Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice?
Well, Gordon Lee, a Georgia comics retailer, isn’t laughing. Because Gordon is being prosecuted under Georgia law that stems from the same “human body is evil” thinking. A law so sweeping that the following titles can get retailers arrested and charged with fines and jail time: “Watchmen.” “Contract With God.” “Sandman.”
Interested yet? Sit back, I’ll explain:
Every year, Gordon routinely distributes thousands of free comics on Halloween. This year he blew through over two thousand comics. One of the comics distributed was “Alternative Comics #2,” (provided by the publisher during Free Comics Day) in which there was a story called “The Salon.” The subject depicts the meeting of artists Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso.
It is an historically accurate depiction, right down to the fact that Picasso’s studio was brutally hot during that summer and Picasso would paint in the nude.
There is nothing sexual in the depiction. Picasso, shown fully nude, doesn’t have an erection or engage in sodomy with Braque. It is what was: A startled Braque meeting a blissfully immodest Picasso.
For the distribution of the comic (not even the sale, mind you) Gordon was busted on two charges. The first is “distributing obscene material to a minor,” even though the material doesn’t even begin to fit the Miller test for obscenity. And the second, even more insane, is “distributing material depicting nudity.”
Yes, that’s right. Any comic book in Georgia depicting nudity of any kind can get you busted. Remember Doctor Manhattan? He’ll get you one to three years in Georgia.
If these laws are able to withstand constitutional challenge, do you REALLY think there aren’t states who would love to adopt them?
Consider: If a comic book publisher produces a comic biography of the artist Michelangelo, and accurately depicts his statue of David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, any retailer in Georgia who sells it can be arrested. To say nothing of the publisher using the US mails to send out review copies. Distributing obscene material through the mails has some pretty stiff penalties.
Speaking of Michelangelo, here’s an interesting factoid: There was a chief censor in Rome who considered the master’s fresco atop the Chapel to be obscenity. After Michelangelo died, the censor converted others to his beliefs and hired one of Michelangelo’s students to paint cloths and drapes over the naughty bits of Adam et al.
Now…how many people, off the top of their head, remember the name of the censor? How many remember the name of the artist who aided the censor?
How many remember the name Michelangelo?
And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…
The CBLDF will naturally be undertaking this case. And the point of the foregoing is that censors may sometimes win their short term goals, but in the long term it is the art and the artists who survive and revered while the censors are relegated to laughing stocks and the dustbin of forgotten history. Aid the CBLDF in tossing these particular censors into the dustbin they so richly deserve.
PAD
• 
Jim, I know you didn’t state this, but it sounds like you favor a criminal regulation acting as the mechanism by which society controls what can and cannot be created, effectively setting the bar of obscenity.
I’d say that society already has a mechanism in place to regulate that: the market. Oversight would be needed to protect those specific classes in need of protection (children). Otherwise, demand would dictate supply. You don’t see major studios like WB or United releasing pørņ: the economic impact they’d take deters them from doing so. So specialty studios cater to a smaller segment of society that desires a more graphic product.
I’ll admit that movies and images you see on screen can influence the viewer. I think the Passion example is a good one: Jim points out that he in no way feels influenced to repeat the scene. But take a hypothetical child. Upon seeing Passion, he decides one day to “play Jesus” with his friends. (If this post cuts off mid-sentence, it’s because of the lightning botl striking me)
Anyway, little kid and his friends go about playing Jesus based on what they see in Passion. One thing leads to another, and soon they’ve made a whip and are flogging the poor child who has to be Jesus. My point is a little outrageous, but I think it serves as an example that what one person finds influential, another may not. And yes, I’m aware that any group of children that play at the Crucifiction are probably in need of at least counseling.
If the standard is that film cannot show the perpetrator of a rape exhibiting some satisfaction over the act, doesn’t that mean that no realistic protrayal of rape would be allowed? Would it only be permissable to show scenes of rape where the perpetrator exhibits remorse/guilt/indifference?
Granted, from the brief description of these films, they seem to appeal to what I hope isan extrememly small audience. But that does not change my opinion that this is a level of control that I think can only be seen as an impermissalbe restriction of free speech.
Now, if it can be shown that a large percentage of the audience of these films turn out to be murderers and rapists, that changes things. At that point, you’ve got some evidence that there is a harm to society related to these films, and that would provide at least some legal justification to regulate them.
Jim, I see your point. It’s hard for me to argue against it, because I do feel that at some level, for some people, films like the type targeted by the US Atty Gen. do have a negative impact/influence.
But your argument that how those acts are depicted doesn’t carry through. It matters less what the film is, and matters more who the viewer is. The Columbine shooters were heavily influenced by the Matrix and games like Doom. The Matrix (mostly) involved shooting the bad guy, and Doom is all about shooting demons. Yet a pair of twisted kids took that and went about killing people.
