Slashdot Mirror
XXX!!: Sex and Free Speech
For years, it's been impossible to conduct anything like a rational public -policy discussion about the dissemination of sexual information in the United States, a country which constantly proclaims itself the cradle of liberty while being censorious, prudish and hypocritical when it comes to sex.
Sex, in fact, is our national taboo, and the Internet has taken this national phobia to meltdown levels.
America Online loves to position itself as the Main Street of the Internet, but company officials have never been willing to discuss how much of its revenue comes from sex-related chat rooms (in l996, Rolling Stone Magazine "conservatively" estimated AOL's monthly sex chat take at $7 million). If you want to take a guess, just type in a few keywords and consider your options.
That's not a bad thing. Politicians and journalists like to call all sexuality "pornography"or "smut," but services like AOL have permitted the open discussion of sexual issues, preferences and orientations for the first time in American history, even if they'd rather not brag about it. Hapless Americans no longer have to risk arrest or humiliation by hanging around peep shows or porn parlors. They can go online.
This has sent our many moral guardians into hyper-drive, invoking the safety of children as an excuse to beat back the sexual revolution made possible by the digital one.
And it's brought entrenched notions of free speech directly into conflict with emerging sexuality, and the dramatic increase in the availability of sexual imagery. Talk about the unintended consequences of technology.
There's no question sexual predators exist, online and off. Or that the Net has given them a powerful new venue in which to operate. But sex crimes against children are rare online, or as the result of going online. Law enforcement officials, perhaps seeking to expand their jurisdictions and bureaucracies, are continuously sounding alarms about online predators. But federal agencies like the FBI, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and private researchers like author Don Tapscott report that children are many times more likely to be abused by someone they know at home than as the result of sexual encounters online.
Surprisingly, there are no broadly agreed -upon estimates of how many children are victimized by online predators. There appear to be few, especially when considered in proportion to online use. In preparing a book about children and online safety and culture several years ago, several researchers and I were able to project that kids were much more likely to have an airplane fall out of the sky onto their heads than to be harmed as a result of going online.
Estimates range from a handful to a few hundred each year, and the great bulk of those involve older adolescents and teenagers drawn into obsessive or unhealthy relationships.
But it's striking, in the hysteria over kids and sexual imagery online, that there is no reliable data about the number of victims.
This doesn't slow down the media, which continuously sensationalizes the rare instances in which children are lured into real-world encounters by criminals operating online, and panics parents and educators into seeing the dangers as much greater than anyone has proven them to be.
Both journalists and politicians not only confuse sexual imagery with pornography, they also equate any exposure to sexual imagery with danger. This makes anything like a sane public policy discussion of sexuality and the Net impossible, either in Congress, at local school boards or private homes.
Schools, libraries and parents, caught in the middle of this confusing debate, have increasingly washed their hands of this explosive issue, and turned to blocking and filtering programs as a response. Politicians have weight in with blatantly unconstitutional responses like the Communications Decency Acts or equally unconstitutional and unenforceable state statutes like one overturned this week in California.
Monday, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge John Minney declared unconstitutional a penal code section that made it illegal to send sexual material over the Internet if the sender knew the recipient was a minor. Constitutional lawyers called this ruling reasonable and necessary -- as did a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- since the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to distribute sexually explicit material.
In this case, a former middle school teacher was arrested in April after he was caught allegedly attempting to seduce a 14-year-old boy by chatting online and sending explicit photographs. The "victim" was actually a police officer posing as a minor, the latest in a series of cases in which undercover officers "police the Net" by seeking to snare adults who approach children in sexually explicit ways. Predators who seek to assault children or exploit their bodies commercially are already law-breakers, subject to numerous statutes in local, state and federal law.
The Judge ruled that the law prosecutors relied on was simply too vague to be constitutional, and that free speech needed to be protected as well as children's safety. In fact, judges have repeatedly ruled that "decency" acts and statutes prohibit all discussion of certain kids of subjects are against the law.
Critics of the ruling argued that this wasn't a free speech issue, merely an encouragement to pedophiles. But like it or not, restrictions on discussion of sexuality does relate to freedom of speech.
The Contra Costa ruling is a reminder that this is yet another technological issue in urgent need of some coherent discussion, as opposed to the posturing and sensationalizing.
Freedom on the Net is not only constitutionally protected, it is also, by technological evolution and practice, a free culture that almost defies policing. There aren't enough cops on the earth to patrol AOL's chat rooms, let along mailing lists, websites, and global messaging and chat arenas all over the world.
Without question, kids do need to be educated in online safety. The rules are almost shockingly simple: give nobody your phone, numbers, full name or address. Small children ought not be left alone with the Net any more than they're allowed to wander around the mall by themselves.
Instead of banning games and filtering sexual imagery, teachers and parents need to show small children how to be safe online, how to respond to the violent or sexual imagery they may encounter, how to find sites that educational, entertaining and safe.
Is all exposure to sexual imagery dangerous to all kids at all ages? Is some exposure to sexual imagery and discussion safe, even healthy? This society has never figured such questions out, or even addressed them in any sustained way. The explosive growth of the Net practically forces an unconscious civilization to come to terms with reality.
In an era when the Net instantly connects people to all of the archived information in the world, how can reasonable laws be written that protect both children and free speech on the Net? How, for example, are adults interested in sexuality supposed to know the ages of the people they're speaking with in chat rooms? Is discussing sexuality with a teenager a crime? Or does the adult have to harm or intend to harm a minor in some demonstrable way?
From shock radio to cable to movies, magazines and Net chat rooms, American children are growing up with more exposure to sophisticated sexual and other kinds of imagery than any generation that has preceded them.
Is this harming them, and if so, in precisely what kind of ways? If this culture is so dangerous, why is the crime rate among kids dropping so sharply?
America is one of the world's most sexually obsessed and repressed nations, one reason sex sites are among the most visited on the Net, after business, entertainment and sports. Obviously, the sexual interests of U.S. citizens conflict with the puritanical impulses of their elected leaders and religious and moral guides.
Yet like it or not, the Net is breaking down these and other ingrained taboos. The Net has killed off sexual censorship as effectively as it has killed off many other kinds, though many of the country's most powerful institutions are slow to grasp the implications.
The very notion of pornography is a relatively new concept in human history. It came about in Victorian England when researchers from the British Museum dug up the ruins of Pompeii and were stunned to find artworks of all kinds - carvings, vases, paintings - in the ancient Italian city that featured shockingly explicit sexual activity, from oral sex to bestiality. The researchers were amazed to learn that these drawings were displayed all over the homes of Pompeii.
The British decided that women and children were too vulnerable and wanton to see these things, and hid them away in the museum's basement for generations. The idea that sexual imagery is dangerous was born, and soon took root in puritan-settled America.
These ideas need some re-consideration in the Digital Age. Vague laws about decency aren't holding up to the scrutiny of the courts, so children who need education and protection aren't getting any, while the Net-spawned right of access to sexual material for citizens who want it is directly threatened.
If even a fraction of the hysteria about kids, sexuality and the online culture were true, there would be no ambiguity about the dangers to children. There would be clear statistical support for the ongoing hysteria. There isn't.
With the 21st century come some inescapable new realities about freedom and sex. Freedom isn't going to vanish online. Sex is never going back into the closet. And thanks mostly to the federal judiciary rather than legislators sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, the First Amendment isn't going to be disassembled every time an intractable social challenge involving free speech crops up. If the judges don't see to that, the Internet will.
The biggest issue relating to sex and free speech is out how the two impulses can co-exist with one another in a country that doesn't seem sure if it wants either.
What has "sexual liberation" given us so far? A plague of STD's, broken homes, single parents, AIDS and a society that has become neurotically obessessed with sex to the point of worshipping thier orgasms. There are REASONS why so many of the old major religions have injunctions against unbridled sexuality and promiscuity. Any dog or lizard can give into instinct and screw whatever comes along, but only a human can leash thier instinct to the service of intellect and say "NO". By fighting the urge to unzip our pants we are proving ourselves to be rational creatures and not just a herd of hairless monkeys. Modern 'sexuality' is so tragic because it discards all restraint in the name of momentary gratification. The emotional and ritualistic aspects found in many religions are discarded so someone can get a quick thrill. Thus sex, a sacred and awesome thing that presages the creation of life is reduced to the status of candy bar..to be quickly and mindlessly enjoyed then forgotten. Unfortunately, people grow jaded over time with thier sexual pleasures, and need to try ever more exotic forms to get the same thrill..rather like a drug. The result is a whole society of people who are sexually frustrated and unfulfilled all the while proclaiming how much they are getting it. If sex is worth it, truly worth it, then it is worth waiting for. .
I completely agree that the threat of online sexual predators is overblown, and I also know that there *are* some predators out there. However, the reason that the "threat" of the online predator is so overblown is due to another problem that plagues this country-- even more than sexual prudishness: our obsession with *children*.
Maybe I've read a little bit too much of the Misanthropic Bitch (http://bitch.shutdown.com), but I'm sick and tired of *every* *single* freedom being called into question, "for the good of the CHILDREN". Free speech is a completely out the window, as are free enterprise, right to bear arms, the fifth amendment (escrowed encryption standard, anybody?), and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Why? Because it might hurt the children in some indirect way.
Not to bring up Columbine again, but it's only gotten worse. Those bastards only served to add fuel to the "Save the Children" fire. Now politicians can link anything they want to Harris and Klebold, and use it as an example. Anything from online porno (tired and pointless) to bomb-making recipes can be connected to the killers, and in the public's eye, it constitutes absolute causation-- and therefore warrants banning.
Save the children, ban DOOM-- had Klebold and Harris not played it, more people would be alive today!
Save the children, sue firearms manufacturers for the acts of criminals-- because children are *dying*!
Save the children, pump them full of happy pills-- whether they're depressed or not, they can't get angry if they're too doped up to feel any pain!
Save the children, kill yourself...
Now, there are parents that can't be there all the time-- I understand that. But if a parent is that *goddamned* worried about sexual predators online, he or she needs to surf with the child-- not ask the government to restrict the net. But most the parents I know are too busy working-- and that's not just to get by. They drive BMW's or Mercedes. They have great sound systems. But they can't figure out what the *hell* little Timmy is doing on the PC all the time. They also can't figure out why all those porno pics keep on showing up in the c:\netscape\cache directory... hmmm...
