" bodies that are promoted by
pornography (and advertising). People don’t want their SO’s comparing
them to the people in the magazines, stories, etc.
>What evidence is there that pornogrpahy causes harm? Very little, and
>the little there is is of suspect quality.
>[...]
>Can you prove that anything is harmless? I don’t see how. But I think
>this is where real progress will be made. Pornography is very
>popular, so it is our opposition that has the uphill battle.
Alcohol was extremely popular, but it was still prohibited.
Recreation drugs are/have been quite popular, but they are illegal.
Most people are reluctant to admit to liking pornography because of
the negative image it has in society. You yourself put it down twice
in your article – when someone comes up to a person and says "how can
you defend that trash – you don’t actually *like* it, do you?" a lot
of people will say "oh, no, of course not."
>If we make calm and rational arguments against the specifics of our
>opponents theories, and direct our attention at alleviating feelings
>of danger, I don’t think we can fail to make progress.
Unfortuantely, we have failed. People do not make all decisions
rationally. Look at religion – there have been many logical arguments
advanced for and against the existence of God, but people still
believe and disbelieve. After all, neither side can *prove* anything,
so people make decisions on some other basis.
Muffy
—
Muffy Barkocy mu…@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
But even more it depends on the way that you see~ – Bruce Cockburn
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <vepk4INN…@agate.berkeley.edu> d…@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis) writes:
>WHY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
> This question is never asked. I think nearly all of us who grew up in
>the modern west ake this freedom as obvious. But why? Other societies don’t
>embrace this.
> I think the answer is this: Words are inherently harmless. By words I
>mean expression of ideas, in what ever form you are talking about. This
>statment is strong. Words cannot do harm. I won’t rehash the ‘fire’ story.
> Even though they endorse radical or violent ideas, we do not feel
>threatened by having Marx, Nietzsche, Hitler, or Thoraeu availible at our
>libraries. And so we feel about all expression.
I disagree. Words and ideas are the most dangerous things on the face
of the planet. Without the ideas, you don’t get the actions. It’s
recognition of that fact that led eastbloc governments to imprison
a Solzhyenitsin (??) or a Havel, and led the freed citizens of
Czechoslovakia to choose a playwright for their president. That
same recognition led the iranians to call for the death of a
good-but-not-great novelist.
I think that the real value of the First Amendment (conceived in a
time when imprisoning people for their ideas was a standard, accepted
wat of doing business) is in saying that words and ideas _do_ have
real power in the world, _do_ present a real danger, but that we must
encourage free speech nonetheless.
Indeed, the devaluation of words and ideas, so that no one blinks an
eye at the outrageous lies of an advertiser, a politician, a panhandler
or a small child, so that no one laughs bogus arguments right out of the
public marketplace, is a great deal of what’s wrong with this country.
> If pornography is to be defended as free expression, then it must be
>harmless. Looking at it this way, porn must be without harm or else there
>is something wrong with the way we think about freedom. For pornography,
>the case may be even stronger. There is very little originality in porn.
> This should lead us to think that by demonstrating the harmlessness
>of pornography that we could convince our opponents to change thier position.
>People are opposed to pornography because they feel threatened by it. It
>is only by removing this feeling that we will truely convince them to
>change thier minds.
But pornography is _not_ harmless. It is deeply bound into our sexist
culture and damages people (both men and women) as surely as Hitler’s
Big Lie damaged jews or centuries of racist literature have damaged
blacks [list not complete for obvious reasons]. I can remember how even
soft porn shaped my attitudes toward women when I was a teenager, and
even now, having learned a great deal more, I sometimes have trouble
shaking those attitudes. Whether you look at the damage done by
pornography as part of a culture-wide problem or as a simple
straightforward linkage (the way that someone whose car is destroyed
by a pipe bomb might bemoan the public availability of army ordnance
manuals) I think calling it harmless is naive.