There were millions of other kids that were exposed to those same images, and didn’t go on shooting sprees. If the images were really powerful enough to incite someone to act, there’d be a lot more incidents. The blame lies not so much with the movie, but with something wrong with the people watching the movie.
I bet that you could do a study of viewers of violent pørņ. You’d probably find that some of that test group might turn to violent acts in reality. I bet you’d also find that some were in fact deterred or stopped from committing those acts in reality, because the films provide them an outlet for such impulses. And there’s probably be a whole bunch more that are unaffected either way by the film, meaning that some remain law-abiding whether they see the film or not, and some that act violently whether the see the film or not.
To say that these films can cause harm is most likely true. It is also likely true that these films, improbable as it may seem, may actually prevent some harm from occurring.
Isn’t it interesting how the party that’s supposed to favor smaller government and less intrusions into private lives keeps trying to regulate private activity?
Yes, and the party that favors government regulations over food, education and guns starts talking about individual rights in situations like this.
Both parties have their share of hypocrisy.
Your point, Mark? That because both parties embrace hypocrisy, we should ignore it? Give me some concrete examples of democrats acting contrary to their professed position, and I’ll criticize them just as much. The point I was making is that republicans garnered votes from people on the platform of smaller government, less regulation, and more freedom for individuals. They must have left out the part that said “only so long as we approve of the ways you use that freedom.”
Bobb makes the poin that the “people may imitate it” standard really isn’t by itself a good standard to use. In my experience, no matter how stupid an idea my sound in real life, there’s always some yahoo who will think it’d be fun to try.
As for the idea of not depicting a rapist being “satisfied,” how realistic is that? Rape by its very definition is a crime of imposing one’s own personal gratification on another person. Not many rapists walk away from their victim thinking, “aw gee, maybe I shouldn’t have done that.” So, if a story requires a depiction of rape, the realistic portrayal is one in which the rapist appears sastified with his actions.
Finally, for Mark L: I work for the Pennsylvania Department of Health. After witnessing the largest outbreak of Hepatitis A in US history in 2003 (650+ cases) caused by contaminated onions served at a restaurant, you aren’t going to convince me that some government regulation of food is a bad thing.
Actually, lately, they have gone the other way. Which is a huge problem. Allowing someone to buy a film that “depicts” a child having sex with an adult (even though the “child” is legally of age) only serves to arouse their desire to engage in such an act. You then have either a very sexually frustrated person, or more likely, you have someone who commits an act of sexual abuse on a minor or child.
Yet such depitctions aren’t limited to the adult entertainment industry. It’s storytelling, pure and simple. Is it a particular style or content of of storytelling that everyone’s going to enjoy? Of course not. But, has anyone considered that the vast majority of folks watching the videos in question are perfectly capable of separating reality from fiction and do so?
Why should my right to choose be infringed upon?
I’ve seen my share of pornography. I’ve even enjoyed it. I have never committed a sexually violent act and I have quite a bit of respect for women.
It seems to me that those who have such sexually violent tendancies should be punished. Not me. It’s one of the costs of freedom that people are free to make the wrong choices. Those wrong choices often have tragic results and while I would like to see such crimes eliminated punishing the innocent in the name of preventing those crimes means that we’re all guilty untill proven innocent. Is that the world we want to create?
By the way, the events at Columbine were also influenced by the bullying tactics of that group called “jocks.” But since saying that out loud doesn’t get votes….
Bobb,
Everyone has their stories about government regulation, pro or con. I saw my father go back and forth to DC every month for two years because of EPA regulation of the chemical he and his company were selling. After all the litigation and lost business it turned out the EPA studies on the toxicity of the chemical were flawed. However, you don’t get to sue Uncle Sam for lost revenue.
So, yes, I’m a bit of a skeptic sometimes of government regulation of business.
“I’m not sure how a court would view a film using adult actors to portray children would be viewed, but my guess would be to lean toward regulation.
Actually, lately, they have gone the other way. Which is a huge problem. Allowing someone to buy a film that “depicts” a child having sex with an adult (even though the “child” is legally of age) only serves to arouse their desire to engage in such an act. You then have either a very sexually frustrated person, or more likely, you have someone who commits an act of sexual abuse on a minor or child. “
Darn, there goes Romeo and Juliet…
I’ve been trying to frame good examples about movies that cross the line and those that don’t, but it ultimately is a subjective view, so it proves nothing. It just comes down to the unsatisfying “I know it when I see it.” *sigh*
As an aside, in The Passion, there is good reason for the extended flogging scene. It has to do with how many lashes were given. The law said 100, but normally only 99 were given (just to make sure it didn’t go over; to do so had significant meaning) and Jesus received 101, as I recall. Extra-biblical, but the contempt it showed for both Jesus and the Jews was the point. Also, the fact that He took each ‘stripe’ for us made it worth showing (I never expected many unbelievers to see that movie; that they did fascinates me).