Save the children, be responsible parents, for chrissakes!
I do agree that our laws need to be looked at, but I disagree that we need to throw them out willy-nilly. We can have laws on the books that aren't actively enforced, but if you show up in court with at problem that arises from the breaking of said law you'll get smacked.
This *invariably* creates an opportunity for people in positions of power to abuse those who aren't. The "problem" that gets you smacked isn't inconvenience you cause society, but something you won't do that the person in power wants you to do. We've seen this against blacks in the pre-Civil Rights days, we see it in the War on Drugs, and so on.
You might at least try to create a scenario where those old laws would help. You've vaguely linked adultery with kids born out of wedlock, but that's a foolish link -- the kids born out of wedlock are almost invariably born to people who aren't married at all.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't want censorship, but I -DO- want to rely on something more than vigorous spell-checking of every link I type in, every link I click on, every IP address I go to (in the case of ambushed pages), the "good will" of banner advert companies to be honest about what's behind an ad, the "good will" of banner advert companies to place adverts on appropriate sites, the "good will" of crackers to not add a redirector to someone's web-page, the "good will" of prawn merchants to not add redirectors to unprotected guest-books that allow HTML, etc, etc, blah blah blah.
Frankly, I'm sick of trying to be perfect in my typing, 24/7, and relying on the good-will of a bunch of drunks who are out for a quick buck.
I imagine John Katz might think differently about Prawn sites if he found his website ambushed in one of the many ways frequently done, or if some young kid in his care clicked on what SHOULD have been a play-school site and most definitely -wasn't-.
I don't believe in censorship. I don't believe it's necessary to resolve the issue. But I also don't believe that rejecting one extreme bunch of rabid psychos means you should accept another, just as extreme bunch on the other wing. If you're facing a rabid dog, you don't CARE if it's on the left or the right of the road. Caring about the sides, rather than the issues, is stupid and a good way to get bitten.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I can't do that. No one can. If it were possible, things would be so much simpler. No single person, group, or entity has the right to create a truly universal definition of pornography. The reason: it deals with sexuality, a very personal subject which is somewhat different for everybody.
Hate speech is more easily defined. How does the following definition sound to you...
Honest question: how does that definition sound?
Why is it possible to define hate speech and not pornography? Like I said, pornography deals with sexuality, which is not a constant. Hate speech by its nature deals with violence, which is constant; when a person is killed, it's rather difficult to argue that he's not dead.
First, it's incoherent: how can "physical or mental prowess" not be an example of "objective, individual merit"?
Apply it to any one of numerous physical or mental handicaps, and there you go.
Second, it relies upon undefined terms: if you think "harassment" is a well-defined concept then you haven't been paying attention to the state of sexual harassment law.
I appear to have made a poor word choice. "Intimidation" might be a better term to use, however it has its own problems, which I'll adress later.
Third, it is an affront to freedom of association: by your definition, a desire to separate oneself from bores and louts (which I certainly regard as inferior, but which cannot be defined in objective terms) is "hate speech".
Not quite. I say nothing about your desire to separate yourself from bores and louts. Now, if you go out and say that bores and louts should be thrown out of society, that's another matter entirely.
Fourth, exactly how does one engage in "harassment" against "places", "things", or "concepts"?
Point taken, although vandalism and slander could fall under this category. However, I'm not so sure there's a word in this language which accurately desctibes the point I'm trying to get across, and at the same time can apply to all those things and people equally well. Perhaps "thing" should be replaced by "object" also; "thing" isn't very well-defined.
Say what?!
I hope you can justify your bold statement. Personally, I think you're drinking the "victimization" Kool-Ade. Please, please, explain what the hell you mean when you say this? Having know people in the "adult-entertainment industry", I'd have to say your premises are fatally flawed.
Besides which, what business is it of yours what people choose to say or do or watch or make in private?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The Bill of Rights exists because they knew, even back then, that such guarantees would NOT remain "unspoken rules" for long - they would be stomped on. They were ten SPECIFIC guarantees requested by the states before they'd sign the Constitution - specific guarantees of specific things they considered common sense but which a lawyer or corrupt politician 20 years later might not. You say you don't need a piece of paper to give you rights - but not everyone sees it that way, especially "unpopular" rights like freedom to say unpopular things, or for criminals to get due process.
I agree the Bill of Rights should be vestigial, that notions of free speech or due process or whatever should be "inherent" and not need to be written down. But we ain't there yet.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
It doesn't help that the parents got exactly the same talk from *their* parents, and thus have absolutely NO CLUE how to approach the situation. Kids reaching puberty are not exactly big on symbolic logic, so for parents to pull the "birds and the bees" crap (designed to cover the fact that the adult really hasn't grown up) only confuses them more.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
I have the impression that similar restrictions existed in at lest some US states at that time.
(And then there are those who had no right to vote because they were considered property....)
Why not, in this case?
I think he means pornography in it's negative/purjorative connotation.
**>>BELCH
This is a big issue and other posters have adequately covered its most common angles I think, but there are other contributing factors as well.
One of the reasons why the US is so hung up over these issues is that (in a very chicken-and-egg sort of way) it does not allow naturism or nudism on public ground, no matter how remote and inaccessible the place.
This has the unfortunate effect of reinforcing the view that nudity *AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO IT* is bad. In contrast, in countries where naturism is accepted, it rapidly becomes obvious to all (including those that wouldn't be seen dead joining in) that public nudity is no big deal at all, and this leads to a general relaxation in all other areas where nudity plays a part.
By denying this freedom even to the traditional minority group of naturists, the US effectively isn't giving the rest of its social groups a chance to lose their general hangup.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Perhaps there is also a "free speech anti-porn" contingency? Perhaps they're against porn but not to the extent that they're willing to do anything to curtail civil liberties?
Perhaps there's also a pro-porn, anti-free speech contingency? You'd be suprised. What I object to is the dilution of two separate stances -- free speech and pornography. One can say "I believe pornography is exploitative and immoral" without wanting to pass a law banning it. And one can work to convince people to abandon the porn industry without trying to change the laws to reflect this.
There are too many positions in this debate to have Katz draw a line in the sand and say "everyone standing over HERE is right and everyone standing over THERE is wrong." That is the tactic of all those politicians that Katz claims to dislike so much...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Katz is making the following points:
1. Free speech is absolutely necessary
2. Pornography is absolutely necessary to further free speech because it promotes the awareness of sexuality
#2 has nothing to do with #1! Katz is trying to justify a moral or sociological stance (porn is good for society) by disguising it as a blow for free speech, and is painting people who disagree with that view as ENEMIES of free speech.
Luckily for him, it's easy to think of a few people who fit the role of the "bad guys." Just look for the people who are really interested in curtailing free speech, and you'll invariably find people who are against porn -- because it's an easy target. But the TRUTH of the matter is that his argument is a STRAW MAN... one has nothing to do with the other.
I agree that people are using anti-porn legislation to take away our civil liberties, and I agree that is WRONG. I OPPOSED the CDA and will OPPOSE any variants of the CDA. But that's not the point. I don't like people wrapping themselves up in the Bill of Rights to make a moral argument any more than I like people wrappign themsleves up in the Flag to make a moral argument.
I agree with you that people who say "I support free speech but we need to ban porn" are commiting doublespeak. I do think it's possible for someone to be for free speech and against porn, so long as they don't oppose it with legal means... I also think it's possible for people to like pornography and be right-wing fascist bastards.
And, for the record, it's quite possible for someone to be one of those repressed puritians that Katz likes to rag on and still be very active in defending someone else's civil liberties. Katz uses religious and moral belief as his whipping boy, and it's annoying. It's more annoying when he tries to pretend that it's all in the name of freedom of speech.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Next week it was the same thing, he stood by the shoes and tried to hide behind a towel as he changed (and by trying to be invisible he made everyone stare of course), but eventually he overcome his bashfulness and started stripping like the rest of us.
I'm not trying to belittle Americans, say that our ways are better or anything, I just thought it was interesting.
Still, I wonder what he would have said about the sauna at my ju-jutsu club, where both men and women go at the same time, but with a towel over the naughty parts of course.
************************************************ ***
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
>>Why does a country like Holland, where everything the conservative fights is flaunted on the street, not disolve into anarchy if what you say is true?
Not everything. Some of us conservatives here in the US favor legalization of certain drugs. Some of us have no problem with sexuality.
I favor open and honest discussion of sexuality.
Conservatism, is a way of thinking not just what you think.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You are confusing the availability of sexual information and imagery with sexual activity. There is, in fact, a strong inverse correlation between the availability of sexual information and the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Ignorance is the problem, not pornography.
(And your conjecture that jealousy is somehow genetic is pure speculation. It's at least as likely -- probably more likely -- that jealousy is a learned behavior. Certainly at least the ways in which jealousy is expressed or otherwise dealt with is learned behavior, as evidenced by the existence of many people who are not subject to jealousy, or who are able to deal with jealousy without the extreme reactions some people mistakenly think are "normal".)
Agreed. But it's not my conjecture. Something I picked up from watching the Discovery Channel,
I strongly suspect that you misunderstood what they were saying. Or perhaps the Discovery Channel's standards are lower than I thought.
And as I said, there are many people who do not experience jealousy, and even more for whom it doesn't have any real effect. Obviously this is no more proof that jealousy isn't genetic than your example proves that it is, but I note that anecdotal evidence contrary to your belief doesn't seem to have the same impact that supportive anecdotal evidence has.
In any case, your anecdotal evidence isn't even all that supportive. Whatever the prevelance of jealousy in the context of swinging -- which is not at all the same thing as "free love", and is not a context that anyone could reasonably expect to be somehow magically free of cultural influences -- it has no real implications for the theory that jealousy is genetically based.
In any case, you did not phrase it as a conjecture, you phrased it as a fact:
Evolution has bred into the human creature thing like jealousy.
Furthermore, you rephrased your "original premise" in such a way as to change it -- or perhaps you did not understand the thrust of Katz's essay, which was not about "public sexuality" and sexual activity, but about the availability of sexual information and imagery.
