Saturday, July 14, 2007
Norpornorthampton: Contemptible Hypocrites
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Hampshire Gazette: Shut People Up
In its editorial today, “In Our Opinion: The tragedy in Virginia,” the Hampshire Gazette mysteriously jumps from voicing concern about security on college campuses to advocating greater regulation of speech upon political and social issues.
“ … A repeat offenderMax Karson has a long tradition of offending people. Even the tragedy at Virginia Tech is not outside his reach.
Karson began publishing offensive material while a student at Amherst Regional High School. In his crude publication "The Crux," he sought to spread his insults as far and wide as possible. He got suspended from school twice, only to be reinstated with the help of the Western Massachusetts ACLU.
Karson is now offending people as a student at the University of Colorado in Boulder, where he has been distributing an outrageous newsletter called "The Yeti," which is also packed with vulgar language.
It turns out that his timing is as bad as his taste. He declared in a women's studies class this week that he could see why Cho Seung-Hui went on his violent rampage at Virginia Tech. He also said that, like Cho, he could become angry enough to kill a large number of people, even for the most mundane reasons. After students and faculty complained and expressed fears, Karson was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of "interference with staff, faculty, and students of an educational institution."
Karson thinks he's doing us all a favor by pushing the limits of free speech, but free speech is not without responsibilities. Karson has a right to his opinions, but his fellow students have a right to react to what they find hostile and offensive and to protect themselves in the face of threatening remarks.”
Arresting someone for a newsletter is a violation of the freedom of the press. One would think the Gazette cherishes that right. Apparently it does not.
I can only ask the Gazette to think deeper about what the consequences of editorials like this one may lead to. Not only was Imus shut up upon the basis of what many people deemed to be his “irresponsible” speech, (and I agree with that characterization), but it should remember that not so long ago, the Dixie Chicks were, too. Advocating “responsible” social and political regulation of free speech is harmless, so long as the views expressed by the offensive speaker seem irresponsible to you, but a clear suppression of your rights to express your views when your views are deemed irresponsible by others.
The evil here, if any, is ignorance, not a lack of social and political constraints upon our freedom of speech, in my opinion at least.
“ … A repeat offenderMax Karson has a long tradition of offending people. Even the tragedy at Virginia Tech is not outside his reach.
Karson began publishing offensive material while a student at Amherst Regional High School. In his crude publication "The Crux," he sought to spread his insults as far and wide as possible. He got suspended from school twice, only to be reinstated with the help of the Western Massachusetts ACLU.
Karson is now offending people as a student at the University of Colorado in Boulder, where he has been distributing an outrageous newsletter called "The Yeti," which is also packed with vulgar language.
It turns out that his timing is as bad as his taste. He declared in a women's studies class this week that he could see why Cho Seung-Hui went on his violent rampage at Virginia Tech. He also said that, like Cho, he could become angry enough to kill a large number of people, even for the most mundane reasons. After students and faculty complained and expressed fears, Karson was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of "interference with staff, faculty, and students of an educational institution."
Karson thinks he's doing us all a favor by pushing the limits of free speech, but free speech is not without responsibilities. Karson has a right to his opinions, but his fellow students have a right to react to what they find hostile and offensive and to protect themselves in the face of threatening remarks.”
Arresting someone for a newsletter is a violation of the freedom of the press. One would think the Gazette cherishes that right. Apparently it does not.
I can only ask the Gazette to think deeper about what the consequences of editorials like this one may lead to. Not only was Imus shut up upon the basis of what many people deemed to be his “irresponsible” speech, (and I agree with that characterization), but it should remember that not so long ago, the Dixie Chicks were, too. Advocating “responsible” social and political regulation of free speech is harmless, so long as the views expressed by the offensive speaker seem irresponsible to you, but a clear suppression of your rights to express your views when your views are deemed irresponsible by others.
The evil here, if any, is ignorance, not a lack of social and political constraints upon our freedom of speech, in my opinion at least.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
What Imus said ...
was inexcusable in my opinion. Nonetheless, I am concerned. For you to understand why, I need to you first to understand how Imus would be judged under constitutional jurisprudence.
What he said constituted defamation, which can be either an oral (“slander”) or written (“libel”) statement of fact that is false and damaging to a person’s reputation. While the law has features to it intended to prevent defamation claims from chilling free speech about public and private persons, alike, the first amendment does not protect defamatory speech and speakers. There is no public good in false statements of indisputable fact.