Mark, I sympathize with you. When I worked for the EPA, I had to pretty much watch as FIFRA regulations put a hard-working company out of business. It’s not easy. But those regulations exist for a reason, and that’s the protection of the public at large. Anyone living in today’s world understands that there’s a cost to security, and it usually involved giving up some freedom to act how you will, when you will. Try asking the folks that had relatives die while taking Metabolife if they want the government to require more testing of food products. Or Vioxx. Any any of the hundreds of other products that were rushed to market that later proved to be dangerous. You can either have your quick profits, and compare that to the injury and death tied to that product, or you can have regulation and testing, which may delay your product coming to market, but might save some lives.
Bobb,
I’m not disagreeing with you. I was a Seldane user for about 10 years. It was one of the best medications I took for allergies and was about to go OTC but was then pulled for potential heart risks even for prescription. Now, I see drug companies (and consumers) pushing to have products made OTC 3-4 years after introduction. I don’t think it’s long enough.
I understand the need for government regulation, but it’s a mixed bag – just like life in general (or political parties which is what we were initially talking about).
Hm. When I was a social scientist, the best available research indicated that pørņ did not cause an increase in violence or anti social behavior. At best, the existence of both sexually explicit and violent material caused an exciter effect, where it amplified current behavior.
Not that it stopped conservative idealogues from distorting the data and actually lying about it (Meese, Dobson, et al).
I agree that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad in gov’t regulation, and there are genuine cases of “casualties” during the process. The product I dealt with at EPA, from everything our experts could tell, posed no threat whatsoever to humans, plants, animals, or anyone. But there was no way for us to sneak it through the system given the law and regulations we had to work with. In effect, the safety net was too big. Such is part of the cost of safety.
The same can be applied to attempts to regulate obscenity. You want to prevent images that truly do cause harm, but in your efforts to capture all those truly harmful images, you’re going to sweep up a few that aren’t harmful. There’s going to be a cost either way: either harm from material you don’t stop, or harm to someone that’s really innocent. The question is, is it better to have the government be the perpetrator of the harm, or the criminal? Regulations tend to swing back and forth seeking a balance.
The question is, is it better to have the government be the perpetrator of the harm, or the criminal?
Hmm, I gotta go with the criminal on this one. As you’ve pointed out, government regulations don’t always use common sense and they tend to be wide-ranging. At least a criminal only robs one house at a time. Also, a criminal tends to run some risks, and when they get caught they have to pay for their mistakes. When governments get caught, their budgets get increased because the mistakes were obviously caused by not enough money.
Responding to various postings:
“What if instead of a nude Picasso, it was a stronger image, say a “Dolcett” style of artwork which often shows women in bondage, and even decapitated, disemboweled and even roasting on a spit.”
On the other hand, what if instead of a nude Picasso, it had been a nude Doctor Manhattan or one of the several sex scenes depicted in “Watchmen?” Sequences that run afoul of the same laws Gordon is being persecuted under. That’s what it comes down to, and what some simply can’t grasp: As soon as you stop defending the material that doesn’t appeal to you, you leave vulnerable the material that does.
“Despite the claims that movies doen’t encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn’t spend so much money on commercials).”
The question isn’t whether advertising encourages behavior. It’s whether it encourages behavior that specific people wouldn’t engage in unless exposed to it. Show me repeated ads for a particular type of computer, and next time I’m in the market for one, I may well check it out. Show me repeated images of men raping women, and I’m not going to go out and commit rape. If people were that strongly influenced by what they read that it affected them negatively, then obviously it was all those tales of Soddom and Gamorrah that caused adherrent behavior in certain Catholic priests who read their Bibles too much. Perhaps we should excise inflammatory sections of the Bible immediately…ideally before an increasingly religion-conscious America is swept with a wave of brothers killing brothers.
“If movies depicting rape and murder are now going to be considered obscene and punishable by jail time, Hollywood is going to become a penal colony.”
I’ll go you one further: If we’re going to imprison everyone who ever makes a simple mistake that results in no demonstrable harm to anyone, then we might as well just throw up a huge fence around the entire country and jail the lot of us…a move that, I’d wager, a lot of countries would support.
PAD
Despite the claims that movies doen’t encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn’t spend so much money on commercials)
Oh, god…this is WAAAYYYYY too simplistic.
The implicit model that underlies this statement is the magic bullet theory of communications; that is, there’s a simple stimulus response type of behavior in media. We see a media message, we act because of it.
