Sex, Violence, and Individual Liberty

[MA-Caver]

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/wendy_kaminer/2010/01/_if_you_consider_a.php

Sex, Violence, and Individual Liberty

If you consider a stash of obscene videos scarier than a stash of firearms then this is the country for you. In America you have a constitutional right to own a gun, and you may traffic in firearms with legal impunity; but you risk being imprisoned for buying and selling arguably obscene pornography. And don't even think about child porn (I mean that literally): possessing obscene cartoon images of imaginary children is a federal offense; so is communicating your sexual fantasies about children to other adults (as I lamented here.)

Technically, you do have a First Amendment right to possess obscene material (excluding child porn) in the privacy of your own home, thanks to a 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Stanley v Georgia. But the courts have not interpreted that right logically to include a right to receive or deliver obscene material, (as the 4th circuit stressed in U.S. v Whorley.) So you can make your own pornographic, arguably obscene home movies and view them in the privacy of your home, but if you want to enjoy commercial, arguably obscene pornography, you'd better figure out a way of possessing without receiving it.

Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of sexual privacy offer no greater protection to distribute obscene material than the First Amendment, according to a recent federal district court ruling; last month, Judge Richard Leon rejected a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the prosecution of John Stagliano and Evil Angels Production for distributing allegedly obscene videos. Stagliano argued, in part, that the right to sexual privacy enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas (striking down state sodomy laws) includes a right to distribute pornographic videos. "The liberty interest the defendants claim pales in comparison to the liberty interest in Lawrence," Leon ruled. That's true, but the harm of distributing and obtaining sexually explicit videos is also rather "pale" and speculative, at best.
Protecting "the individual's mind from the effects of obscenity" is not the business of the state, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanley, 40 years ago, offering a defense of liberty that seems sadly anachronistic today. "Georgia asserts that exposure to obscene materials may lead to deviant sexual behavior or crimes of sexual violence," Justice Marshall noted, writing for the majority. But finding little empirical basis for that assertion, he stressed that "the State may no more prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct than it may prohibit mere possession of chemicals on the ground that they may lead to the manufacture of homemade spirits ... The right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth ... is fundamental to our free society."
(click on headline for more of this article)

Interesting how society is making the determination between what is dangerous and what isn't. It has always done so and brought it's views to the government and the government enacts upon them... at least in theory or the ideas of the founding fathers.

The article concludes with this...

It's an odd notion of liberty that equates the dangers of legalizing pornography and the dangers of prohibiting gun ownership, but it's not an uncommon one. Consider the views of the Liberty Counsel: "(O)bscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect," according to the Counsel's Declaration of American Values. "Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and traditional morality." But if "smut" poses demonstrable harm to "(m)en, women, children, families and larger society," gun ownership (according to the Declaration of American Values) is "central to the preservation of peace and liberty." The Second Amendment "stands as an impenetrable wall between tyranny and freedom," Liberty Counsel founder Mathew D. Staver declared, lauding the Supreme Court's recognition of a constitutional right to own a gun: "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," he chortled; cower when confronted with pornography.

I would agree that perverse pornography would affect someone in any given community and affect them in various ways. Some would enact upon their innermost thoughts and desires and others would simply keep them to themselves and the rest in between.
Again the right to own a gun for self-defense purposes should be maintained and as the article states "an impenetrable wall between tyranny and freedom"... Freedom from fear should never be compromised for our safety.
While true some folks crack under day to day strain and pressure from family, work, social mores but we should (by now) realize that it is a fact of life. Tragic that a family member goes nuts and kills everyone in the family then themselves and possibly hurting/killing others in the process but having an armed citizenship would reduce those chances of others getting hurt by someone's psychotic episode.
One man's art is another man's porn and vice-versa. There's a lot of sick porn out there (child, bestial, bodily functions, etc.) and then there's just porn, two consenting (same or different sex) adults having sex by whatever means turns them on.
I think basically a crack down on various TYPES of porn should be enacted world wide, particularly child. Funny how the law encompasses the toon versions (and rightly so) of this type of porn when one can argue that it's artistic expression for the pleasure of others. Much harder to police as you have an artist sitting quietly alone drawing out these perversions and then posting them on the net... how would one crack down upon them? Are server addresses traceable?