The challenge for those who would oppose censorship is to explain why
free speech is the best choice we’ve got. (Who was it who said that
democracy was the worst possible form of government, except for all
the other forms?)
paul rambling again
—
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
d…@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis):
| >WHY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH? …
| > I think the answer is this: Words are inherently harmless. By words I
| >mean expression of ideas, in what ever form you are talking about. This
| >statment is strong. Words cannot do harm. I won’t rehash the ‘fire’ story.
| >….
uunet!cmcl2!panix.com…@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Paul Wallich):
| I disagree. Words and ideas are the most dangerous things on the face
| of the planet.
| … [P]ornography is _not_ harmless. It is deeply bound into our sexist
| culture and damages people (both men and women) as surely as Hitler’s
| Big Lie damaged jews or centuries of racist literature have damaged
| blacks [list not complete for obvious reasons]. I can remember how even
| soft porn shaped my attitudes toward women when I was a teenager, and
| even now, having learned a great deal more, I sometimes have trouble
| shaking those attitudes. … I think calling it harmless is naive.
|
| The challenge for those who would oppose censorship is to explain why
| free speech is the best choice we’ve got. …
"Pornography" is erotic literature in a certain context —
one where the content of erotism is partially repressed by
political forces. This fact is especially visible in the
soft-core pornography of a few decades ago, the very "soft
porn" which did so much to shape — distort — our attitudes
toward women, and, as a matter of fact, towards the erotic
in general. Run it through your mind and recall what is
shown and what is hidden: above all what is hidden is the
sense of another person, another mind.
In previous article I opined that censorship was impossible
because the boundary of the repressed sphere points toward
the thing repressed. However, it _can_ damage the image or
repute of the thing repressed. Thus, the colloquial word
for the female genitals, instead of being the epithet of
high praise which Reason would make it, becomes derogatory,
in fact, a curse. Does anyone think that is an accident?
Censorship, as practiced by the State, is always an act of
violence, and its real intent and real effect are always
to do harm.
An absence of all censorship will not, unfortunately, remove
destructive politics from our erotic life, but it will at
least allow the good, the beautiful, and the true to arise
and compete for our attention. If we had been allowed to
see everything that people do, we might have even seen
people who were allowed to love one another. Sexually.
Would that not have been truly revolutionary?
—
Gordon Fitch | g…@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf
* 1238 Blg Grn Sta. NYC 10274 *
—
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
uunet!cmcl2!panix.com…@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Paul Wallich) writes:
>> I think the answer is this: Words are inherently harmless. By words I
>>mean expression of ideas, in what ever form you are talking about. This
>>statment is strong. Words cannot do harm. I won’t rehash the ‘fire’ story.
>> Even though they endorse radical or violent ideas, we do not feel
>>threatened by having Marx, Nietzsche, Hitler, or Thoraeu availible at our
>>libraries. And so we feel about all expression.
>I disagree. Words and ideas are the most dangerous things on the face
>of the planet.
>I think that the real value of the First Amendment (conceived in a
>time when imprisoning people for their ideas was a standard, accepted
>wat of doing business) is in saying that words and ideas _do_ have
>real power in the world, _do_ present a real danger, but that we must
>encourage free speech nonetheless.
An excellent couple of points. However, words *don’t* actually
have power; see below.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> If pornography is to be defended as free expression, then it must be
>>harmless. Looking at it this way, porn must be without harm or else there
>>is something wrong with the way we think about freedom. For pornography,
>>the case may be even stronger. There is very little originality in porn.
>> This should lead us to think that by demonstrating the harmlessness
>>of pornography that we could convince our opponents to change thier position.
>>People are opposed to pornography because they feel threatened by it. It
>>is only by removing this feeling that we will truely convince them to
>>change thier minds.
>But pornography is _not_ harmless. It is deeply bound into our sexist
>culture and damages people (both men and women) as surely as Hitler’s
>Big Lie damaged jews or centuries of racist literature have damaged
>blacks [list not complete for obvious reasons]. I can remember how even
>soft porn shaped my attitudes toward women when I was a teenager, and
>even now, having learned a great deal more, I sometimes have trouble
>shaking those attitudes. Whether you look at the damage done by
>pornography as part of a culture-wide problem or as a simple
>straightforward linkage (the way that someone whose car is destroyed
>by a pipe bomb might bemoan the public availability of army ordnance
>manuals) I think calling it harmless is naive.
You’ve using your own experience to state that pornography is harmful,
yet my experience differs. I enjoyed pornography, and still do, without
considering women as nothing but sexual objects. I never make assumptions
about women’s ability to do work based on gender, always respect those who
bother to respect me back, and consider all women I meet as whole human
beings, whether I consider them in a sexual aspect or not. Most of my
friends are women, which should suggest that they feel that I consider them
and treat them as equals, and give their voices equal say when we have
differences. My SO’s have never been model-beautiful, and have always been
intelligent and capable.
