NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report

Jim Choate ravage at ssz.com
Wed Aug 15 15:42:44 PDT 2001



On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as
> >> equal to other speech,
> >
> >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so
> >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to
> >create the speech.
> 
> So legislate the ACTS, not the speech.

But they are auto-catalytic. You draw a false distinction that the 'act'
and the 'picture' are somehow disconnected. They are not. Note that I am
not in any way addressing text or artificialy created images, or images
created by consenting adults. Only those which involve a minor. It is the
involvement of a minor which is the deciding line, why? Because they don't
have the life skills/experience/maturity/whatever to make the informed
decision themselves. The act preceedes the speech and as a consequence
looses its protection. It's very like an admission of guilt.

The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and
ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as
evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of
themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts.

And no, this does not violate the 1st in spirit or letter.

> >No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want
> >as long as it contains 'speech'.
> 
> But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and

No, one is not. There is no mention of 'privacy' in the Constitution. It
does talk about 'personal' (and yes, I am aware of the legalistic
quibbling this injects into the discussion - I agree with your equating
'personal' and 'private'  - IANAL.)

> self-determination.

And what about the self-determination of the children? How does allowing
porn protect that? It doesn't.

> If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in
> the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that
> results is then just speech.

Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference.

The point being, sex between consenting adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex
between consenting adults.

'porn' falls into two categories. Only one of which makes any sense. That
is regarding minors. The other is a religous perspective based on some of
the most twisted Judeo-Christian spin-doctoring around and involves sex
other than between a man and wife in the missionary position in the dark
with their clothes on.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

            natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
            summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

                                            Matsuo Basho

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list