Either way... we should as a society and a cohesive society work on figuring out what exactly we want and don't want. Until we do we'll never get this stuff policed effectively.

 

[Ken Morgan]

It’s funny that we let children see all kinds of violence on TV, but never let them see a bare bum or a nipple…..

As a Canadian my opinion on gun laws are very different, for various reasons, from many Americans so I won’t even get into those waters.

What happens between CONSENTING ADULTS should be completely their own business. If they chose to sell the images, that is their right. If they chose to buy such images from others, that is their right. The state should have zero right to interfere unless children are in danger, or they chose to exercise their rights in public place. Otherwise MYOB.

 

[teekin]

Well it's the CONSENTING ADULTS part that seems to cause all the problems though doesn't it? Both taken together and as seperate issues. That's were the water gets murkey.
lori

 

[Bruno@MT]

I always thought it was funny (not 'haha' funny) that showing the hanging of Saddam Hussein at an hour when kids could watch tv was considered ok, but a nipple on tv could disrupt society like al qaeda can only dream of.

 

[MJS]

Well it's the CONSENTING ADULTS part that seems to cause all the problems though doesn't it? Both taken together and as seperate issues. That's were the water gets murkey.
lori

If 2 people agree to have sex on film, either in the privacy of their own home for personal use or for a porn production company, then those people should know what they're getting themselves into. If they dont, then shame on them. If Pam and Tommy or Paris and her bf, let that stuff slip out to the public, or if it was stolen, I say shame on them. Perhaps next time, they'll think before they act...no pun intended! LOL!

Kinda like all these girls, some possibly underage, getting filmed for GGW. I mean really, did they actually think that Joe Francis was going to keep hours and hours of teenage girl sex acts all for himself? So you go to Spring Break, engage in underage activity, ie: drinking, and then take your clothes off for the camera crews, in a trailer? IMO, the camera people weren't the only ones guilty of doing something wrong.

 

[MJS]

I always thought it was funny (not 'haha' funny) that showing the hanging of Saddam Hussein at an hour when kids could watch tv was considered ok, but a nipple on tv could disrupt society like al qaeda can only dream of.

That and the pics in the paper or bloody, dead bodies, laying in the road. So yes, like you said, its ok for Joey to see that in the morning paper, while Dad has his coffee, but let 2 people get in bed...holy ****!

 

[teekin]

Well that IS 2 conseting Adults but the problems comes when one of the persons may not have given consent, may not have been of the age to have given consent, the images cross the boundries of waht is considered by the community " decent." Then we get into the "who decides" quagmire. If the person in the film is an actress, is what act she portrays important? Must she appear to consent?
Do you see what I mean?
lori

 

[Ken Morgan]

Decent is an arbitrary term.

I’m assuming the actors and actresses have signed contracts and as such are employed by the film companies to carry out their “acting”.

Regarding whatever they do on film, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If you don’t like a book don’t buy it, it you don’t like a church don’t go there, if you don’t like a restaurant don’t go there. We have choices in our lives. None of this stuff is being shoved down our throats, we are not being forced to view or consume anything that might go against our own internal belief systems.

Assuming the people involved ARE consenting adults, no one has a right to tell them what they are allowed to do in the privacy of there own home. An orgy, costumes, bondage, various toys, whatever, no government (should) have the authority to tell them what they can or can not do.

 

[teekin]

So then sites like insex.com which employ actresses to play rolls are fine? It does not matter what the actresses do or what gets commited to celluloid or video? ( Ken, ducky, remember this is a debate kay? )

P.S. Don't go to site, just GOOGLE it. You'll see why.
lori

 

[Ken Morgan]

So then sites like insex.com which employ actresses to play rolls are fine? It does not matter what the actresses do or what gets commited to celluloid or video? ( Ken, ducky, remember this is a debate kay? )
P.S. Don't go to site, just GOOGLE it. You'll see why.
lori

LOL! Lori...you realize that you just directed dozens of people to that site...right??

What they have at Insex.com is not my cup of tea, but what right do I have to tell someone else that they can’t do that?

In reading about insex.com, the issue, IMO, is not what they produce, but how they produce it. It looks like they treat their “employees” with a complete lack of professionalism.

Decency and working conditions are two separate issues.