Early years of communications research disproved that pretty quickly. Viewer response to stuff in the media is enourmously more complex than this. Advertising works because it DOES influence behavior, but not in a simple way; it raises awareness, so that people will buy items that they are aware of. It also can inform; informative advertising CAN affect buying of big ticket items (but even there, it’s only a kickoff for more intensive research by consumers).
People HAVE looked into the effects of violence and pørņ on individuals, and it’s just simply a lot more complex than the ideolouges would have you think. There is very little evidence that it’s harmful in the immediate sense; there’s some (but not very much) evidence that it provides a catharsis effect; there’s substantially more to show that it allows more people to consider violence as an acceptable response, there’s substantially more to show violence (but not sex) has a great effect on developing personalities (like children).
But there’s no definitive answers here, except to say that it’s just not as cut and dried as people think.
Not that I suppose anyone will listen; this is such a volatile subject that people will ignore evidence in favor of their prejudice.
this is such a volatile subject that people will ignore evidence in favor of their prejudice.
Then most subjects are volatile.
On the other hand, what if instead of a nude Picasso, it had been a nude Doctor Manhattan or one of the several sex scenes depicted in “Watchmen?” Sequences that run afoul of the same laws Gordon is being persecuted under. That’s what it comes down to, and what some simply can’t grasp: As soon as you stop defending the material that doesn’t appeal to you, you leave vulnerable the material that does.
This comes as no shock, I suppose, butg while I see your point and even agree with you to an extent, I can’t go all the way with you. (Eww, let me rephrase that) I don’t completely agree.
I’m not opposed to people viewing or producing whatever material they wish. I am opposed to it being seen by inappropriate parties meaning children and people who just don’t want to see, read or hear the material. There’s no first amendment right to an audience.
I’d drop the second charge against Gordon Lee. You’re right, it is stupid, but I’d probably let the first charge proceed to court. If nothing else, it will probably set a precedent.
eclark, does that mean that anytime someone exposes…..er, shows an image of the nude body to a child, they should be arrested? What’s the standard? At what point does the depiction of nudity cross over into the realm of obscenity? And how do you legislate such a law so that it is clear to people where that line lies?
This is the problem with laws like this. In some cases you can’t tell that you’ve broken the law until after you act. Such laws are rarely deemed fair, and often struck down for vagueness and uncertainty. It’s not the role of the courts to determine what is and is not appropriate. The legislature is tasked with that responsibility. Courts merely apply the laws. And if a court cannot determine a clear line based on the law, the court is obligated to dismiss the case.
PAD:
“That’s what it comes down to, and what some simply can’t grasp: As soon as you stop defending the material that doesn’t appeal to you, you leave vulnerable the material that does.”
Gordon is being charged with the distribution of nudity thing. Which, yes, makes no sense if 7-11 can sell Hustler.
Then he’s also being charged with distributing obscene materials to a minor. Which is apparently going to be argued based on the definition of the word “obscene,” rather than the effect on the minor. You want the law changed to say “inappropriate” instead? The point is the relation to the minor, not whether or not the work contains the requisite amount of naughty bits to be properly classified as “obscene.” But if the CBLDF wants to pay some failed-actor-turned-lawyer to flail around the courtroom and attempt to characterize a parent’s overreaction to Gorodn’s boneheaded mistake as an attack on the First Amendment… whatever.
But what it really comes down to, and what some simply can’t grasp: Nick Bertozzi can’t draw and Jeff Mason publishes bad comics. Now please leave Watchmen and Will Eisner out of it.
I disagree, Powell. The distribution of obscene material to a minor has three parts: The material must be “obscene,” whatever that is; the material must be “distributed,” whatever that is; and it must have been distributed to a minor.
The third has been alleged, and I don’t think any one’s really discounting this. However, if facts indicate that the minor’s parent or legal guardian, or even another adult, was the initial recipiant of the comic, Gordan is off the hook. Arguably, that other adult could then be charged, even if that other adult turned out to be the child’s parent.
The second part of the law is also in question. The way I’ve seen it written, it applies to material sent through the mail.
But I think the biggest factor in this case is the definition of obscene. Even if the GA legislature included a description of what constitutes obscene, I’ve yet to see any written description that makes it clear, without seeing examples, of what obscene really is. Which brings us back to a vaguely written law that, when enforced, ends up tromping on someone’s right of free speech.
I think we’d all love to leave Watchmen out of this. But the point is, if we don’t act now, then next year, some comic retailer is going to see a Watchmen Trade to some 14 year old, and his mom is going to find the flashback scenes with Rorschach and call the police. And if this case isn’t defended, and it ends up on the books, it’s going to create a legal precedent that will make defending Watchmen all the more difficult.