I've always found it interesting that the U.S. is the most Puritanical nation in the world. Sure, the Brits have some pretty stringent social norms, but their punks out 'punk' out punks any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've always thought it a bit amusing that the people who founded the U.S. (historically and culturally if not politically)were Puritans, but the nation's most valued prize are the Freedoms Of Speach and Expression. Our (your, whatever) forefathers left Europe to establish a place where they could be free to practice their religion, and be free to be intolerant of basal human functions.
Americans are down-right freaky about personal hygiene for example. No where in Europe are people so obsessed with cleanliness. Sure, a bidet is common, but people frequently do not bother to shower everyday. Here, people skip showers, but won't ever admit it. Deodorants and shaved armpits on European women?? Nah!
So we come back to the most basal of human factors, sex. Americans are prudish, easily embarassed and completely unskilled in sex, romance and flirtation. How many of you had parents who would spell out S E X, rather than say the word in front of you? But everyone gets giddy and titilated by the concept of sex. If this wasn't so, day-time soaps would not be 50% love scenes, and Rikki Lake would be selling jeans at Lane Bryant. Oooh!! Sex. Sex! SEX!!! Big freaking whoop.
Personally, I think that this overfixation with sexual topics comes from not having any 'native' cultural artifacts depicting the human form. No Venus de Milo, no Statue of Adonis. No Greek urns or Italian frescoes. No Bolero.
In Europe, and Asia for that matter, sex is part of the culture, whereas here it's percieved as dirty. It is outside of the normal, it's secret and hidden and taboo. Parents don't have sex, and kids don't have the necessary equipment. This feeds much into the whole idea of molestation. "Private parts", good thouch vs bad touch... By keeping kids in the dark about sex, their American parents make them ill-equiped to talk about, confront, refuse or even identify inappropriate behavior. They are made ignorant and so vulnerable, by parents who try to 'spare them' from the 'dirty' "S" word. Why do you think they jump in the sack at 13?? Curious of the forbidden fruit, simple as that. Same dynamic with alcohol.
Through cultural deprivation of natural instincts, Americans set themselves up to a higher than global rate of perversion. Sort of a binge and purge, denial and gluttony system. Sexual denial leads to frustration, and this frustration manifests itself in a variety of ways...
Road rage. If everyone was a little less frustrated, it wouldn't happen as much. Sure there's other causes too, but maybe those stressors wouldn't be as stressful either.
Office interactions between genders shouldn't cause a person to worry about sexual harassment. You're just working with another person. Their gender matters not, and if it does then maybe you're too pent up.
Columbine. A kid with hormones running at full speed, but forced to not act, talk or even think in terms of sex... Douse that fire with gas, go ahead.
Seems that my arguments suggest that the lack of sex, or the ability to even acknowledge it as an integral part of life, results in violent behavior. What is it that is glorified in the US? What is in every movie there is?
Violence is considered an acceptable outlet for human energy, in place of sexuality, here in the US. From playing cowboys and indians in our early youth, to watching the Cowboys and the Indians duke it out on the tube, to seeing John Wayne and Clint Eastwood blasting away Running Bear. These are American heroes. Not Don Juan, not Cassanova. Not even the faithful husband. A 60% divorce rate? Why? Unfulfilment. Why? DON'T KNOW HOW.
Me, I blame Canada.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Following your example, then? ;-)
Gerv
I guess part of the problem is how you define porn. I have a pretty restrictive definition; I don't by any means want to eliminate any and all "erotic" or "explicit" content online or anywhere else.
You are inventing your own terminology. Unfortunately, you're using words that already have other, accepted meanings, and pretending that they have the meanings you want them to have.
This is a recipe for confusion at best, and for bait-and-switch rabble-rousing at worst.
I defined "pornography" as any artistic piece designed to stimulate a sexual response. I think the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue have a similar definition. Changing the definition of pornography to further your own beliefs is dishonest.
Back to the porn/free-speech issues.... If I understand you correctly, you believe it would be appropriate to censor certain types of works -- namely, those which depect rape, assault or derogatory treatment of certain people. Here, I must also disagree.
You can't categorize sexuality, and you can't categorize art. Art which stimulates you sexually may not do a damned thing for me, and vice versa. Moreover, art which some people believe promotes "degradation" may not invoke a similar response from others -- the latter group may think it's satire.
This is the reason why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential. It's impossible to create any objective "measuring stick" for art to divide the "pornography" from the "non-pornographic" art, or to divide the "degrading" art from the "non-degrading" art. By its very nature, art challenges us to discard these artificial boundaries within our minds, and to treat each piece on its own merits (or lack thereof).
While I respect the goodness of your intentions, I'm sure you know what they say about the road to Hell.
Sometimes I think the best way to get rid of porn w/o infringing on free speech rights would be to make it illegal to charge for or otherwise profit from it.
This is not compatible with freedom of speech. Not only does it require an objective "measuring stick" to determine what is or is not pornography (which I believe is impossible -- see my previous post in this thread), but it also requires labeling of all content. This labeling imposes a burden on the speaker, and many speakers will choose not to speak. This is self-censorship, and any law which promotes self-censorship is unconstitutional.
(Sorry, I can't remember the actual legal terminology. It was mentioned in the Bernstein case though, for those of you who feel like digging through /. archives or legal documents.)
There. No speech infringment -- people could talk about whatever they wanted, and still even produce the stuff
But you've created (in your hypothesis) a situation in which the state imposes its morality upon the public. While this may or may not directly qualify as an abridgement of the freedom of speech/press, it most certainly qualifies as an infringement of rights.
All speech is protected, unless that speech constitutes a clear and present danger (i.e., shouting "Fire! in a crowded theater). The burden of proof lies with you, to demonstrate that pornography is a clear and present danger to human life.
Of course, those of you that wanted to be exploited (yes, I'm talking about viewers of porn as well as those featured in it) would still lose out
This is a pretty tacit admission that you're willing to violate some people's rights just because you don't like what they choose to do with their freedom.
Are we, or are we not, adults? If we are adults, then we bear the responsibilities as well as the privileges of that status. One of those responsibilities is making up our own minds about issues (like pornography). If we choose to watch pornography, or to help produce it, or distribute it -- then that is our choice. If you think we're allowing ourselves to be "exploited", that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But you have no right to choose for us, or to ask the government to choose for us.
Freedom means you get hurt sometimes, by making bad choices. That's how you learn. If someone makes all your choices for you, you don't learn, and you don't grow -- you become a slave.
Sexual activity is different in nature than everything else, and therefore there is a different prescribed way of handling it.
What?!?
I could as easily say "Mathematical activity is different in nature than everything else, and therefore there is a different prescribed way of handling it." Then we could have anti-public-math laws, and "save-the-children-from-math laws"...
(... and laws governing the export of mathematical functions to other countries (oops, we already have those in the USA!) ....)
But to get back on topic... what makes you think that sex is so special that it defines its own category in every realm of human endeavor?
All catagories have differences.
I realize I'm taking this sentence slightly out of context, but I believe you're making a grievous error. You seem to believe, like Aristotle, that the whole universe can be divided into neat little categories, labeled and stacked neatly on the shelf.
It just doesn't work that way.
Humans have sex. It's how we reproduce. It's a part of us, and you can't separate that part from the rest. Human sexuality is not a simple thing; it is vastly complex.
Sexuality is also not harmful to anyone, and nobody's sexuality infringes on anyone else's rights. So why would we need any laws concerning sexuality?
We already have laws against rape, sexual assault, and so forth. These laws cover specific acts, and they are good and necessary laws.
The are also sufficient. We have no need of more of them.
By restricting traffic, for instance, to one side of the road or the other depending on the direction it is traveling you are actualy more free to arive at the destination you desire.
You trivialize freedom. We're not talking about societal conventions, and we're not even talking about public safety. Your traffic example doesn't even come close to the issues of free speech and censorship we were talking about.
But your traffic example makes me wonder... do you actually subscribe to the notion that sexual information is dangerous? Do you think that you are so weak and gullible that you need the law to protect you from your own sexuality?
Why do so many adults in this country distrust themselves? I can only surmise that they have been brainwashed, by a lifetime of propaganda, to believe that they cannot defend themselves, and that they need to be protected. And if this message that I'm writing serves no other purpose, I can at least hope that it will make someone ponder this.
It is an interesting irony that *restricting* some things actualy enhances freedom.
Life's full of ironies. Believe it or not, I'm not quite so mindless that I can't appreciate them.
The point of the GPL is to ensure that software remains free for all users, forever. Therefore the GPL prohibits you from taking away the freedom of others (by making a proprietary derivative work).
But this has very little to do with free speech. And nothing to do with sex.
Are you planning on just being able to give it to them on the spot?
I've thought about several lines of reasoning, but the short answer to your question is "yes".
It will depend on which child asks, how old he is at the time, and on exactly what he asks. I'm counting on "Where do babies come from?" (or a variant) being the first question, not "What is sex?".
The reason I took such offense at your answer was because you made sex sound like it's something wrong. It's not. It's the ultimate expression of caring and trust between people who love each other. And it's so much more than that, but I don't quite have the words for it yet.
But the propaganda which permeates American culture today would have you believe that sex is dirty, or shameful, or sinful (whatever that means). There are people out there who wish, consciously or otherwise, to suppress free exchange of information about sexuality, for reasons which I'm not quite able to fathom (though my brainwashing theory seems like a safe guess at the moment).
I was one of the people who contributed to alt.sex and alt.sex.wizards back in their glory days, before spam destroyed Usenet as we knew it. I learned so much there, and I wish that other people could have the same opportunity. (sexuality.org has some of the old alt.sex material on it, and a lot of wonderful references, for those of you in the Web generation who missed the boat the first time around.)
But if you and others like you persist in your blind faith that sex is something to be hidden away and suppressed, then I fear for the next generation.
Sexually explicit artwork is not new by any means. Treating sexually explicit artwork as a distinct, separate category from other types of artwork may be. At least, I think that's the point he was trying to make.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Imagine a case of an evangelist preaches at the same corner, shouting their religious beliefs at the top of their voice. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can choose to ignore them, go a different route, or listen and think. The point is, you have a choice.