Also, generally speaking, CBS as a private broadcaster was well within its constitutional rights to fire Imus, regardless of whatever contractual consequences it may suffer as a result if it breached its contract with him.
Nonetheless, as I said, I am concerned. What if the young women actually were nappy haired hoes? What then?
The justifications for hounding Imus out of a job used by the self-righteous Imus critics focused more upon the offensive, inflammatory and controversial character of the sexist and racist speech than it’s defamatory, that is, false character. It would not matter to them if what Imus said had been dead-on, irrefutably true, and there’s the rub.
Protecting each of us from harm by reason of a tyrannical majority because of the offensive, inflammatory and/or controversial ideas we may express (unless they are defamatory) is precisely what the first amendment is suppose to do. While Imus was fired by dint of social activism, to me there’s precious little practical difference between such marshalling of overwhelming public opinion and more subtle forms of governmental chilling, suppression and censorship of free speech. Each are highly coercive and damaging to the free flow of ideas. (See the PS below.)
To the Imus critics, chastising Imus was not good enough – nothing short of firing Imus even begins to satisfy them. Similarly, chastising Moporn by Nopornorthampton is not good enough for them – nothing short of getting the Moporn blog pulled by its ISP and its founders fired from their jobs is good enough for Nopornorthampton, for example.
Nopornorthampton equates this sort of activism with people like Gandi marshalling public opinion to bring the British to their senses, etc. But, there is a difference. What the Imus critics and Nopornorthampton want to do is shut people up. However abhorrent racist points of view might have been to Gandi, Gandi was not about shutting people up.
In contrast, shutting people up is what people like Nopornorthampton, Adam Cohen and Jendi Reiter, are all about.
Yours/AC
PS – I take limited comfort in the theory that an “independent” judiciary will protect me against the excesses of any political or social activism. Almost all of our judiciary are either elected officials themselves or appointed by elected officials, who must take into account public opinion about the (potential) judge’s opinions, and after reaching the bench, judges are still subject to elections or elected officials to preserve or advance their careers. So, while we learn mostly about the judges who have from time to time been brave enough to risk their own careers and social standing to render unpopular opinions based upon principles, the reality is that, historically, judges on balance have not been and are not immune to social and political pressures. They are not as independent of the mob as one might think. (Double entendre intended.)
The distinction between social activism on the part of the public and governmental regulation of speech is more illusory than real. They are not so separate, but instead exist side by side upon a continuum of social and political regulation. So, the willingness to stand up to social pressure to suppress, chill and/or censor expression can be at times just as important as standing up for the supremacy of the first amendment, in my opinion at least.
What he said constituted defamation, which can be either an oral (“slander”) or written (“libel”) statement of fact that is false and damaging to a person’s reputation. While the law has features to it intended to prevent defamation claims from chilling free speech about public and private persons, alike, the first amendment does not protect defamatory speech and speakers. There is no public good in false statements of indisputable fact.
Also, generally speaking, CBS as a private broadcaster was well within its constitutional rights to fire Imus, regardless of whatever contractual consequences it may suffer as a result if it breached its contract with him.
Nonetheless, as I said, I am concerned. What if the young women actually were nappy haired hoes? What then?
The justifications for hounding Imus out of a job used by the self-righteous Imus critics focused more upon the offensive, inflammatory and controversial character of the sexist and racist speech than it’s defamatory, that is, false character. It would not matter to them if what Imus said had been dead-on, irrefutably true, and there’s the rub.
Protecting each of us from harm by reason of a tyrannical majority because of the offensive, inflammatory and/or controversial ideas we may express (unless they are defamatory) is precisely what the first amendment is suppose to do. While Imus was fired by dint of social activism, to me there’s precious little practical difference between such marshalling of overwhelming public opinion and more subtle forms of governmental chilling, suppression and censorship of free speech. Each are highly coercive and damaging to the free flow of ideas. (See the PS below.)
To the Imus critics, chastising Imus was not good enough – nothing short of firing Imus even begins to satisfy them. Similarly, chastising Moporn by Nopornorthampton is not good enough for them – nothing short of getting the Moporn blog pulled by its ISP and its founders fired from their jobs is good enough for Nopornorthampton, for example.