Even if the GA legislature included a description of what constitutes obscene, I’ve yet to see any written description that makes it clear, without seeing examples, of what obscene really is. Which brings us back to a vaguely written law that, when enforced, ends up tromping on someone’s right of free speech.
There’s a definition of obscenity out there; this particular comic doesn’t really fit it, however.
Not that this particular Supreme Court would let that fact stop them from declaring this case to be dealing with obscenity, however….(If people like Scalia see nothing wrong with allowing creationism to be taught, then I’d put nothing past this court).
If people were that strongly influenced by what they read that it affected them negatively, then obviously it was all those tales of Soddom and Gamorrah that caused adherrent behavior in certain Catholic priests who read their Bibles too much. Perhaps we should excise inflammatory sections of the Bible immediately…ideally before an increasingly religion-conscious America is swept with a wave of brothers killing brothers.
First, I believe there is a clear difference between what people see and what they read. There is a reason why they say “a picture is worth a thousand words.”
Second, it also depends on how something is protrayed. The biblical stories can be very graphic at times, but no more than most historical books or everyday speech. I repeat, the context and consequences of a given event DOES make a differenc.
Third, your comment about America being swept by a wave of brothers killing brothers is uncalled for. While you and I may disagree on the line for what we might label inappropriate/wrong/obscene (whatever), I don’t hear people on either side calling for the killing of someone on the other, except for a very small minority on either side.
Finally, there are times when two different values conflict. There can be a difference between policing thoughts/ideas/philosophies and policing behavior that is harmful to others. I don’t believe the actual events in Gordon’s case warrant the action taken against him. However, if the material was of a more graphic sexual nature and it was given deliberately to a minor, I would. That is not because I do not value free speech. It is because I also value protecting children from being sexually harmed by others.
Let me give one example: It is wrong for a guy to post pictures of nude women, much less pornographic pictures, at his desk at work where the rest of his coworkers have to see them. That is not because I would deny him free speech, but because doing so violates others in his office (particularly other women he works with). There are some things that can be enjoyed privately, but are inappropriate to put on display for others.
By all means, defend free speech. But it is not a right that trumps all others.
Iowa Jim
If the standard is that film cannot show the perpetrator of a rape exhibiting some satisfaction over the act, doesn’t that mean that no realistic protrayal of rape would be allowed? Would it only be permissable to show scenes of rape where the perpetrator exhibits remorse/guilt/indifference?
I understand your point. I do think children are the primary group that need to be protected. I am not primarily interested in there being a law against these portrayals as much as there being a restoration of the belief system that some things ARE wrong to view. We may disagree to a certain degree on where to draw the line, and should be very slow to ever make that line a legal line, but it is clear that to even suggest there should be a line today is believed by some to be abhorent.
In regards to your example, I think the entire context needs to be taken into account. Most movies would not meet the criteria I suggested. They show negative consequences to the action of rape. Even if the person is not caught, you tend to get the point. The problem is when the fantasy is built that rape is a good thing. Based on what was described in the article, these pornographic films go far beyond just depicting rape.
Bottom line, there IS evidence that watching violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers. No, not everyone, but far more than just a crazy few. Most do not actually commit rape, etc., but go spend time at a women’s shelter and you will see the effects that a pornographic addiction can have. To deny there is such a link is to deny reality. You can argue that since not everyone who watches it engages in such activity, it should not be illegal for everyone. Perhaps. But that is a rather weak argument for someone getting pleasure out of seeing others be abused or worse.
Iowa Jim
Yet such depitctions aren’t limited to the adult entertainment industry. It’s storytelling, pure and simple. Is it a particular style or content of of storytelling that everyone’s going to enjoy? Of course not. But, has anyone considered that the vast majority of folks watching the videos in question are perfectly capable of separating reality from fiction and do so?
There is a very large difference between a movie that has a sex scene in it, and a pornographic movie whose sole purpose is to engage you in the fantasy that you are a part of the sex. I know, that is a little simplistic, but it gets to the heart of your point. Someone may be able to separate fact from fiction, but the point of pørņ is to blur that very line.
There is a point that seems to be left out of all of this. Stories tell a point, and they tell it for a reason. That is basic Lit Class 101. There may be disagreements at times about the point, but in most cases, we get the core idea.
Let’s change the scenario. Two stories can tell a tale about a gay man who is brutally beaten and murdered. One version glorifies the beating. The author clearly wants others to go and do likewise. The other version causes you to identify the victim. The author clearly wants you to stop it from ever happening again. The purpose and context of the story will make all of the difference in how you react.