You don't have a choice if you live there - you have to hear the shouting all the time, or move elsewhere. That's why there are things like noise ordinances. It shouldn't matter whether they're screaming obscenities or "praise the lord". If they're disturbing the peace, they can be legally stopped, or asked to take their message elsewhere. If they're being silenced because of what they're shouting, rather than where and when and how loud they're shouting it, then it's time to cry censorship.
The only way to "win" is for both sides to accept each other, and provide the means for both to co-exist, peacefully.
Dream on. That will never happen. And the only thing stopping it from happening is human nature (humans are such bastards).
What's so ironic is that the people who claim the moral high ground are usually the ones who refuse to coexist peacefully. The porn merchants seldom claim to be acting for some higher purpose (there are a few who claim to be promoting freedom fo expression, but I suspect that's largely a figurative flag of convenience). They usually admit they're just trying to make a (n honest?) buck. But neither do they force what they're selling on those who don't want any. But the self-described moral guardians are more than happy to force what they are selling on all who come near, whether they want it or not. Some even proudly say they won't stop their crusade until the filth is cleansed.
I was merely contending with the parent posters statement that the bible does not condemn sex apart from homosexuality in the most "indirect" fashion.
Unless of course the person I was replying to is a fluent ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin Middle English speaker. In which case I concede the point.
Or more likely their exposure to the Bible is from a root pretty common to mine, in which case, turn to Leviticus and find plenty of pretty explicit condemnation of sexual behaviour.
-- Oh Well
from www.salon.com:
2 5feature.html)
In April 1998, Alabama passed an addition to the obscenity statute of the state law that "makes it unlawful to produce, distribute or otherwise sell sexual devices that are marketed primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." Part of a bigger bill restricting licenses for strip clubs, the law argues that these sex toys are obscene and appeal to a "prurient interest."
and even more interesting:
There is, the Alabama officials wrote, "no fundamental right to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm." What they should have written is that women have no fundamental right to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm. Because while those veined, flesh-colored pseudo-penises are not legal, those displays of crotchless panties -- not to mention Viagra -- are perfectly OK.
(http://www.salon.com/urge/feature/1999/02/cov_
I really feel sorry for all sensible Americans for living in a country that repeatedly makes a complete fool of itself.
On the other hand, the Australians suffer a lot, too lately...
here's a handy tip:
Click Preferences,
Click "Suppress Stories by John Katz",
Click Patronizing buttton.
Go about your merry way.
+&x
You are confusing the availability of sexual information and imagery with sexual activity. There is, in fact, a strong inverse correlation between the availability of sexual information and the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Ignorance is the problem, not pornography.
/., but it doesn't change my original premise, which, stated concisely, is "We (enter country affiliation here) need to carefully decide which if any of our laws concerning sexuality are relevant, with a realization that there may have been good reasons for implementing those laws in the first place. Furthermore, what people are doing in (enter any other country) may serve as an example but does not necessarily have any bearing on what we should be doing."
Now here is information worthy of
And your conjecture that jealousy is somehow genetic is pure speculation.
Agreed. But it's not my conjecture. Something I picked up from watching the Discovery Channel, reinforced by my own personal experience (for those who must know, went to a swinger's party once. You know, people who believe in free sex, wife swapping and such. Jealousy was as rampant there as anywhere else I've seen. There was even a fight over one particular female.) It just seems to make sense (which doesn't make it fact) that a jealous male is more likely to produce more offspring, and thus produce jealous offspring. The mate of a non-jealous male may be producing offspring for jealous male, but the reverse isn't as likely.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
too much open sexuality CAN breed social discord
Examples? Remember that increase in, say, spousal abuse statistics, does not constitute social discord.
You mean to tell me that you've never seen a bar fight resulting from the interaction of a female and two males? I'm not saying a law will curb everything. I'm not even claiming that it will make things better. I am saying that problems exist, and as a society we must consider them.
Laws against adultery originally arose because of the need to know without question the father of a child.
Bullshit. Laws against adultery arose because men tended to treat their wives as property and wanted legal protection for their property. Besides, what's that "need to know without question"? Is it a social need or just personal desire?
The term 'bastard' has lost much of it's deragatory(sp?) nature in recent times, but the stigma at one time carried the weight of being a pariah on society. The 'need to know' was both social and personal. Society as a whole has no wish to pay to raise someone else's children, especially in times past when it was so much more difficult to do so. The individual male feels the same.
If you're married or even have a girlfriend, but would you be totally unphased if you learn that she's been sleeping around behind your back?
And a law is going to help me with that??? Er, man, I'd like some of that stuff you are smoking...
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps the law can relieve you of the responsibility of children produced from such an occurance? Perhaps the law can release you from the contractual restraint of marriage in such situations? Perhaps if the laws were taken seriously, such a thing might not have happened at all (and to beat the naysayers to the punch, No. A law against adultery will not eliminate it entirely. But it WILL have a chilling effect.)
But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? How many end up on the welfare roles?
If you look at born-out-of-wedlock children of upper-middle class people, you'll find that almost none ends up on welfare. If you look at born-to-married-parents children of people who live in inner-city ghettoes, a lot of them will end up on welfare. And your point is?
That it takes two to make a baby, and statistically at least, the baby has a much better chance of growing out of welfare with two parents. The current situation involves a removal of responsibility from bang 'em and leave 'em men. My personal wish is for men to have responsibility for children they foster. Yes, there are exceptions, but most women know the father of their baby. If that man won't accept at least financial responsibility, I believe it to be a function of government to extract what is necessary. If the woman is going to ask me to support the child through welfare, I do not believe it beyond the pale for me to expect her to reveal the name of the father.
Some of the ancient laws actually have a purpose.
Sure they do. It's just that this purpose is not relevant any more, or looks really silly.
I would (and did in the original posting) agree that many are potentially outdated. My point is that deciding which are must be done with more care than:
for(i=0; i NUM_LAWS; i++){
if(involves_sex(law[i]))
discard(law[i]);
}
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
As a consequence, your opinion must be interpreted as it is your will, intent, and wish that a significant number of single mothers should be cut off from welfare benefits.
/. ? And, by the way, why the use of offensive language? Flamebate?
I don't wish the government to tax me in order to give away cars to people who could otherwise afford their own. Would my opinion then be interpreted as wishing that poor old ladies be cut off from a way to go to church on Sundays? Fathers who owe child support go missing every day. There was recently an effort to round them up and make them support thier children and it saved millions of American dollars from the welfare roles in North Carolina. (also created a very substantial discussion about father's rights in divorce cases)
In the situation you mention, the woman names the man, when/if he shows up he owes the government the money it paid to raise his child. If he is never found, we lost that one, but at least we caught some of them.
I'd say this is the Net and a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions - not America or Europe or Africa or whatever. Or do you think only Americans (i.e. US citizens) should have access to
Agreed. I was responding to several post that referred to Americans as idiots and American law as pathetic, because (and the reason is important) we do it better. The offensive language adequately conveyed my feelings (ie, I am offended).
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Since you bring it up, I think that genetic testing on ALL births should be mandatory, leaving NO QUESTION about who the father is.
I don't know about it being mandatory. Myself, I trust my wife, and, luckily, my kids look like me 8*) (of course, that doesn't rule out my brothers. Damn, there you go making me think...)
My position is that people who are asking society to take responsibility for there actions should be required to mitigate their reliance upon society as much as possible. If the mother isn't asking for public money, I don't care who the father is. It's when you start asking for me to help pay to raise the child that I want to know who it was that got to dance on my dime.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
When mothers use state agencies to extort child support from men, we should make 99.99995% sure that it's the right guy who's paying.
I would go a step further. If the accused father contest it, we should use the same standard that we use for a criminal trial, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers. Of course, DNA testing by a couple independant labs will remove all reasonable doubt from most people.
A woman in this situation would recieve aid until the outcome of the trial. If the man is acquitted, her and her child are SOL. Yes, I am advocating letting a child starve. But just try it and see how many women let their child starve before telling one simple fact. As with being confident about being able to prove paternal lineage, I am confident that human nature will forestall an epidemic of starving bastards(term used with original meaning).
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Well, I've just read the whole thread, and I'm damned if I saw a "Europe is so great" post. And quit referring to disparate European countries as Europe.
... The solution that applies in any or all of the above does not necessarily apply here.
I started the thread, so of course you didn't see any "Europe is so great" post in the thread. I was replying to other post. A quote from the third (I think) post.
I'm sure most Europeans consider the North American fear of all things naked in public pathetic.
I reiterate. America is not Europe, England, France, Japan, Sweden, Canada,
Whoah!!! The genius speaks!!! And judging by your poor quality choice of words, you sure don't have English as your first language, either...
And who decides that it is poor choice? You? Thank you for upholding my point of many people holding the "Americans are idiots because they're not us" attitude. Notice how another one of your post falls in line with your snotty superior attitude:
Yeah, and see how your legislative system has fared! I'm not even going to _bother_ starting in on what is wrong with your country...
Maybe the part you think is wrong is the part that I think is right. For instance, "ain't" is perfectly proper English where I come from. The school teachers may not like it, but everyone I converse with on a daily basis knows exactly what I mean. What's more it is often used in a situation where emphasis is desired. I purposely chose that word because I wanted to emphasize that "THIS AIN'T EUROPE!"
Now, this also AIN'T the UK, so take your 'quality choice of words" and "true English fashion" and fuck off, you English-centric snothead. (Pardons to all netizens with a clue.)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Most coins have two sides, as does this one. Mr. Katz, how much public sexuality is appropriate?
I ask this question, because to much open sexuality CAN breed social discord. Evolution has bred into the human creature thing like jealousy. There are things like STDs (which condoms are NOT a panacea, no matter what you've heard on MTV). Laws against adultery originally arose because of the need to know without question the father of a child.
It's easy to sit back and say that law which are based in 100's or 1000's of years of history are ridiculous, but have we really evolved out of the need for them. I don't know if you're married or even have a girlfriend, but would you be totally unphased if you learn that she's been sleeping around behind your back?
There are laws against extra-marital sex, and these are mostly ignored nowadays. I would hazard to say that most here agree with this state of affairs. But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? How many end up on the welfare roles? In other words, how many am I helping to raise with my tax dollars? Why isn't the 'man' who fathered the child paying his fair share? (My personal belief is that a woman should be required to name the father before receiving welfare. Funds could then be recouped appropriately.)