Nopornorthampton equates this sort of activism with people like Gandi marshalling public opinion to bring the British to their senses, etc. But, there is a difference. What the Imus critics and Nopornorthampton want to do is shut people up. However abhorrent racist points of view might have been to Gandi, Gandi was not about shutting people up.
In contrast, shutting people up is what people like Nopornorthampton, Adam Cohen and Jendi Reiter, are all about.
Yours/AC
PS – I take limited comfort in the theory that an “independent” judiciary will protect me against the excesses of any political or social activism. Almost all of our judiciary are either elected officials themselves or appointed by elected officials, who must take into account public opinion about the (potential) judge’s opinions, and after reaching the bench, judges are still subject to elections or elected officials to preserve or advance their careers. So, while we learn mostly about the judges who have from time to time been brave enough to risk their own careers and social standing to render unpopular opinions based upon principles, the reality is that, historically, judges on balance have not been and are not immune to social and political pressures. They are not as independent of the mob as one might think. (Double entendre intended.)
The distinction between social activism on the part of the public and governmental regulation of speech is more illusory than real. They are not so separate, but instead exist side by side upon a continuum of social and political regulation. So, the willingness to stand up to social pressure to suppress, chill and/or censor expression can be at times just as important as standing up for the supremacy of the first amendment, in my opinion at least.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Heaven Forbid Their Thoughts Wander to the Wild Side!
As Nopornorthampton often points out, expression often successfully misleads us for the worse, particularly when we are young or vulnerable. Certainly there are certainties we can all agree upon to protect them from? Probably so, but the scope of these certainties are narrower than most in the mainstream believe, I suspect, even with respect to sex and what may be viewed as sexually stimulating materials.
The trash heap of history is littered with the discredited certainties of times past. So, who knows? Pervasive promiscuity may be good for us.
Let your mind take a walk on the wild side with me to the Congo, and go out, far, far out on a limb, literally.
What do we find? Well, we might find the renowned Bonobo Chimpanzees, a very close relative of ours on the evolutionary tree. As portrayed in a PBS documentary I saw (more than once) and related in Wikipedia: "The species is distinguished by an upright gait, a matriarchal and egalitarian culture … [Common] Chimpanzees and Bonobos both evolved from the same ancestor that gave rise to humans, and yet the Bonobo is one of the most peaceful, unaggressive species of mammals living on the earth today.”
“They show us that the evolutionary dance of violence is not inexorable ... Females are much smaller than males but can be considered to have a higher social status. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. The male's status reflects the status of his mother, and the son-mother bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.”
Sounds like they’re a bunch of politically correct men and women, to me at least. Indeed, the Noho utopia many dream of. But Bonobo’s are not renowned for being tree hugging liberals and dyed in the wool feminists. No, they are renowned because in Bonobo society casual incest, heterosexual, gay and lesbian sex is the rule, not exception. They have sex like in greeting each other men traditionally shook hands and women hugged. They have sex even more pervasively than that, really. There is no shame … (See, "Shame Me, Baby, Shame Me" below.)
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Name to learn more, if you wish.
Could it be mere coincidence that it seems to me that the most patriarchal, violent and oppressive human societies tend to be also the most puritanical societies? May be the Bonbos are on to something. Bonobos certainly live among themselves better than most of us relatively puritanical humans live among ourselves. Indeed, “Bonobos, … are generally held to have superior intelligence to Common Chimpanzees.”
Humans, too??? Would we have something to learn from Bonobos that we should teach of kids, if we wish for them to live in a more peaceful and egalitarian world ...? Just wondering. :)
You never know ... “[t]he trash heap of history is littered with the discredited certainties of times past …”
Yours/AC
The trash heap of history is littered with the discredited certainties of times past. So, who knows? Pervasive promiscuity may be good for us.
Let your mind take a walk on the wild side with me to the Congo, and go out, far, far out on a limb, literally.
What do we find? Well, we might find the renowned Bonobo Chimpanzees, a very close relative of ours on the evolutionary tree. As portrayed in a PBS documentary I saw (more than once) and related in Wikipedia: "The species is distinguished by an upright gait, a matriarchal and egalitarian culture … [Common] Chimpanzees and Bonobos both evolved from the same ancestor that gave rise to humans, and yet the Bonobo is one of the most peaceful, unaggressive species of mammals living on the earth today.”