 

[teekin]

Does it not seem possible or perhaps Probible that the same people who get off on and likely to own the film on sites like insex are might also be responsible for things like this

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/07/florida.model.death/index.html

lori

 

[Ken Morgan]

Ok Lori we’ve got a few questions we need to work through here.

• Do consenting adults have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their own place?
• If yes, then do they have the right to ask other to join them?
• If they all agree, do they have the right to upload such images onto the web?
• Is there a link between pornography, (again define pornography) and violence against women? The stats/research says no. http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s

Is porn seeing someone’s ankles? Seeing someone’s bare bum? Seeing a nipple? Seeing a couple have sex? Seeing someone tied up and whipped?

Working conditions are a different issue then porn. Violence against women is a different issue then porn. Don't get me wrong, terrible issues to be sure, but different issues.

I think systematic violence on TV, in movies and in video games is more harmful, and has a greater chance of producing violence against women/everyone then seeing two people engaged in sex. http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

 

[aedrasteia]

thoughts about this from a man, Robert Jensen
rest of the essay later.
This is long. and explicit. and not academic. Read knowing its got triggering passages.

Mods, please know that this contains explicit material - not presented to insult or exploit. This was shared with me at a discussion on censorship. I thought it was the most honest and serious essay I've ever read on this subject. I was interested that it was from a man's personal experience and perspective.

The complete text was published as "Cruel to be hard: Men and pornography," in Sexual Assault Report, January/February 2004, pp. 33-34, 45-48
by Robert Jensen


After an intense three hours, the workshop on pornography is winding down. The 40 women all work at a center that serves battered women and rape survivors. These are the women on the front lines, the ones who answer the 24-hour hotline and work one-on-one with victims. They counsel women who have just been raped, help women who have been beaten, and nurture children who have been abused. These women have heard and seen it all. No matter how brutal a story might be, they have experienced or heard one even more brutal; there is no way to one-up them on stories of male violence.


Rest of article can be viewed here.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Just to put the above in a bit of context: the women mentioned above are continuously in contact with cases of male violence. This is bound to influence their perception of porn and males in general. This is comparable to many of the bouncers I knew when I was 18 or so. Their views on immigrants / colored people was shaped by the fact that 90% of the troublemakers they dealt with were colored.

As for the violence in porn: I honestly think most if not all professionally produced porn is bad, and I cannot for the life of me imagine what is exciting about hurting women or sex with women who do not enjoy said activities (whatever they may be). Then again, I also completely fail to get excited at the sight of a pair of plastic boobs so perhaps I just don't get it.

Also, sometime ago I read a newspaper article that mentioned that during a study it proved impossible to find any adult male who had never looked at porn at all. Ergo, virtualy all males look (or looked) at porn at least once or occasionally. And still, the majority of us are just average men, trying to be a decent father / husband and never hurt a woman in our lives.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Please don’t think I’m defending how the porn industry does its business or I’m dismissing women’s issues here. To me this is just another discussion of libertarian principles and the folks participating here all seem to have their heads screwed on straight to keep it all above board.

Again my questions have yet to be answered.

• Do consenting adults have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their own place?
• If yes, then do they have the right to ask other to join them?
• If they all agree, do they have the right to upload such images onto the web?
• Is there a link between pornography, (again define pornography) and violence against women? The stats/research says no. http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s

My understanding of violence against women, rape and such, is that it is based on power and control and not sex. I have female friends who have gone through such ordeals and it rips my heart out. If my daughter was to, god forbid, ever be in that position, I will end up in prison for what I will do to the offending individual.

Again we are looking at and some are linking different sometimes unrelated issues. Decency, pornography, violence against women, working conditions, freedom at act as you within the confines of you residence.

 

[MJS]

Well that IS 2 conseting Adults but the problems comes when one of the persons may not have given consent,

So were they forced? If so, we have a whole new crime here. If they didn't give consent and did it anyways, shame on them. Lets not put the blame on the porn industry, lets put it on the people who dont think before they act..no pun intended.

may not have been of the age to have given consent,

Then shame on a) the person trying to get into the film, and b) the production company. Again, lets put the blame where it deserves to go. I get so tired of people not being man/woman enough to live up to the **** ups that THEY make.

the images cross the boundries of waht is considered by the community " decent." Then we get into the "who decides" quagmire. If the person in the film is an actress, is what act she portrays important? Must she appear to consent?
Do you see what I mean?
lori

Why should I let someone determine for ME, what is proper and what is not? I may like watching gangbangs....thats my choice. If someone doesnt like to watch them, of someone doesnt think its proper, then dont watch them. Just like the UFC. Its on PPV. So nobody has the right to ***** about it. You gotta pay to get it, so if ya dont want it, dont pay...its that simple. If ya dont like porn, dont watch it.