I agree that most of humanity will not read any story or see any movie and be “programmed” to go do or not do something. But we most certainly are influenced. Sometimes we can be influenced in the opposite way the author intended, but if the story is any good at all, you are influenced.
Iowa Jim
Let me give one example: It is wrong for a guy to post pictures of nude women, much less pornographic pictures, at his desk at work where the rest of his coworkers have to see them. That is not because I would deny him free speech, but because doing so violates others in his office (particularly other women he works with). There are some things that can be enjoyed privately, but are inappropriate to put on display for others.
Iowa Jim, not for the first time, raises a very interesting point. I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist, especially when it comes to visual media. However, as jim points out, anyone who thinks that they have a right to read or view anything they wish has never spent time in a corporate office or at a University. Hëll, write a politically incorrect letter to the editor and you may find yourself facing forced enrollment in a sensitivity class or some other indoctrination.
So where do we draw the line? And please rwecognize, if we don’t draw a line, some idiot will do something that so poisons the atmosphetre that the line will end up being drawn WAY closer to home than we would want. Yeah, it’s silly to imagine someone being arrested for handing out pictures of Da Vinci art to schoolkids but you just KNOW that some moron will eventually be right at the front gate passing out copies of Hustler if they can get away with it.
I have litle probalem with pornography, other than the bad lighting, subpar sound quality, and sadly limited plotlines. But now I have a classroom where virtually all of the boys have practically been raised on the stuff, as opposed to the logical progression we old timers had to go through (national Geographic–>Vampirella–>sneaking a look at a playboy–>getting into a R rated movie—>actually getting a girlfriend—> seeing a Vanessa Del Rio stag loop at buddies bachelor party). Now these 14 year olds have gone straight from collecting Pokemon cards to downloading The Best of Jenna Jameson or the nauseating stuff from Extreme Associates.
The only good news is that some of these guys now have such an incredibly warped idea of what women are like that they are very very unlikely to ever actually have sex.
Iowa Jim: “Bottom line, there IS evidence that watching violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers. No, not everyone, but far more than just a crazy few. Most do not actually commit rape, etc., but go spend time at a women’s shelter and you will see the effects that a pornographic addiction can have. To deny there is such a link is to deny reality. You can argue that since not everyone who watches it engages in such activity, it should not be illegal for everyone. Perhaps. But that is a rather weak argument for someone getting pleasure out of seeing others be abused or worse.”
Hi again Jim,
I must respectfully disagree. You state, “violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers.” If it could be proven that that violent pornography leads to violece in ALL viewers or even in MOST viewers then I’d be on the same page as you. Maybe not the same paragraph but the same page.
Also in your statement “, but go spend time at a women’s shelter and you will see the effects that a pornographic addiction can have.” CAN have, not DOES have.
I hope I word this right so that it does’t come off as insulting. I beleive that the ideas that you are putting forth abdicate abusers of personal responsibility by assiging blame to violent pornography. “The devil made me do it” so to speak. Honestly I do not believe that you are suggesting that abusers are free of the responsibilty for their actions. I also agree with you that their are some things that should be kept out of the hands of children. Adults, however, are free to watch what entertains them (obvious exceptions being child-pørņ and suff films). In pornography the participans are willing. There are also women who enjoy pørņ, and there are women who have “rape fantasies.” I dated one. We were both able to separate the fantasy from the reality.
“Someone may be able to separate fact from fiction, but the point of pørņ is to blur that very line.”
I don’t believe so. Pørņ is just entertainment. The events that take place in pornagrapghy are not real in that their portrayal is often beyond ridiculous. The blurring of that line happens more in peoples heads than it does by virtue of the intent of the film maker. If someone stats skinning people and he happened to see ‘Silence of the Lambs’ a month ealier, who should we place under arrest?
After all, wasn’t he infuenced by the film maker?
I beleive that by punishing people because of what MIGHT happen is wrong. Only by punishing the guily can justice be done. I’m all for preventing crime just not at the cost of individual rights. For example, I’m not looking to close down all the churches just to keep children safe. I’d far prefer that people be free to worship as they wish and have more adults present within the youth activities so that they (adults) can monitor each others actions. And that’s with inarguable links to children coming to harm!
Like I said, I hope that I didn’t come off as insulting. Personally, I think it’s good that we disagree. It means that if a solution is offered that we both agree with then it will probably be a good one.
Bottom line, there IS evidence that watching violent pornography does lead to violence with some viewers.
This is like trying to claim that what one person deems is “violent” music leads people to become violent, or kids that play D&D and video games will go and commit murders.
The problem with the stuff you’re saying is that the “some” are going to be violent, regardless of what they see or hear.