“They show us that the evolutionary dance of violence is not inexorable ... Females are much smaller than males but can be considered to have a higher social status. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. The male's status reflects the status of his mother, and the son-mother bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.”
Sounds like they’re a bunch of politically correct men and women, to me at least. Indeed, the Noho utopia many dream of. But Bonobo’s are not renowned for being tree hugging liberals and dyed in the wool feminists. No, they are renowned because in Bonobo society casual incest, heterosexual, gay and lesbian sex is the rule, not exception. They have sex like in greeting each other men traditionally shook hands and women hugged. They have sex even more pervasively than that, really. There is no shame … (See, "Shame Me, Baby, Shame Me" below.)
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Name to learn more, if you wish.
Could it be mere coincidence that it seems to me that the most patriarchal, violent and oppressive human societies tend to be also the most puritanical societies? May be the Bonbos are on to something. Bonobos certainly live among themselves better than most of us relatively puritanical humans live among ourselves. Indeed, “Bonobos, … are generally held to have superior intelligence to Common Chimpanzees.”
Humans, too??? Would we have something to learn from Bonobos that we should teach of kids, if we wish for them to live in a more peaceful and egalitarian world ...? Just wondering. :)
You never know ... “[t]he trash heap of history is littered with the discredited certainties of times past …”
Yours/AC
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
In Defense of Trash Talk
Trash talk on the internet has been a hot issue lately, not only here in Northampton because of Moporn, but nationally, too.
The March 7th edition of the Washington Post ran an article about AutoAdmit, a popular on-line law school discussion board. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602705.html.) It slammed AutoAdmit for failing to remove trash talk that anonymous posters left. It focused upon the stories of a few women who are (or were) Yale Law School students that held the trash talk responsible for their failure to obtain any job offers, for becoming uncomfortably self-conscious of their appearance in public and even for jeopardizing their personal safety. Truly, the trash talk went to the depths of depravity, to say the least.
Then this Monday I noticed a March 19th guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Elizabeth Wurtzel, the author of Prozac Nation, etc., and now a Yale Law School student. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117425870594940896-search.html?KEYWORDS=trash+talk&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month.) She, too, was upset about how these classmates had been wronged by anonymous posters at AutoAdmit. The trash talk had been indeed responsible for preventing at least one of these promising students from securing employment, or so she said.
Ms. Wurtzel complained the women’s woes were all the fault of the first amendment, “because once again, for about the 80th time in my memory and 80,000 time in the life of this country, here is an issue in which the right to free speech – as opposed to the need for everyone to just shut up – is going to overwhelm us all … the firstness of the first amendment trumps everything that competes with it.” Sound familiar?
Because we are “delicate people,” she lamented at length that the first amendment jeopardizes any effective legal means to coerce us to be civil and sensitive, and bemoaned the fact that all she could do was “plead for civility.” I couldn’t disagree more with Ms. Wurtzel’s insinuation that we should relax the protections the first amendment affords us.
This popular attitude is a very dangerous attitude for the law and society to adopt. For when we become more solicitous of the feelings of “delicate people” than the right to share, review and judge for ourselves improvident trash talk, we risk sacrificing any scraps of truth that may get thrown out with it.
What is trash talk today may very well be tomorrow’s chic political correctness. Imagine how openly gay literature and advocacy would have characterized by champions of public morality and appropriateness in our less secular past. The irony extends to trash talk of a factual nature, too. After all, there are times when the truth turns out to be stranger (and more sordid) than the fiction. JFK’s extra martial infidelities – they went far beyond a sole mistress on the side – were verboten in the early 1960s, but now…
Both articles focused only on stories of women wronged by messages left at AutoAdmit, but there’s no reason to believe men had not been wronged, too, even wasps, like me. Trash talk is very egalitarian. Recently, I was wrongly vilified on-line, too, by the most heinous insinuation one can level at a man these days. A (male) sexual predator seems to lie beneath every rock, thanks to the hysteria whipped up by the likes of Nopornorthampton. To be sure, when I read the defamatory posts, I felt as if I’d taken a cannon-ball in the gut, and it stuck there.