So, if pornography is inherently harmful, why hasn’t it performed this
harm upon me?
The answer is that although pornography may *reinforce* values you
already have, pornography doesn’t normally have the power to introduce
values. That’s because we live in the context of a society. If someone
learned everything they know about the opposite gender from pornography,
they would unquestionably have a tilted worldview, but that’s not what
generally happens. Instead, you approach pornography with a set of values
given to you by society and your parents. My parents raised me to think
of women as equal, and to value characteristics like intelligence, wittiness,
caring, etc. above beauty. Therefore, pornography doesn’t pass on any
negative values to me. I don’t even so those messages in pornography; to
me, you have to have a tilted mindset to get those messages from those
pictures.
Let’s take the issue away from pornography, for just a second; you
mentioned Hitler’s Big Lie. Those words still exist, and most folks in this
country have encountered this idea. Yet, we have not succumbed, as they
did in Germany, to a Nazi government. Why, if the words are so dangerous?
Because we do approach these words with a preset worldview that these
words could reinforce. The problem isn’t the words; it’s the worldview.
In fact, the words didn’t even happen until there was a society ready to
support them (in this case). Pornography is certainly a result of the
cultural sexual power imbalance, and that sexual power imbalance causes
many of the problems women face today and feminists are dedicated to
fighting; but pornography didn’t create those problems. Those problems
existed long before pornography was generally available. Eliminating
pornography (which I understand you’re not espousing) wouldn’t do a thing
to make those problems go away; the ideas didn’t originally come from
pornography. The ideas are harmless; the worst you can say about ideas
is that they will ignite on the appropriate hotbed. But the idea itself
is a result of the hotbed, a sort of spontaneous combustion; the fuel may
stay around afterwards because of our written language, but will never
flare up anywhere but where the original hotbed already exists.
To tie this throughly to the topic of feminism, even if pornography
carries inherently the ideas that some folks say it does (that I can only
see by viewing it through an already altered mindset) it’s a waste of effort
to attempt to eliminate it (again, I know you’re not suggesting this). If
the hotbed truly exists, then the combustion will happen anyway through some
other means, if you happen to eliminate pornography; certainly, pornography
is completely unnecessary to view women as sex objects. Instead, concentrate
on defusing the hotbed.
I don’t know you, and I’m out of line guessing about you. But since
you brought yourself up as an example, I can’t help but wonder what ideas
you had in place before you ever encountered pornography.
>The challenge for those who would oppose censorship is to explain why
>free speech is the best choice we’ve got. (Who was it who said that
>democracy was the worst possible form of government, except for all
>the other forms?)
Censorship is a great tool for those who are attempting to hold and
maintain power. Whether it’s a good idea or not depends on whether you agree
with the point of view of the censors. Censorship, from our point of view,
was a very bad idea in revolutionary England, Nazi Germany and Stalinist
U.S.S.R.
However, all these examples of censorship that we find harmful were
combined with pogroms. What about censorship without pogroms?
Censorship is useless for those who want to use it positively;
if you aren’t prepared to kill those who *think* the ideas that you won’t allow
on paper, then all you’re doing is driving those ideas underground, where
they can bubble up in a more harmful fashion. In fact, you’re granting
validity to those ideas for everyone who doesn’t like any aspect of your
political stance.
We can easily see all the historical damage done by censorship, and
recognize that we *could not have made the incredible cultural advances
we’ve made over the last 200 years* if we did not live in a free society.
It would be an incredible hubris to decide that we don’t have even more
room to grow, or that all the changes we’ve made in a grand social experiment
are the right ones.
We haven’t got gender equality yet; censorship of any form will
guarantee that we will never truly achieve it. If we achieve something that
looks like gender equality by suppressing other ideas instead of eliminating
them in an open forum where ideas can change, that environment will be
doomed to extinction, a victim of it’s own suppressionary tactics.
Robert C.