I beleive that the ideas that you are putting forth abdicate abusers of personal responsibility by assiging blame to violent pornography. “The devil made me do it” so to speak. Honestly I do not believe that you are suggesting that abusers are free of the responsibilty for their actions.
I agree with you that watching pørņ does not abdicate the abuser from responsibility. However, that does not mean watching pørņ does not have a strong influence. I am sure 99% of those who watch pørņ will never engage in illegal activity. I also believe that watching pørņ dehumanizes the act of sex in a way that is harmful.
If someone is on a diet, it does not “excuse them” from overeating if you put food in front of them, but it is stupid to not acknowledge that putting food in front of them is “feeding” their problem (pun intended).
I am extremely slow to make a law against such things except in the extreme cases. Not because the law then cuts both ways, but because making a law never solves the flaw in a person. At the same time, I do not give ground on the concept that watching pørņ, while pleasureable, is also demeaning, dehumanizing, and harmful. You may disagree. I do not want to make a law to keep you from viewing pørņ, but I do want to convince you that it is unhealthy.
Iowa Jim
The problem with the stuff you’re saying is that the “some” are going to be violent, regardless of what they see or hear.
That is not necessarily true. We are not “programmed robots” who have no responsibility for our actions. But it is equally absurd to think viewing violent pørņ does not effect us at all. The problem is that pørņ is very addictive to a lot of people. If I wanted to make money tomorrow, I should start an internet pørņ site. People do not log on for just 5 minutes. Most users get stuck for hours at a time. I never suggested seeing one image or one movie would spark an immediate act of sexual violence. But watched repeatedly, you do get desensitized in ways that you don’t even realize.
I don’t think there will ever be “concrete” evidence about this either way because people are so different. But when you look at the combination of studies, it does seem reasonable to conclude that viewing pørņ regularly does have a deep impact on the viewer. Viewing in regularly can bring out a side of a person that might otherwise not have been exhibited. Yes, there are some extreme cases that watching a G rated Disney movie would cause an act of violence. But that does not mean others may well have avoided it if they had not been inflamed by violent pornography.
Iowa Jim
Here we are again Jim!!
You know, it’s funny that we agree on alot of nuances in this matter and yet stand our respective ground.
For example, I believe that religion, when taken as gospel (pun back at ya, buddy!), can be harmful. The Branch Davidians and the Heaven’s Gate cult made that pretty clear.
I also believe that pørņ, junk food, and even love can be dangerous when one overindulges.
In the case of pørņ I believe that it’s most often about the fun aspects of sex and it’s the varying fetish aspects of it that, when taken to extremes, can be detrimental to already unstable minds.
For the record, just as you don’t want to outlaw it for me, I don’t want it forced upon you.
I think you and I are in agreement for the most part and our difference of opinion really stems from the fact that we aproach the issue from different standpoints. Me from the position of individual rights and you from the position of keeping people physically safe. I bet most would agree that both positions are good ones.
And, really, in a discussion on pørņ I’ve used to word ‘position’ way too much.
Smiles, everyone, smiles!
For example, I believe that religion, when taken as gospel (pun back at ya, buddy!), can be harmful. The Branch Davidians and the Heaven’s Gate cult made that pretty clear.
I hear you. However, both examples you cite were way out of the mainstream of Christianity. The problem is not necessarily believing ones religion is true, it is the content of that religion. But that is a topic for another thread.
Iowa Jim
What a great thread this has been; thank you to all concerned, it has been quite enjoyable.
Roger pointed out that pørņ can have an exciter effect (no pun intended) and push current behavior to a further extreme (paraphrased, of course). And that is my point. For the most part, we’re all on the same side: nobody on this thread wants to make pørņ illegal; some of us see it as harmful.
I don’t know that anyone thinks Gordon should be charged with this law over a mistake, but he could have shown a little more responsibility by not allowing the mistake to be made (and I’m sure he’s learned his lesson, even without the arrest; he doesn’t strike me as someone unconcerned about his client base, just someone who’se busy like the rest of us).
Thanks again.
The start of this thread, the legal attack on someone for distributing a comic with the presumeably, small and therefore largely indistinct depiction of genitals, is offensive in the highest degree and should be thrown out of court. Hëll, if it was a male child that received the book, he’s already SEEN – even OWNS – a pëņìš himself. If it was a female child, if she is old enough to read comics, then she should already have some idea what they look like anyway.
On the ‘controversy’ of whether the store owner is responsible for anticipating the ‘damage’ that such a depiction might cause… let’s look at a parallel example.
Let’s say the store owner gave out Snickers bars for Halloween instead of comics. So… some ‘underage’ person goes ahead and eats the Snickers. Problem is, their PARENTS have an allergy to peanuts, so the kid’s good-night kiss becomes ‘toxic’ to the parent. The store owner is CLEARLY responsible for the damage caused by the parents not monitoring the candy coming into their house and making sure thier child isn’t ingesting something that the PARENTS have a problem with, aren’t they?