I do agree that our laws need to be looked at, but I disagree that we need to throw them out willy-nilly. We can have laws on the books that aren't actively enforced, but if you show up in court with at problem that arises from the breaking of said law you'll get smacked. Some of the ancient laws actually have a purpose.
For the people claiming that Europe is so great because they do this and that. Fuck-off. This ain't Europe. We'll decide to do things our way. Besides, wasn't it Sweden that wouldn't allow Donald Duck to appear on TV because he wasn't wearing pants?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The very notion of pornography is a relatively new concept in human history. It came about in Victorian England when researchers from the British Museum dug up the ruins of Pompeii and were stunned to find artworks of all kinds - carvings, vases, paintings - in the ancient Italian city that featured shockingly explicit sexual activity, from oral sex to bestiality. The researchers were amazed to learn that these drawings were displayed all over the homes of Pompeii.
Doesn't this mean that pornography - "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" - is a significantly ancient notion?
I don't know exactly what Jon is talking about when he is saying that the roots of pornography were in Victorian England; I know there was sexually explicit literature long before the late 1800s. The Marquis De Sade's books were from before the French Revolution I think.
The Puritanical, fanatical repression of sex and sexuality in American culture only serves to make sex all that more scandalous and enticing. That's the ironic part about all this. It's like the kids and the cookie jar. If you tell them its "bad" and they shouldn't look at it, it only makes them want to look at it even more. Worse, children who are wrestling with their sexuality and are looking for answers and support are told that they can't look for others who are grappling with the same issues, because there's no open discussion of sexuality. I know what that can be like; I am glad that I was able to find newsgroups and other place to discuss the problems I was having when I was in high school (6 or 7 years ago). I think I'm a much more stable and sane individual because of it.
Young kids, who have had decent family lives, before they reach puberty, aren't going to be looking for porn; hell, most of them think the opposite sex is "gross" and aren't even thinking about it. Once they hit puberty, parents should be talking to them and helping them find the RIGHT places to learn about sex. If they want to look at porn after that, there's nothing you're going to do that will stop them and they probably aren't going to be horribly affected by it either. On the other hand, if you tell them sex is bad and they should never talk about it, they're going to go to the wrong places and get some pretty screwed up ideas about what sex and relationships are all about.
Please, parents, speaking as someone who has grappled with some pretty tough and disturbing sexual issues, make sure your kids know they can talk to you about sex, and make sure you are ready to be supportive if they have a nonstandard sexual identity/orientation.
Jon... did you get the idea for this one from that post?
LouZiffer
LouZiffer
What's more, even though Jon Katz is likely preaching to the converted with this piece, there may be some value to that as well. Consider this anecdote: I once had the opportunity to see a well-known advocate of creation science (Duane Gish, I believe was his name) debate the dean of Arts and Sciences at the university I attended in those days over the question of Creation Science versus the standard theory of evolution. Despite having truth on his side, and despite being a very competent and knowledgable biologist, the dean got his clock cleaned in that debate. Why? Because Gish had a whole catalog of specious arguments and bogus examples of the "failings" of the standard theory to draw upon in his arguments. Without having the relevant refutations close at hand, the dean was lost. The application to the case at hand is simply this; if you find yourself trying to convince someone that censorship is ultimately harmful, it helps a lot to have heard recently the case argued intelligently so that you don't get tripped up by the opposition's smoke and mirrors.
That's not to say, however, that some of the article's historical errors regarding the history of the pornography taboo are not regrettable. A feature article like this really should be better researched. But let's bear in mind that whether pornography per se was or was not a Victorian invention really isn't important to the point the article is trying to make. Indeed, those claims could be deleted entirely; they scarcely contribute at all to Katz's thesis, which is that censorship is generally harmful to a society like ours that thrives upon the free exchange of ideas. That, at least, is some "old news" that could well stand to be repeated more often.
-r
"Society" is incapable of figuring out anything or forming an opinion, insamuch as reason in an attribute of individual sapient beings.
Yes, it makes for a convenient shorthand (for "enough people agree with me to shout down the people who agree with you"), but when shorthand expressions facilitate logical fallacies they need to be expanded out for analysis.
It should be illegal to distribute pictures of sexual activities that are illegal. Simple.
The equation of the image with the reality is called "voo-doo" and scorned as superstition when practiced by impoverished and uneducated (by force of circumstances) Haitians. I see no reason why it should be accorded any more respect when practiced by wealthy and uneducated (by choice) Americans.
The first amendment protects speech, not porn. The writers wanted to protect the right of the citizens to speak against the government. Simple. They very easily could have said "freedom of expression," but they did not.
Now, now, now; when you try to have it both ways it's traditional to at least pretend to respect the intelligence of your readers by inserting at least three paragraphs of padding between the mutually exclusive statements.
Either one may infer an intent not explicitly stated, or one may not. Your option (One may infer an intent I like, but not one I dislike) is not on the menu.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Belief in the Bible != Being religious. Your comments here are grossly disrespectful to billions of people.
you see clearly stated in numerous places throuought the Bible that sexual promiscuity is against the will of the Almighty
Even if we set aside the previous point and concentrate on the Bible, we find it to be rather inconsistent on this issue; I can't seem to find the passage which condemns Solomon for having seven hundred wives and three hundred porcupines.
My specific religion states that sexual promiscuity is a crime above that even of murder.
I'll refrain from stating an opinion on this relative valuation, and simply note that it would be lunacy to base civil law on a standard that would release a murderer onto the streets to free a prison cell for an adulterer.
Your biggest fears may be the possibility of government officials poking their nose where it doesn't belong.
Damn straight. If you think that there is something to be feared more, then show me the evidence that your allegedly more fearsome force has racked up a higher death toll over the past century than out-of-control governments. (Hint: You'll need to reach nine-digit territory.)
you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away your rights
Precisely. To permit rights to be taken away is to acquiesce to the triumph of evil -- which many religious people consider to be, quite literally, grounds for damnation.
The vast majority of sex offenders, murderers, etc are known to have frequented pornagraphy.
Has education really degenerated to the point that people don't recognize the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
There is a classic Sidney Harris cartoon showing a blackboard with one set of equations on the left, a different set on the right, and in between is written: "THEN, A MIRACLE HAPPENS".
Sorry, but you'll have to show your work, with proof that the definition is immune to politically-based targeting by government.
Of course, this does nothing for the other big problem in the Net (hate speech) but a similar plan could be used.
The "hate speech" label is routinely used as a political club. No, I'm afraid that your plan simply can't work (at least, not for your stated goals; it would work just fine as a tool for the government to ghettoize the opposition).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Free speech requires only that everyone is free to speak; it does not require anyone else to listen. The fact that the flat-earth side of the geophysical debate goes unheard simply means that they've lost the argument, not that their free speech rights have somehow been infringed.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
First, it's incoherent: how can "physical or mental prowess" not be an example of "objective, individual merit"?
Second, it relies upon undefined terms: if you think "harassment" is a well-defined concept then you haven't been paying attention to the state of sexual-harassment law.
Third, it is an affront to freedom of association: by your definition, a desire to separate oneself from bores and louts (which I certainly regard as inferior, but which cannot be defined in objective terms) is "hate speech".
Fourth, exactly how does one engage in "harassment" against "places", "things", or "concepts"?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
As they are in the shoe-industry, chemical industry
and lots of other. But saying 50% is against the photographee's will? I really, really doubt it. what proof do you have of this, if any. Sure, there will always be excesses, in just about every field. but I simply do not believe the 50% you state.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I warn you now that this is quite lengthy, and sites court cases.
As a religious man, as a citizen of a normal community, and as an all-around human being, I am forced to make my own comment on the issue. Will I be flamed? Probably. Do I care? Doubtful. Fortunately, I have some research behind me to substantiate my claim that advocators of pornagraphy merely hide behind the First Amendment
and use the word "art" as an excuse for their tendencies, perversions, addictions, or however one might want to describe the situations of those who would choose to frequent such medium (be it on the Internet or otherwise).
If you're religious, the ultimate judge of all people is God. Whatever He says, goes. So, you pick up the Bible, and you see clearly stated in numerous places throuought the Bible that sexual promiscuity is against the will of the Almighty. My specific religion states that sexual romiscuity is a crime above that even of murder. Pornography, to you, promotes such promiscuity and harms the spirit inside all humans. It should be cast off as sin and fought against for the good of all people.
If you're not religious, simply saying "God doesn't approve" is not an explanation that is good enough. Your biggest fears may be the possibility of government officials poking their nose where it doesn't belong. You must turn to the worldly judges to decide what is and isn't acceptable -- and you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away your rights. And to a certain
extent, I agree with you.
To go back to the courts?
On Obscenity-
In the 1973 case of Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "obscenity" is not protected by the Constitution and may be made illegal by the states or federal government if it meets three tests:
1.The average person, applying contemporary community standards finds the material as a
whole is directed toward an unhealthy, abnormal, obsessive, morbid or shameful interest in
sex; and
2.The material depicts sexual conduct (ultimate sex acts, masturbation, torture, bondage, sex with animals, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals) in a patently offensive manner substantially throughout the material. ("Patently" means plainly or obviously.)
3.The material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
On Child Pornography-
The legal status of child pornography is straightforward - visual depictions of children under 18 engaged in sexual conduct are illegal. Congress and all states have passed laws dealing with child pornography, and the Supreme Court upheld them in New York v. Ferber, (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990).
Pornography that is not illegal for sale to adults may be illegal when sold to minors (children under 18). This is called "material harmful to minors" or "variable obscenity."
Indecency-
In Ginsberg v. New York, (1988) the U.S. Supreme Court modified its three-part obscenity test to apply to minors.
1.The average person applying contemporary community standards would find that it has a predominate tendency to appeal to the unhealthy or shameful interest of minors in sex.
2.The average person applying contemporary standards would find it patently offensive to adults to make this sexually explicit material available for minors.
3.It lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
Similar in effect to harmful to minors laws, indecency laws aim to protect children from the harmful effects of pornography. Indecency involves the use of the telephone, radio or broadcast TV to transmit materials inappropriate for children over the airwaves. Indecency has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as "any language or material that depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by [national] contemporary community standards for the [telephone or] broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs." F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978).