—
———————————————-
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
—
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <1992May21.220942.17…@panix.com> uunet!cmcl2!panix.com…@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Paul Wallich) writes:
>But pornography is _not_ harmless. It is deeply bound into our sexist
>culture and damages people (both men and women) as surely as Hitler’s
>Big Lie damaged jews or centuries of racist literature have damaged
>blacks [list not complete for obvious reasons]. I can remember how even
>soft porn shaped my attitudes toward women when I was a teenager, and
>even now, having learned a great deal more, I sometimes have trouble
>shaking those attitudes. Whether you look at the damage done by
>pornography as part of a culture-wide problem or as a simple
>straightforward linkage (the way that someone whose car is destroyed
>by a pipe bomb might bemoan the public availability of army ordnance
>manuals) I think calling it harmless is naive.
In dealing with pornography and sexism, one is forced to ask the
question of whether pornography is inherently demeaning to woman. I’m
sure a few male homosexual porn films would have some trouble fitting
into this definition. I use the definition "media that contains
explicit sex involving at least one person" for pornography. Erotica I
define as "pornography that arouses anyone with an IQ above room
temperature and good taste".
Yes, there are pornographic films that portray women in a demeaning
light, but how much worse are they than conventional films and shows
showing women in a less than flattering light. At least with porn
there is an explicit element of unrealistic fantasy to the film. With
TV shows and films, showing women in weaker roles, there is a strong
element of trying to portray reality that creeps in, trying to make
believable that women want to be second banana and have men going
around and protecting them, so they can drop their own lives and marry
the lead hero, while looking glamorous all the while. How many women
have we lost to anorexia, surgery, psychological problems trying to
live up to women in non-porn films and movies?
I’m not saying that a lot, if not the majority of porn films are
degrading to women and lead to unrealistic expectations of women, but
I wonder how dangerous these films would be if there wasn’t the vast
pool of sexism blasted at people from mainstream entertainment. I’ve
seen lots of nasty propaganda at times (reading fringe literature
takes one on an interesting tour of areas of the brain best left
unexplored) but they aren’t dangerous to me because the vast amount of
programming that comes to me is against that sort of thing.
>The challenge for those who would oppose censorship is to explain why
>free speech is the best choice we’ve got. (Who was it who said that
>democracy was the worst possible form of government, except for all
>the other forms?)
Because while everyone knows where to start in censoring things, or at
least *thinks* they know where to start, no one has shown me the
faintest idea that they know where to stop, or that they can keep the
government from introducing its own agenda in addition to what they
want to censor. "Just add this idea to the list of things we can’t
—
Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mad Scientist, Priest of Shub-Internet
mfter…@phoenix.princeton.edu mfter…@pucc.bitnet ter…@pupgga.princeton.edu
The above text is disclaimer challenged, flaming it isn’t politically correct
"Tradition is important on the Net, its the only thing holding it together"-MFT
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <robert.707080573@labyrinth> uunet!infmx!rob…@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:
> The answer is that although pornography may *reinforce* values you
>already have, pornography doesn’t normally have the power to introduce
>values. That’s because we live in the context of a society. If someone
>learned everything they know about the opposite gender from pornography,
>they would unquestionably have a tilted worldview, but that’s not what
>generally happens. Instead, you approach pornography with a set of values
>given to you by society and your parents. My parents raised me to think
>of women as equal, and to value characteristics like intelligence, wittiness,
>caring, etc. above beauty. Therefore, pornography doesn’t pass on any
>negative values to me. I don’t even so those messages in pornography; to
>me, you have to have a tilted mindset to get those messages from those
>pictures.
I also oppose censorship of pornography. I think it should
be held to the same standard as other forms of speech, where
everything but direct and explicit incitement to violence (or
other forms of criminal activity) is protected by the 1st.
However, I still think it’s important to take the social
impact of pornography seriously. Certainly, your interpretation of
pornography depends on everthing you’ve already learned at the
time you see it, and will continue to change as you learn more.
But the same could be said of anything you read, see, or hear at
any point in your lifetime. In fact, things like "worldview" and
"values" are constituted out of the sum total of all these speech
acts and one’s incorporation (or modification, or rejection) of them.
I don’t see why pornography should be singled out as uniquely
uninfluential in this process.