In my case the next day I posted a responsible response to the malicious posts, and supporters chimed in with their own responsive posts. The trash talkers beat a hasty retreat and hoisted the white flag. So, the “more speech cure for bad speech” proved to be very effective and immediate relief, and far less of a burden for me and society to bear that any law or legal action would have been.
In the case of these “delicate” law students, are they ready to be lawyers in the combative arena of law if they can’t effectively deal with this sort of trash talk by themselves? Why are they (and Ms. Wurtzel) not publishing the name(s) of the naïve law firm(s), etc. that would base their hiring decision(s) on anonymous trash talk and not take into account any responsive comments the women and their supporters posted?
Because justice is not what this is all about, clearly. Employers of Yale Law School graduates are not that naïve. All this whining (by the activists, not the people actually victimized by the defamatory comments) is about the power to control not only how we behave, but also how we think, by controlling what we can hear. The likes of Ms. Wurtzel form a confederacy of activists insidiously campaigning for the passage of laws to curtail how we may express ourselves and what we may learn, and thus ultimately how we think in more ways than one. All to protect “delicate people’s” feelings – just like Nopornnorthampton would entirely outlaw degrading and objectifying porn, and mold our thoughts, if it could.
Is this fear mongering on my part? I don’t think so. If China can control the internet, then it can be done anywhere. Don’t be deceived. While Ms. Wurtzel said, “I could never advocate censorship,” she later put her foot down and said “[The internet is] unpoliced, which demands that we be better people, gentler and more humane.” “Demands” implies coercion here, which means institutional codes of conduct and governmental regulation where the targeted conduct is expresssion. So, she’s merely paying lip service to the first amendment, just as Nopornnorthampton does, in my opinion. Though it’s possible she’s not really thought it through enough to understand this, like so many...
To refrain from and be wary of trash talk on the internet may be an advisable choice for an individual to make; but, it should be and remain your own choice, not Ms. Wurtzel’s or Nopornnorthampton’s.
Go Moporn, go!
Yours/Always Controversial
PS – About the women’s inability to secure employment: are the best law firms and other organizations who Yale Law School graduates seek to be employed by, and their sophisticated clients, donors, etc., put off by controversial behavior engaged in by the students’ themselves? At least one of the women, “Jill,” admits “ … I run a feminist blog where I curse and say all sorts of inflammatory things …” - her own trash talk. (See http://feministing.com/archives/006649.html#more.) She complains she just can’t win because she is both beautiful and smart; men (she presumes) trash talk her and otherwise scandalize her personality on the web (probably, I suspect, in retaliation for her inflammatory rants); and, her preferred employers, feminist organizations, can’t see that trash talk for what it is – or so she believes. Well, Jill, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I’m afraid.
The March 7th edition of the Washington Post ran an article about AutoAdmit, a popular on-line law school discussion board. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602705.html.) It slammed AutoAdmit for failing to remove trash talk that anonymous posters left. It focused upon the stories of a few women who are (or were) Yale Law School students that held the trash talk responsible for their failure to obtain any job offers, for becoming uncomfortably self-conscious of their appearance in public and even for jeopardizing their personal safety. Truly, the trash talk went to the depths of depravity, to say the least.
Then this Monday I noticed a March 19th guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Elizabeth Wurtzel, the author of Prozac Nation, etc., and now a Yale Law School student. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117425870594940896-search.html?KEYWORDS=trash+talk&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month.) She, too, was upset about how these classmates had been wronged by anonymous posters at AutoAdmit. The trash talk had been indeed responsible for preventing at least one of these promising students from securing employment, or so she said.
Ms. Wurtzel complained the women’s woes were all the fault of the first amendment, “because once again, for about the 80th time in my memory and 80,000 time in the life of this country, here is an issue in which the right to free speech – as opposed to the need for everyone to just shut up – is going to overwhelm us all … the firstness of the first amendment trumps everything that competes with it.” Sound familiar?
Because we are “delicate people,” she lamented at length that the first amendment jeopardizes any effective legal means to coerce us to be civil and sensitive, and bemoaned the fact that all she could do was “plead for civility.” I couldn’t disagree more with Ms. Wurtzel’s insinuation that we should relax the protections the first amendment affords us.
This popular attitude is a very dangerous attitude for the law and society to adopt. For when we become more solicitous of the feelings of “delicate people” than the right to share, review and judge for ourselves improvident trash talk, we risk sacrificing any scraps of truth that may get thrown out with it.