While my last example targets specifically radio and TV, I believe it still has merit because porn is even more accessable via the Internet.
I can go on and on citing studies and display much research as to why pornography in any of its forms is bad -- even for the non-religious person. But I figure if you've read this far in my post you're probably bored beyond belief. Perhaps I'll save
that for a rebuttal for any flames I might receive . I will say this, however: there have many studies performed, and much reserch put in to the effects of pornagraphy. The vast majority of sex offenders, murderers, etc are known to have frequented pornagraphy. Other studies have shown (which I can site by name upon request) that there is a direct coorilation between pornagraphy and violent crime.
The original message concerning this thread accuses anyone who doesn't want pornagraphy as being uneducated (at least, that is how his point came across to me - be my perception accurate or inaccurate). On the contrary, those of us who would like to see pornography done away with have our reasons. And those reasons are not always easily described. It may be as simple as being against our religion, simply offensive to us, or it might be a little more complex and difficult to talk about. Perhaps one who is an advocate of anti-porn is against it because they once harbored an addiction of porn, and it ultimately destroyed
their family (I've known numerous counselors who have described more than one such situation that stemmed *directly* from pornagraphy). The advocacy of sex is more than just taboo -- pornagraphy, promiscuity, and other sexually-explicit monacres
are downright offensive to most people. Is the Internet changing that? Probably. Is that bad? I think so.
Yes its true. Most americans are afraid of there own body parts! Its amazing really. So many people think its bad to see a body part EVERYONE else has. I mean if youd been raised being told that ears were just the most evil things and a males genetalia is not. Which would you think is bad? Its so annoying that folks think like that. Whats the big DEAL? You afraid to go without pants or a shirt because someone might see something every person on the planet has? Its like.. freaking sad. I recently went to Austrailia to visit my aunt. I can tell you this aussies have no inhibitions about displaying nudity on TV. As long as its in good taste its cool. (Mostly Educational stuff but..) That just sorta took me back a lil. Not much sense I have always had this philosophy. Whats the big deal? Unless you have penis Envy or you were raised to think your own body parts are something to hide. You dont mind it. Really.. pr0n does very little for me due to my up bringing. Its no big deal just another body part. Not something to get all excited about. Okay so you use your mouth to eat and your unit to reproduce. Ahem whats the big deal? Anyone care to comment?
I wear pants/boxers for protection and warmth... Don't want to have my bits and pieces hanging about where they could get caught on something...
Seems like good sense to me, it's why clothes were invented in the first place, it's freaking cold and pointy out there in the real world.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Why is it I get the feeling that The Rolling Stone is Katz's #1 news source?
;)
S&M is not illegal. if I want to get hurt when I'm naked, that's my own fucking responsibility. (pun intended). I think that pictures of people engaging in S&M sex are appropriate.
If you don't, don't look at them. You've got the choice - don't buy it, don't read it, and don't say your opinion is right.
I don't understand why people keep tossing around the bill of rights here - I don't see how we can expect a 200+ year old document to be superior to common sense and a little bit of intelligence. sure, maybe the first amendment doesn't specifically give us the right to look at pictures of people fucking, but since when do I need an old piece of paper written upon by dead people to GIVE me a right to do something with my own eyes?
I'm not saying I htink the bill of rights is "bad" or unneccessary; I'm saying that I demand all of what's in the Bill of Rights even if there was no Bill of Rights, and furthermore, I demand things that aren't in the Bill of Rights. your rights don't stop where that document stops, you just have to fight a little harder for those rights that aren't "given" to you.
"The United States loves to see itself ..." Isn't that called narcissism?
Actually narcissism is more of that to an unhealthy degree and manner. For example you would rather enjoy looking at yourself than going out on a date, going to work etc.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
1. protection against child abusers and
2. sexual content on the Internet
Without being a psychologist, I dare to say that no kid has ever been screwed up by seeing pictures of naked men or women. Even pictures of the erotic kind I would consider harmless.
Now pronography as in S&M, child abuse, sodomy, etc. is another thing. A child seeing this will not understand it, might get it wrong (e.g. a wrong mental image of what sex is about). So, a child needs guidance when getting first in contact with these topics (which it sometime in its life will).
I grew up in Europe (and live here). I also lived for one year in the States. I can confirm what other posters wrote: sex/moral and US society is hard to understand for a European. Let me tell my, totally subjective, impressions:
As you all probably have experienced, sometime in your life as a teenager, you enter what I call the snigger-phase. You tell each other jokes about sex without knowing what you talk about. You look at the first pictures of naked women/men, everyone is a little bit nervous, it's a secret thing and you don't quite know yet how to handle the issues. Puberty.
Now, when I was in the States (midwest, probably the worst area for this kind of topic), it felt like a time machine. Collegues', thirty years of age, beer-inspired bar behaviour pretty much reminded me of my teenage years! How strange
And those were good friends of mine, very nice people - don't get me wrong. I felt as if they never learned how to handle the topic. They were insecure about it.
I could now try to analyze American society seen as a spinoff from 18th/19th European moral standards. But that really takes me out of my field, so I better don't go that way.
PS. I liked my stay in the US very much, not least because of the friends I made there.
> "We need to shield young children from the
> trauma of exposure to such things as the naked
> female breast. If a young child sees a bare
> breast, that child will be scarred for life."
The thing I think is funniest about this...
how many kids have NOT seen a breat by their
first birthday...
Hell a womans sexual organs is the first thing
any little kid ever gets to see (from the inside
of course). Then many times spends the next year
or so sucking on a breast for food...
but after that first year or two...seeing a
breast is suddenly harmfull until they
reach 18.
bizzare...
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Oh shit a political statment.
In case you hadn't noticed... slashdot's
slogan is not "All Linux All the time".
Its "New for Nerds". SPeaking as a nerd myself...
guess what...
I have political views. I think this is an issue
which ties together "The Internet" (which is a
thing us nerds like alot) and the political
worlds.
If you want a break...feel free to skip over
articles you dislike.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
What's weird is that Jon Katz doesn't see it that way. Now, if he had started his article with, "The United States is the cradle of liberty, and yet..." then I might have some respect for his position, but it just bleeds through that he has a chip on his shoulder, so I stop listening.
Katz's article, while touching on a lot of valid issues, ultimately falls into a type of geek-chauvinism that afflicts the thinking of a lot of net-savvy types. The First Amendment and its relation to pornography has a history of robust case law that stretches back at least 50 years. The issues Katz raises, such as the line between socially valuable information relating to sexuality versus pornography, or the rights of children to access sexual information at school, have been hashed out pretty thoroughly in the Supreme Court and lower courts. Absolutely *nothing* about the Internet impacts the line the Supreme Court has drawn separating protected speech under the 1st Amendment vs. unprotected speech. Of course the Internet presents new problems for the law and law enforcement. The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, right? But the core legal issue -- what is protected and what is off-limits -- is not affected by the Internet. Too often, net-savvy (or net-centric?) types are quick to cry: "the Internet has changed everything, our old laws no longer apply!" On a topic so heavily debated by lawyers, politicians, and professors of all kinds for so many decades, it is geek-chauvinism to think that what's come before should be junked, and that only people with an intimate understanding of technology should write the new rules. Sorry, Katz -- a whole lot of smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about the First Amendment and porn. The fact that the dirty pictures are now transmitted by IP packet rather than brown paper bag doesn't alter the fundamental issue.
Defining the distiction between "Porn" and healthy sexual imagery is the trick we definatley haven't mastered yet, as a whole. I think there is nothing wrong with porn in a healthy, high self esteemed person who sees it as something to stimulate an already healthy drive and desire. However, IMHO the majority is not in this group and the use of porn can be more harmful to any age without the aforementioned characteristics. Porn can act similiar to a drug, a quick thrill, and push what healthy sexuality is further away from that person. With this view however there is even more reason to maintain free and open communication about such matters as communication is a grand tool for education.
How can you be certain, nothing is certain?
Unfortunately, with more parents getting highly involved in their work place, the computer, as the TV once/still is, is becoming a primary babysitter for the kids.
Imagine a case of an evangelist preaches at the same corner, shouting their religious beliefs at the top of their voice. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can choose to ignore them, go a different route, or listen and think. The point is, you have a choice.
Now, let's take that same evangelist, and say that he will set up shops, disguised as a store manager or a friendly baker, only leaping out of the disguise at the last second, screaming into your ear. Your choice has been taken away. Your ability to say "hey, that's cool for you, but it's not for me" has been removed. In short, you have created a dynamic where the evangelist can deny you what I perceive to be a basic freedom - a freedom to choose no.
This is the crux of the matter, for me. If there is no freedom to choose no, and have that accepted, then there can be no freedom to choose yes. And vice versa. Only one option is never a choice, even if that option is a "yes". It is control and domination.
It is my belief that, wherever society goes with it's freedoms, people will remain as enslaved as ever, if they can't choose the option they want, whatever that option is.
It's like religious tolerence, in that it can't be one way. If it is, then it's not tolerence. It's subservience. Tolerence, freedom, acceptence - these make demands of ALL involved, not just one side or another.
IMHO, what you do in your room is your business. Go surfing all the prawnography you like. Do what you like. But the moment I feel my liberty to do likewise is under threat, in the name of someone else's "freedom", sorry, but that goes one step too far. You don't need to threaten my liberty and concepts of what I enjoy, to protect and expand your own.
No man is an island, and anything you do WILL affect others. It's up to you as to whether it's reinforcing both YOUR freedom AND theirs, or bolstering yours at the expense of theirs. THAT is the one real choice. Every other argument over rights boils down to that.
I see all too many "anti-censorship" doing little more than the "cowboys" of the Wild West, or the settlers of Australia or New Zealand, slaughtering the hapless natives because they were "different" and didn't act the same. The "anti-censorship" people can't win, that way. That way lies the destruction of rights, which is the very thing the "anti-censorship" crowd claim to be defending. The only way to "win" is for both sides to accept each other, and provide the means for both to co-exist, peacefully.