In my view, pornography is on a contiuum with most mainstream
depictions of women and sexuality, merely the most naked (ah-hem)
expression of the contempt for women seen everywhere in the media.*
I don’t think the kind of experience Robert Carlson describes,
seeing pornography for the *first* time, is even possible. I knew
how to strike the standard pose and do Mae West when I was 5 (to the
infinite embarassment of my parents) even though I had no idea what
the pose was about. I (think) I learned this from tv. In my
experience, this society’s particular take on human sexuality,
echoed and amplified in pornography, has had a profound impact on
my own sexual development and self-image, starting well before mama
told me where babies come from.
Support for free speech should not mean a refusal
to *evaluate* speech.
(BTW, *Anyone interested in the evolution of the West’s
particular style of portraying women, from the Renaissance painters
to the present-day pornographers, should read John Berger’s
excellent _Ways of Seeing_).
–
Sheila Ralston
r…@midway.uchicago.edu
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
[Moderator's note: try to keep this relevant to feminism or re-direct it
to alt.censorship.]
Hi again folks.
About free speech: I feel that I have to support it, if not in an
absolute form, then one pretty close to it.
I wobble between two extremes with regard to language. Sometimes, I
feel that it is an incredible force, with the power to define, to limit,
and in very real ways to *create* reality; I understand what Walt Whitman
felt when he wondered "What makes me tremble at the divine power of
words?" (*Leaves of Grass*, quoting from memory), and what William
Burroughs was babbling about when he said that "language is a virus from
outer space"… Other times, I feel that words are just words– "I won’t
use words again they don’t mean what I meant they don’t say what I
said…" (Suzanne Vega, "Language") "All of the letters and all of the
words in all of the languages all over the world they’re nothing but
sounds and vowels and nouns for talking to strangers, that’s all they’re
worth…" (Fairground Attraction, "Words Aren’t Able to Speak of Love")
"talk is cheap" (anonymous) –etc. Other people’s words about words.
Oddly, it seems to me that at either of these two extremes– not that I
really experience the extremes, but to extrapolate each tendency to its
limit– something horrible happens. When one is utterly detached from
one’s speech, if one considers words truly arbitrary, then one is free to
utter anything; one becomes completely egoistic, almost solipsistic in
one’s uncaring for others. When one *truly* trembles at the divine power
of speech, one is thrown into the opposite mode, a Self-crushing,
self-censoring group consciousness. Interesting to see how close these
imagined extremes are to McLuhan’s ideas of auditory and visual space, or
Ong’s slightly more intelligible ideas of oral and literate civilization…*
But in any case– no matter what the reality is, concerning the true
power or emptiness of language– I think that we should find the basic
need for free speech in a sort of eternal doubt. While I have no true
understanding of such things, I understand that a man named Godel proved
that there can never be a complete system of mathematics; the implications
seem apparent to me. Besides, I come from a Jewish male tradition which
demands constant reappraisal and scrutiny of all that was considered holy
truth; perpetual doubt seems not only crucial, but natural to me.
We should never become so satisfied with our ideas that we conclude
that we have *the* answers. We should remember history, and realize that
every system of thought has its holes, its gaps. Remember the hundreds of
artists whose works were termed obscene; the scientists martyred as
heretics; the radicals murdered in the name of Capitalism or Communism or
God, all those proven-true universally-accepted undoubtable systems of thought.
We must accept that we could be wrong. We need to make sure that we do
not silence the one person who can tell us we are wrong, who can tell the
Emperor that he has no clothes on, even if this means granting license to
speak to a hundred merely annoying, truly ignorant, or genuinely malicious
people.
This is the only thing that seems truly certain to me.
–Jesse.
*If you’re also interested in this stuff, or want clarification, ask me!
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <1992May30.032525.14…@nic.umass.edu> s1006…@titan.ucc.umass.EDU ("and a thousand battles shall be won..") writes:
>A lot of what has been discussed in this newsgroup defending
>pornography as "free" speech reminds me of the discourse for
>defending a "free market" for monopolies, it’s all so very free…
>Vera B.
I think this is a most inappropriate comparison. You have two ways to
) that women be given by decree of law, equal time
look at liberty: to let it be or to enforce it actively. In the case
of free speech, it would mean, for example (i am trying to stick to
feminism here
with men in the media (media in the larger sense: everything used to
express oneself to many other people). Now, this s not the spirit of
free speech. Free market, on the other hand, was intended (-at least-
by the people who gave it moral backing) to keep oppotunities open to
all. Monopolies are, by nature, against this. The spirit in which free
speech was envisoned -was- a "let it be" and the spirit of free market
was seen as "enforce freedom". These two interpretation were and are
seen as just.