 

[Cryozombie]

Again my questions have yet to be answered.

• Do consenting adults have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their own place?
• If yes, then do they have the right to ask other to join them?
• If they all agree, do they have the right to upload such images onto the web?
• Is there a link between pornography, (again define pornography) and violence against women? The stats/research says no. http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s

Yes.
Yes, provided that they will accept no as an answer
They should, yes. And to profit from this if it is their desire to do so.

For your last point, I don't believe so. What I think happens is, like almost everything else... is that you have a Human being with a defect of some sort. He (or she) will act out on the defect in various ways, and often porn will be linked to that AS WELL, but it is a separate symptom of their defect, not the root cause.

In the same way that "Dungeons and Dragons" doesn't make kids crazy, but crazy kids who play "Dungeons and Dragons" may use it as part of their defect.

 

[MJS]

Please don’t think I’m defending how the porn industry does its business or I’m dismissing women’s issues here. To me this is just another discussion of libertarian principles and the folks participating here all seem to have their heads screwed on straight to keep it all above board.

Again my questions have yet to be answered.

• Do consenting adults have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their own place?
• If yes, then do they have the right to ask other to join them?
• If they all agree, do they have the right to upload such images onto the web?
• Is there a link between pornography, (again define pornography) and violence against women? The stats/research says no. http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s

My understanding of violence against women, rape and such, is that it is based on power and control and not sex. I have female friends who have gone through such ordeals and it rips my heart out. If my daughter was to, god forbid, ever be in that position, I will end up in prison for what I will do to the offending individual.

Again we are looking at and some are linking different sometimes unrelated issues. Decency, pornography, violence against women, working conditions, freedom at act as you within the confines of you residence.

Ok, I'll take a shot.

1) Yes. You're consenting, you're in your own house, nothing wrong with that IMO.

2) Sure. If everyone is consenting, why not.

3) 2 different things here. In the first case, people are just consenting to have mutual sexual relations in a designated area. In the second case, you're now going to make those relations public. If, that being the key word, everyone is willing to let their actions be viewed by millions, then fine, go for it. If 1 person is not for it, then no, it should not be done.

4) Porn can range from soft core to hard core. Soft being you see 2 people having sex, but parts of the body are covered, not in view of the camera, etc., whereas hard core, is well, just that...you're seeing it all. Sure, there are some films ie: gangbangs, where you have multiple men having sex with 1 woman, so that could be viewed as controlling. Depending on the film, I'm sure some actions could be taken as violent. Again, this comes down to consent. If the girl knows what the film is consisting of, then she's obviously cool with it. But, if she doesnt, then again, shame on her for not knowing what she's getting herself into and shame on the production co. for not filling her in on what was going to happen, which IMO, is now a second crime.

Is it possible for someone to watch a porno and then desire to act out what they saw? Sure. Just like I'm sure you have kids who watch cartoons, where someone gets hit on the head, falls off a cliff, or gets blown up, yet the cartoon figure survives, when in reality, the child who does this may not. Should porn be banned because of that? If so, then IMO, many more things need to be banned as well, because for every sex act that may be acted out, I could watch night time TV, and find car chases, shoot outs, and the like, all things that are just 'in the movies' yet can be acted out by someone watching.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Yes.
In the same way that "Dungeons and Dragons" doesn't make kids crazy, but crazy kids who play "Dungeons and Dragons" may use it as part of their defect.

I had a professor friend once tell me about a friend of his having a mental breakdown back in the 1920's.

They told my friend, "We don't know if Charlie was crazy because he masturbated, or he masturbated because he was crazy." Needless to say my professor friend was terrified for himself many weeks afterwards...

I think there are a lot of crazy people out there, why they became that way doesn't matter right now, but they will do as they will regardless of what we do, short of treatment.