If you don't want to co-exist, fine. That's your choice. But don't blame me if the fighting goes beyond nasty words on a web page. We've both seen similar intolerence of either side boil over into terrorism, on issues not a million miles away. I -know- that net folk are sensible, intelligent and mature, by and large. It doesn't have to degenerate into thuggery, but it's perilously close. Every time someone pronounces the "TRUTH" as if God came down on a charriot and handed the writer a full transcript of the Almighty's Verdict, I want to throw up. Especially if they go on about "freedom" and "rights". Where's the room for others to have their own thoughts or feelings? Where's the room for others to know what's confortable for them, or what's right for them?
No room, no liberty. No liberty, no life. It's just a vacant shell, going through the motions. If someone, in "your best interests", makes decisions for you, without your consent, even if "well-intentioned", are abusing you. I don't want to live life as a robot, seeing only what Jon Katz deems "acceptable" and a part of "free speech", deprived of any meaningful life or liberty. I don't want to be a mere statistic, with no independent existance, free to have the life of my choice. I don't want porn sites masquerading as stores, or sci-fi sites. I don't want banners hi-jacked and explicit photos or messages substituted. I don't want my browser ambushed, and re-directed without my consent or ability to stop. (It's trivial to block a close command.)
To quote Terry Pratchett (Feet of Clay), "Freedom without Responsibility is Meaningless". How true that is.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't advocate censorship, so put those flamethrowers down. I -DO- advocate that the absolute, inalienable right to say what you like MUST be counter-balanced with the EQUALLY absolute, inalienable right to choose what to hear. To have one right without the other is to walk down the road of having one group or another in absolute power. It's this road that has caused all the censorship grief in the first place. Why advocate or promote yet more grief? Surely it would be better to promote sanity than vengence. Because that's all you get when you deny others a freedom, for reasons of maintaining power and control.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Worse, it seems that both sides operate off of a logical fallacy. The pro-censorship peole believe that an adult can only handle seeing that which is fit for a child. The anti-censorship people seem to believe that everything is fit for a child.
I propose a compromise. Government-mandated censorship is simply wrong (in fact, it's more immoral than any amount of pornography could ever be). Parental censorship (and self-censorship) is another matter entirely. Therefore, enact laws which make it easier for parents to block out material, while never mandating such blocking by anybody.
I've always been intrigued by the ".xxx TLD plan" Under that rule, all porn sites (the definition would have to be decided upon, of course) must go into this TLD. This makes content-filtering absurdly simply for parents; simply disallow connnections to or from those domains. I would add a clause which allows a site to petition to be allowed to "escape" that domain, since invariably some non-pornographic sites will fall under any definition of pornography that the lawmakers care to make.
Of course, this does nothing for the other big problem in the Net (hate speech) but a similar plan could be used.
I agree that free speech is important. I agree that the only truly effective methods of keeping a child away from sotes parents don't want them to see is for the parents to do their damn job and spend time with their children on the Net. But let's face it; many parents will pick the easy way out and use filtering software (and then of course there's the issue of schools and libraries, whose computers are meant for research and really shouldn't be used for picking up pr0n anyway). So you might as well make the filtering easier.
"The United States loves to see itself as the cradle of liberty"...
Yeah, and Jon Katz loves to see himself as an exposer of hypocrisy and warrior against The Man. Neither of which is a perfect self-image, but I think the U.S. is a little closer.
Haven't you made this "liberty == total lack of judgement" mistake before, Jon? I seem to remember some previous article where most of the replies were patiently explaining to you the difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom to make people listen to you".
Liberty doesn't mean that everybody has to be a mindless proponent of whatever stupid opinion, annoying behavior, or questionable pornography that their neighbor puts online. Liberty just means that those things are allowed, whether most people like them or not.
And if you'll do a search for "xxx" (or many more interesting keywords) sometime you'll find that these things are, most definitely, allowed. En masse.
Even in the prudish, hypocritical USA. Imagine that.
The very notion of pornography is a relatively new concept in human history
now this isn't even remotely accurate. The entire field of fine arts was considered "gentleman's pornigraphy" for centuries because the soft-porn nudes were acceptable to be viewed under the auspice of art.
That is some of the cynicism that the more modern artists rebelled against -- Manet got in trouble and caused such a scandal in high society not because he wasn't a fantastic painter (he was always regarded as a decent craftsman) but because he painted nudes in a way that did not "apologize" or cover them up with mythological overtones ("you see, gentlemen, this nude is Europa, and Zeus is raping her, so it's a mythological illustration, not a soft-porn image").
It was simply unacceptable to a society that had embraced nudes as something "artistic" only in their disconnection from reality, and refused to state the genuine sexual content of the images they had been consuming and displaying for centuries.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
What drives me nuts is this line of thought.
(1) Given: Sex is a natural and good human behavior.
If (1), then why is it bad for children to know about sex? Because if they do, adult sexual perverts can take advantage of them.
What is a sexual pervert? A person who seeks out sex in ways that are against society standards.
If these people found it easier to have sex with people their own age, would they seek out children? Probably not for the most part.
So if everyone accepted (1) there probably would be very few child molesters? yea.
So if everyone accepted (1), people could have more sex, not be afraid of having or asking for sex, and we wouldn't (for the most part) have to worry about our children being victimized? Um, yea.
So how can we make this happen? Well, we could make information about sex more widely known so that everyone can realize that it isn't evil.
But you will have to tell the children this stuff also in order for this to work, right? um, yea...
But in the current state, that is considered dangerous, so how do we move from here to there? Oh, dammit, I don't know!
------------------------------
Or try this one:
If (1), then why is it bad for children to know about sex? Because the easiest and most common way to be exposed to sex is pornography, and most pornography promotes a negitive view of women and/or encourages unsafe sexual behavior.
But the reason that they portray women this way is because porn is a half-way underground industry and needs to protray them this way in order to survive. If they didn't, they wouldn't appear as exciting, right? I guess so.
So if there was nothing really covert and exciting about pictures of naked people, they could be shown just like pictures of everything else, and not as "see the dirty whores" and whatnot. In other words, if porn weren't hidden, it wouldn't need to be dirty? Yea, I think so.
So if we make porn readily avalaible, it will not only cease to be demeaning and dangerous, but it will probably become higher quality too (I don't want to see dirty, I want to see beautiful, you know)? Yea!
Alright! How do we bring this about? Well... If we make all porn easily avalaible now, it will still be mostly the dirty stuff, so that isn't good, so if we find the good stuff and show that to people... but those people will still assume it is dirty because "porn" and "dirty" are synonomous to most people... and we would have to hire lots of people to find the good stuff in any case, but there'd be no one who'd pay people to do this and --- dammit again!
---------------------------------
Now, I have made one very large assumption here (that child molesters exist because of sexual repression) and ignored a few other things, but the discussion could easily be expanded to include these and still come to the same conclusion of "I don't know how to change the system!" Even if everyone agrees to (1), it can't change, because according to the rules, you can't tell people (that you don't know really well) that you agree to (1), and you have to act in many situations as tho you don't. The anonimity (pardon spelling) on the Internet has helped a little, but so many people aren't Internet capable or have had the "sex is dirty" idea driven so deeply into them that they actually believe it, rather than just pretending to, as many of us do.
I don't suppose I have actually given any information here that people didn't already know (and if fact much of what I have said may have been incoherant), but I felt a need to say this, thanks for listening.
Before anyone else responds to this, I would like to point out that the writer either:
a. Is trying to make people yell at him by emmulating a common (but slightly less blatent) type of slashdotter.
b. Really is that kind of slashdotter and a very bad one at that.
In either case, I wouldn't recommend responing to him, since if(a), that is exactly what he wants and if(b), it won't get you anywhere.
Okay. I think the politicos are not the only ones guilty of this mistake. Katz does point out that they constantly confuse porn with open discussion of sexuality, but so do a lot of other people!
I'm all for an open discussion of sexuality in almost any venue, be it internet chat or "meatspace" coffee shops... whatever. But I don't approve of porn, because I think it's just a method of exploiting all involved and reinforcing negative gender/sex stereotypes which are responsible for *lots* of the problems in our society.
Now, hopefully we're still in agreement here. But probably not, because I've heard so much discussion about how not allowing access to porn "restricts rights." Personally, I don't think people necessarily should have the right to participate in such victimization, and I actually view it as unfortunate that this is covered by the first amendment. It's really too bad that Katz had to associate XXX with free speech in his headline. Hardcore porn keeps a lot of voices from being heard; it's not a liberation thing for the viewer or the viewed.
Let's keep the debate focused on the important aspects Katz brings out, like the opportunity to use AOL (for example) as a venue for anonymous, important discussion of "taboo" sexuality. This is not the same as "Asain closeup pix plz msg me."
Democracy != Liberty
Does "mob rule" bring a pleasant image to mind? Was it a totalitarian state that convicted Socrates of corrupting the youth?
Democracy just means that there are more people telling you how to live your life.
Liberty is being left alone to live your life as you see fit.
California voters approved a law (prop 187) which would essentially require presenting an ID card for *anything*. Signing up for school? Bring your papers. I really don't like being governed by people who have no understanding of economics, but that's what democracy means.
I'm not advocating monarchy, or dictatorship, or anything like that. I'm advocating stripping the government of power so that there is very little there to be abused.
--kevin
I dispute your claim that pornography is a "relatively new concept in human history". Hindu has had a long tradition of artwork that would be considered sexually explicit by western terms, going back far before even the Roman Empire. Also, the Japanese have, for centuries, traditionally distributed pillow books (basically a how-to picture book for newlyweds) amongst their young adults. Western culture came into contact with these phenomena, and others, long before Victorian archaeologists dug up Pompeii. However, if you want to talk about sexual dysfunction and Victorians... well, I haven't got all day :P...
For years, it's been impossible to conduct anything like a rational public -policy discussion about the dissemination of sexual information in the United States, a country which constantly proclaims itself the cradle of liberty while being censorious, prudish and hypocritical when it comes to sex.
What do you mean taboo? Pick up any magazine in the supermarket checkout and you'll find a frank and earnest discussion about sexual technique. If anything people are simply sick of the media hype over sex (sex sells; discussion of sex apparently sells media). I like to eat and cook food, but sometimes the foodies get on my nerves.