-benjamin God prefers large armies to small ones.
mit math. Voltaire.
mit does not necessarily (and probably does not) agree with this.
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
>In article <1992May30.032525.14…@nic.umass.edu> s1006…@titan.ucc.umass.EDU ("and a thousand battles shall be won..") writes:
>>A lot of what has been discussed in this newsgroup defending
>>pornography as "free" speech reminds me of the discourse for
>>defending a "free market" for monopolies, it’s all so very free…
>>Vera B.
Benjamin Renaud writes <1992Jun1.033655.14…@athena.mit.edu>:
>I think this is a most inappropriate comparison. You have two ways to
) that women be given by decree of law, equal time
>look at liberty: to let it be or to enforce it actively. In the case
>of free speech, it would mean, for example (i am trying to stick to
>feminism here
>with men in the media (media in the larger sense: everything used to
>express oneself to many other people). Now, this s not the spirit of
>free speech. Free market, on the other hand, was intended (-at least-
>by the people who gave it moral backing) to keep oppotunities open to
>all. Monopolies are, by nature, against this. The spirit in which free
>speech was envisoned -was- a "let it be" and the spirit of free market
>was seen as "enforce freedom". These two interpretation were and are
>seen as just.
Altho I think that the concept of free speech is much more complex
than having equal time in media – I wish not to discuss this at this
point but to clarify my analogy – because you misunderstood it.
The parallel that I drew between the discourse of defending pornography
as "free" speech and defending "free" markets for monopolies is that
in both cases the use of the word "free" is illusive, for it is used
in both instances to describe a process which is anything but free –
for it is not the absence of an external agent of control (such as
government) that makes it free. What I wish to point out is that the
problem with pornography is not whether you legally see/say it or not
(that is, in reference to an institutionalized censor) because, altho
relevant to the question, it is somewhat at the periphery. Rather,
it is the ideology and psychology of pornography, not only that which
is enclosed in itself, but of which we experience in our daily lives
that is the problem. And as Susan Griffin has shown and explained so
clearly in her book ‘Pornography and Silence’, this ideology of
pornography is not, by any means, restricted to pornography itself.
Quite on the contrary, it is repeated again and again, it is the
basis for the present culture (and therefore gets a lot of time on
TV as it is – inside joke).
If you are still unclear about what I mean (after all – I didnt even go
into the concepts of "free" this and that), please read the book
mentioned or I believe your chances for misinterpreting what I wrote
will be great.
Vera B.
—————————————————————————-
We are not governed by armies or police, but by ideas.
Mona Caird 1892
—————————————————————————-
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
In article <1992May21.220942.17…@panix.com> uunet!cmcl2!panix.com…@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Paul Wallich) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> If pornography is to be defended as free expression, then it must be
>>harmless. Looking at it this way, porn must be without harm or else there
>>is something wrong with the way we think about freedom. For pornography,
>>the case may be even stronger. There is very little originality in porn.
>> This should lead us to think that by demonstrating the harmlessness
>>of pornography that we could convince our opponents to change thier position.
>>People are opposed to pornography because they feel threatened by it. It
>>is only by removing this feeling that we will truely convince them to
>>change thier minds.
>But pornography is _not_ harmless. It is deeply bound into our sexist
>culture and damages people (both men and women) as surely as Hitler’s
>Big Lie damaged jews or centuries of racist literature have damaged
>blacks [list not complete for obvious reasons]. I can remember how even
>soft porn shaped my attitudes toward women when I was a teenager, and
>even now, having learned a great deal more, I sometimes have trouble
>shaking those attitudes. Whether you look at the damage done by
>pornography as part of a culture-wide problem or as a simple
>straightforward linkage (the way that someone whose car is destroyed
>by a pipe bomb might bemoan the public availability of army ordnance
>manuals) I think calling it harmless is naive.
>The challenge for those who would oppose censorship is to explain why
>free speech is the best choice we’ve got. (Who was it who said that
>democracy was the worst possible form of government, except for all
>the other forms?)
>paul rambling again
I think that censorship is wrong and that free speech is our best
choice. I will agree with you that pornography harms people, men as
well as women, just as surely as Hitler’s idea harmed jews. Your
criterion, then, would allo wcensorship of harmful materials such as
these. The problem with this criterion is that this idea of "harming"
is -purely subjective-.