The comic book is just the same. Whether peanuts or pëņìš, it was ONLY ‘toxic’ to the parents. The kid – if the parents had reacted reasonably to the depiction of Picasso’s pëņìš – would not be affected to any significant degree.
For those not interested in the discussion on the “McDonald’s coffee” front, you may skip the rest of this post.
OK… the argument was put out, “well, it was her responsibility for burning herself for spilling it”. So… it is coffee, not meant to be ‘spilled’, but meant to be ‘drunk’. Let’s follow that train of thought, shall we?
So we have coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns on NORMAL skin (MUCH tougher than mucous membranes). If she drank it as it was presented to her, and it burned away her taste buds (from my bachelor’s in biology, irreplaceable I believe, at 3rd-degree-burn depths), burned away her soft palate, and she needed reconstructive surgery to approximate ‘gums’ to hold her teeth and such (which of course would give permanent future problems, since there would be no way to allow for the salivary ducts that would come through the now-missing tissue). Then whose fault would it be? She did what was SUPPOSED to be done with a “drink” she ‘drank’ it.
So, no, the temperature of the coffee is NOT irrelevant and should NOT be ‘thrown out’, and the ‘responsibility’ is not hers for not knowing that this coffee was FAR more dangerous than ‘average’ coffee without it being communicated to her. She was, most likely, like the overwhelming majority of the rest of mankind who do NOT microwave our just-brewed coffee, and has likely had ‘drinkable’ coffee from most every restaurant she’d ever been to (‘drinkable’ meaning just the temperature, I’m ignoring taste here).
Let’s switch from coffee to something else for a TRUE comparison (rather than the inane ‘lit lighter behind the ear’ one brought up previously).
Let’s say that, once every few hundred yards in a reasonably populated area there was another ‘Novelty, Gag and Gift’ shop where one could buy old-fashioned ‘joy buzzers’ (the type that used a 9 or 12 volt charge rather than a vibration). Virtually all the stores across the country sold their joy buzzers with the same ‘charge’.
So you go into Mac’s Gags and buy a joy buzzer. You take it home, but, before trying it on your neighbor you want to see what it is like. You KNOW that they are ‘uncomfortable’ and some people find joy buzzers ‘painful’, so you want to see ‘how bad it is’. So you try it on yourself.
And are hit with a charge equivalent to a police stun-gun.
You have a heart attack from the jolt, spend a few days in the hospital and spend months in rehab.
Now… you “did this” to yourself, as you applied it to your own body. So that absolves anyone else from responsibility for what the unexpectedly great charge did?
No. Since “joy buzzers” are presumed by most people to be ‘uncomfortable but not seriously dangerous’ you are NOT responsible for the degree of damage caused by this joy buzzer, the person selling/making it is, as they made no effort to say, “by the way, this joy buzzer of ours is a ‘super’ joy buzzer and has a MUCH bigger charge to it than what everyone else sells.”
THAT is comparable to the McDonald’s case: the POTENTIAL damage from McDonald’s coffee was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than the vast majority of other restaurants selling coffee, with NO indication of that. Had she known that the coffee was FAR hotter than other coffee she’d had in the past, then there would be some question as to ‘how much’ responsibility she had. The truth is: she had the ‘responsibility’ of first-degree burns to her lap as that would be expected from ‘normal’ hot coffee, McDonald’s had the ‘other two’ degrees of responsibility (in other words: they were responsible for both of the ‘degrees-of-burn’ which require medical attention).
Jim,
I am a mother first off. Second, why is it inaproppriate for a child to see a naked body? In this particular instance, the man depicted had taken off his clothes simply because he was hot. CHILDREN do this all the time! Or do you not remember when your kids were toddlers? “cheapening nudity” hmm. not sure what you mean by that. If people see a naked person more often this will somehow upset their sense of modesty? The human body is not a prize anymore than an animal’s naked body is. what are you talking about nudity being intimate for? when my nephew ran around the house after shedding his diaper one afternoon, his mother and I didn’t find it “intimate” at all (that’d be kind of creepy), but it was darn funny! And if my daughter were to barge in on me while I was dressing, no intimate factor there. I’m not sure what you as a parent are hoping to protect your child from. Nudity is not in and of itself dangerous or harmful to children, though maybe embarrassing to those of us more accustomed to wearing clothing. Remember, a kid can understand a man being hot and taking off his clothes….they do it themselves. That kind of behavior isn’t exactly something you need to be “mature” to understand. lol I respect that you’re trying to watch out for your kids, but might I suggest you save your worrying for something actually harmful?