And as far as discourse is concerned, I could walk up to any of my brothers, sisters, or in-laws or neighbors and have a rational discussion about sex education, and they'd probably have a lot of well thought out opinions, although they wouldn't all agree.
People may have different sexual mores but that's a different thing from being a prude or a hypocrite. Many people with children would prefer if advertisers didn't push a viewpoint that equates consumption with sexual attractiveness. Some people would prefer sex be a spiritual (e.g. personal and transcendant) rather than a media experience. After all, we call them "media" because they "mediate" for us -- they put themselves between us and the thing being considered.
We can't all have our way; dealing with divergent points of view is part of the give and take of living an a dynamic and civilized socity. It's hard work and it does no good to stand up and declare the ill-will or hypocrisy of people you don't agree with and probably don't understand very well. People like Mr. Katz who aspire to the role of media need to get the chip off their shoulder and do the hard work of getting to understand people they don't agree with.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Katz claims that politicians are prudish, don't like sex, fear sex, consider sex immoral, whatever. I disagree: history has shown that politicians are some of the most sexually active people on the planet. The peccadillos of politicians are the stuff of legend.
The real issue here is that politicians take a sampling of social mores and exploit those mores as a way to stay elected. Most politicians don't give a damn about pornography on the internet -- unless they feel it'll get them elected. It has nothing to do with morality or prudishness, it has _everything_ to do with the accumulation of power.
Politicians will exploit the "sex card" in order to whip up hysteria and get themselves elected. They will exploit the "fear of terrorism card" in order to whip up hysteria, get themselves elected, and whittle away at our rights in order to increase the strength of their position.
None of this is particularly new.
What I absolutely DISAGREE with, however, is Katz' assertion that someone who speaks out against "pornography" is somehow diluting free speech. Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
I would hope Mr. Katz would use a bit more caution in the future. He has a tendency to paint everyone on the other side of his fence as reactionary idiots. Certainly many of them are, but such strong language tends to discourage a reasoned response from opponents -- thus discouraging free speech.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
The United States loves to see itself as the cradle of liberty, but when it comes to sex, America mostly demonstrates its prudishness and hypocrisy. Sex is our national taboo.
Actually, the United States runs about in the middle of the world when it comes to sexual prudishness. Of course when we discuss sexual openness, we tend to look towards Italy (where just about every sexual fetish has it's own magazine at the local corner), and away from Saudi Arabia, where we find their "repression of women" less a sexual issue and more a human rights issue. Of course if Italy were to interpret our dress codes in the same way we interpret Islamic dress codes, they'd blame us for human rights violations because we don't allow our women to run topless on the beach instead of just calling us sexually repressed.
This has sent our many moral guardians into hyper-drive, invoking the safety of children as an excuse to beat back the sexual revolution made possible by the digital one.
Do you know why prostitution is illegal in most jurisdictions in the United States? It wasn't always that way, you know.
But back at the turn of the last century, a bunch of articles appeared which talked about the evils of "white slavery." The concern back then was that white women were being abducted and transported across the nation or across the world to serve as sexual slaves in brothels, and prostitution simply fed the world's hunger for white slave women. This of course appeared in the British press, and was picked up by other English-speaking nations rather quickly. So the drive to eliminate prostitution in order to save "our fair damsels" caused most of the english-speaking world to outlaw prostitution.
Nowadays we don't cry "in the name of our fair women and children", as since WWII, the women's movement has woken us up to the realization that women are not sexual toys and wives, but men's equals. So we now have turned towards "protecting the children" instead.
But this is old political hat, and anyone with any sense of history would know that we've been using "saving our children" as an excuse to pass legislation since before Romulus and Remus founded a nation amongst seven hills in central Italy.
But federal agencies like the FBI, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and private researchers like author Don Tapscott report that children are many times more likely to be abused by someone they know at home than as the result of sexual encounters online.
And this is news how?
I'm sorry, but the downfall of any democracy is that we tend to have lopsided enforcement of the laws depending on the "public outrage du joir." There is a history of this going back since pretty much the start of democracy. It's not supprising that there is lopsided enforcment against "on-line child pornography" to the point where laws have been passed (and since rejected) that outlaw photographs of young women who appear to be under 18 years of age. As soon as the outrage against child pornography on the net passes in another 5 years or so, we'll move on to something else, and the true child pedaphiles (all five of them) will be safe to troll AOL again.
But it's striking, in the hysteria over kids and sexual imagery online, that there is no reliable data about the number of victims.
Which is very common in this era of "hype-induced legislation." Very old news to anyone who follows this sort of stuff. What is more troubling is the fact that when data does arrive, it's ignored in favor of the public hype.
For example, there is very reliable data that shows that "three strikes" doesn't work. First, it causes criminals who find themselves on their third strike to "raise the stakes", so to speak, when it comes to their defense on the third strike. (As "three strikes" gives them little recourse but to go to jail for life, they have nothing to lose in putting on the most expensive defense they can.) This contributes to an already overburdened court system. Couple this with the fact that a lot of third strikes are going towards folks who do as little as steal a slice of pizza, and you have a law which Just Doesn't Work.
But with this data, does anyone do jack to solve the problem? No; "three strikes" is a very popular piece of legislation, even if it doesn't work.
I fear the same thing will happen with on-line pornography--no matter what sorts of evidence people discover about on-line sexual discussions and forums, it will be ignored in the name of "if we can just save one child, it will be worth it." (Ignoring of course that "it" == trashing the first amendment.)
The very notion of pornography is a relatively new concept in human history. It came about in Victorian England when researchers from the British Museum dug up the ruins of Pompeii and were stunned to find artworks of all kinds...
Not even close. But thank you for playing.
Turns out anyone who has even bothered to spend a half-hour taking a lecture tour of their local museum knows better than this.
For example, ever wonder why there were so many nude Christs and nude angels being painted in the 14th and 15th century? Because it was a way to get around the church's edict forbidding pornography. By disguising these images as religious paintings, 15th century artists were able to get away with painting what was otherwise forbidden subjects. British Victorian prudishness was only interesting in that the British managed to invent a reason for prudishness which did not involve the Roman Catholic Church.
The biggest issue relating to sex and free speech is out how the two impulses can co-exist with one another in a country that doesn't seem sure if it wants either.
The best way to resolve these issues is an educated public who gets involved with the political process. Unfortunately, I rarely find either of these two qualities within a country mile of eachother.
And I find little evidence here of either as well.
Frankly I could go on for another 100K on the problems, nits and other serious problems with this little essay which negate both the thesis and the conclusions as nothing more than popular reactionism to popularized tripe, but what's the point? I'll just say that (a) it ain't just "us prudish Americans", (b) that pornography was not a "British Victorian invention", that (c) hype about saving our children is not just restricted to the 'net or to pornography, that (d) the 'net didn't invent the downfall of sexual prudishness but only placed a spotlight on an issue that is at least a century old, and (e) it ain't going to be solved by empty little position pieces which can't be bothered to research the issues involved.
What's the real issue here? Sex? Free speech? Or the fact that far too many parents want the government to do the job of parenting for them?
Security through obscurity doesn't work in the tech world, and it sure as hell doesn't work in parenting. Yet it's the most popular mode of operation for many parents: try to hide the existence of sex from the kids, while at the same time put off figuring out how to explain it to the kids when the time comes. And just like in the tech world, when the obscurity is dispelled, there's as often as not no real "security plan" left. In the case of parents, what often happens is the kid comes home and wants to know something about sex; the parents haven't planned The Talk out, and hem and haw uncomfortably. Kid decides to do some independent research, the parents find out, and they start screaming about the filth polluting America's youth. Government hears the screams and decides to do something about it. But where was the real point of failure here?
Many kids want to listen to their parents. But for the parents to fill that role, they have to open their eyes and realise that simply hiding uncomfortable truths (and the way a lot of people are brought up, things like sex are uncomfortable truths) isn't the way to go. Controlled, supervised exposure is what's needed. But that's just too much involvement, it seems, for many parents these days.
We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.
This means that the only people who bother showing up to the polls on election day are the ones who really have feel strongly on the issues. The accuracy of telephone and other "random" polls are often questioned based on this very fact (that the only people who bother to respond are already several standard deviations towards the edges of the bell curve in their opinions), but nobody questions the accuracy of the polling booths. Taking these two together, you get this:
Most politicians know they can't afford to upset or alienate these voters, and so they act in accordance with what those who got them elected (not necessarily their consituents) want.
Basically, we have a political body that feels the need to cater to the whim of an extremist minority viewpoint and has a stronger desire to get re-elected than it does to do the right thing in office. We can't make intelligent laws about topics that these people don't want discussed, and sex is one of them. There are some states that outlaw oral sex.
Example: The Defense of Marriage Act passed in the Senate 84-16, with similar percentages in the House, two years before the possibility of a same-sex marriage ever existed, as an insurance plan against Hawai'i legalizing such things. President Clinton actively signed the bill into law, despite the fact that he actively campaigned in support of the gay community, and that their support contributed to his election in the first place. Why? His spokespeople came forward, after he signed, and said that they felt it would've been political suicide for him to veto, and just as bad for him to let it become law without his signature, because he couldn't afford to alienate the religious voters. Four percent of the population is gay, and less than half of them are registered to vote. Thirty-one percent of Americans describe themselves as "devoutly Christian", and I suspect well over half of them are registered voters. You tell me who has more political power.
There are some states that outlaw oral sex. Twenty-six states (at my last counting) still ban homosexual sex between consenting adults above the age of consent despite their admitted inability to enforce such laws. Montana tried recently (1995) to make homosexuals register on their "published state sex offenders" list, the registry that lets the public find out if a convicted rapist or pedophile has moved in next door. Adultery is a crime in some states, though not in all. Prostitution is legal in only one state, Nevada, and even then only outside of city limits. The laws regarding sex are such a painful mish-mash of misinformation and religious interference that it's a wonder some state hasn't yet mistakenly outlawed procreation.
Getting the internet involved only makes the matter worse. We couldn't get rational laws before the internet. This just adds one more level of insecurity and paranoia. The two big laws created so far to "protect decency online" were made, not after careful consideration, but as knee-jerk responses to the fears of a vocal minority that happens to be a large voting bloc.