In fact, some people argue that pornography is beneficial to society
as a valve for violent sexual impulse. However wrong one might think
this opinion is, one can not deny its existence. In a similar line of
argument, people can, and indeed have argued about whether or not
capitalist or marxist or ***ist ideologies harm or do not harm
people. They disagreed on this issue. Many people died because of this.
Therefore, who is going to decide whether or not certain phenomenon,
or political opinion (or whatever else) harm certain people?? There is
no way to decide. This is very true of intellectual, social or other
things that are harmful in any other way than direct physical harm.
Certainly one can argue about phenomenons causing or influencing
certain acts of violence (such as a relationship between rape and
pornography, or nazism and death camps), but this relationship will
always be subject to discussion and argument between people.
Therefore the criterion "harms" is not sufficient to justify
) is 
and tell you that it harms
censorship. The best one can do (as far as i can see of course
to outlaw aggression in all its forms (rape, murder….), and work
towards education, in trying to show other people the harmful effects
we believe are inherent to certain behaviors. The censorship of
anything never has any convinving enough grounds. I would bet that you
would not censor pornography (admitting that you would, i don’t know
if you would) for the same reason a catholic bishop would (moral
rectitude). Remember, he would probably also outlaw sexual references
in textbooks (at least the one i know
people spiritually. I have been told that.
———————————————————————–
-benjamin God prefers large armies to small ones.
mit math. Voltaire.
———————————————————————–
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
bar…@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Barbara Katzenberg) writes…
(Some lines regarding the Dworkin/MacKinnon Bill in Massachussetts…)
BK>Should there be censorship–of course! What should be censored?
BK>That’s much more complicated and must be pieced together, and
BK>negotiated among us. Not everything I don’t like, and certainly
BK>not John Irving. But, I think it is O.K., in fact essential, for
BK>communities to make statements about what is acceptable to them
BK>right now, with the recognition that these things do change. To
BK>Irving, the worst persecution may be when a great novelist like
BK>James Joyce doesn’t get published right away because of the
BK>public’s puritanism. I don’t agree with that view anymore.
BK>I think there are worse persecutions.
For a dissenting viewpoint, I would state that I am of the opinion that
almost *nothing* deserves to be censored, because indeed, if someone does
not like what is presented, he/she does not have to watch it/read it/etcetera.
Mind you, this sort of debate is as old as the hills, and I doubt that much
could be accomplished by dredging it all up again..
What I WOULD like to say, is that there is a LOT more to this bill than Ms.
Katzenberg has outlined. Indeed, there has been MUCH debate on the subject,
in misc.legal, and I can recall that two frequent posters on soc.feminism,
myself and Muffy B. (I can’t quite recall the spelling), have also been
contributing to the discussion over there as well.
For just one example of why the debate over this bill is not JUST about
censorship, consider the fact that the proposed bill (posted in its entirety
in misc.legal) seems to claim, among other things, that male homosexual
pornography is "promoting violence against women" (there it is again…)
because of its exclusion of women. Of course, I haven’t heard a peep from
Dworak or MacKinnon about how lesbian pornography promotes violence against
men… :-)
There is also complete ignorance as to the question of informed consent. The
bill gives cases ad infinitum to make sure that ANYTHING is sufficient cause
to bring a charge under the proposed law, including the fact that having given
consent to appear in pornography is not a valid defense for the party being
charged!
Now while I do not doubt that violent films showing women’s enjoyment at being
sexually assaulted are worthy of being heavily monitored, I do NOT think that
ANY erotica, even non-violent erotica where there IS consent shown, AND where
the parties being shown, have consented to be shown, is valid ground for a
charge of "exploitation of women".
I wish that censorship were indeed the only issue surrounding this bill.
Unfortunately, its main proponents have used this bill in order to attempt to
legitimise a number of VERY nebulous assumptions about men and about what
constitutes "exploitation of women".
—
Will Steeves, g…@zooid.guild.org "Neil Hull is GOiD"
Universities Coordinator for In Search of Justice
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario – The ZOO of Ids
(416) 322-7876
—
* SLMR 2.1a * (Spending a year dead for tax purposes)
–
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femin…@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-requ…@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.