What is trash talk today may very well be tomorrow’s chic political correctness. Imagine how openly gay literature and advocacy would have characterized by champions of public morality and appropriateness in our less secular past. The irony extends to trash talk of a factual nature, too. After all, there are times when the truth turns out to be stranger (and more sordid) than the fiction. JFK’s extra martial infidelities – they went far beyond a sole mistress on the side – were verboten in the early 1960s, but now…
Both articles focused only on stories of women wronged by messages left at AutoAdmit, but there’s no reason to believe men had not been wronged, too, even wasps, like me. Trash talk is very egalitarian. Recently, I was wrongly vilified on-line, too, by the most heinous insinuation one can level at a man these days. A (male) sexual predator seems to lie beneath every rock, thanks to the hysteria whipped up by the likes of Nopornorthampton. To be sure, when I read the defamatory posts, I felt as if I’d taken a cannon-ball in the gut, and it stuck there.
In my case the next day I posted a responsible response to the malicious posts, and supporters chimed in with their own responsive posts. The trash talkers beat a hasty retreat and hoisted the white flag. So, the “more speech cure for bad speech” proved to be very effective and immediate relief, and far less of a burden for me and society to bear that any law or legal action would have been.
In the case of these “delicate” law students, are they ready to be lawyers in the combative arena of law if they can’t effectively deal with this sort of trash talk by themselves? Why are they (and Ms. Wurtzel) not publishing the name(s) of the naïve law firm(s), etc. that would base their hiring decision(s) on anonymous trash talk and not take into account any responsive comments the women and their supporters posted?
Because justice is not what this is all about, clearly. Employers of Yale Law School graduates are not that naïve. All this whining (by the activists, not the people actually victimized by the defamatory comments) is about the power to control not only how we behave, but also how we think, by controlling what we can hear. The likes of Ms. Wurtzel form a confederacy of activists insidiously campaigning for the passage of laws to curtail how we may express ourselves and what we may learn, and thus ultimately how we think in more ways than one. All to protect “delicate people’s” feelings – just like Nopornnorthampton would entirely outlaw degrading and objectifying porn, and mold our thoughts, if it could.
Is this fear mongering on my part? I don’t think so. If China can control the internet, then it can be done anywhere. Don’t be deceived. While Ms. Wurtzel said, “I could never advocate censorship,” she later put her foot down and said “[The internet is] unpoliced, which demands that we be better people, gentler and more humane.” “Demands” implies coercion here, which means institutional codes of conduct and governmental regulation where the targeted conduct is expresssion. So, she’s merely paying lip service to the first amendment, just as Nopornnorthampton does, in my opinion. Though it’s possible she’s not really thought it through enough to understand this, like so many...
To refrain from and be wary of trash talk on the internet may be an advisable choice for an individual to make; but, it should be and remain your own choice, not Ms. Wurtzel’s or Nopornnorthampton’s.
Go Moporn, go!
Yours/Always Controversial
PS – About the women’s inability to secure employment: are the best law firms and other organizations who Yale Law School graduates seek to be employed by, and their sophisticated clients, donors, etc., put off by controversial behavior engaged in by the students’ themselves? At least one of the women, “Jill,” admits “ … I run a feminist blog where I curse and say all sorts of inflammatory things …” - her own trash talk. (See http://feministing.com/archives/006649.html#more.) She complains she just can’t win because she is both beautiful and smart; men (she presumes) trash talk her and otherwise scandalize her personality on the web (probably, I suspect, in retaliation for her inflammatory rants); and, her preferred employers, feminist organizations, can’t see that trash talk for what it is – or so she believes. Well, Jill, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I’m afraid.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
NPN: Lessons from the Stigma of Segregation Apply to the Stigma of Porn
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
Monday, the infamous “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case was argued before the Supreme Court. Kenneth Starr argued for the Alaska high school principal who ripped down a 14 foot banner that a student in her high school unfurled outside the school. The students had been released temporarily from class to watch the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay under teacher supervision, and as the torch bearer passed, out came the banner. The school band played a part in the festivity as well.
The principal ended up expelling the student for many days. The principal testified that she acted specifically because of the message she believed the banner conveyed – do drugs – not because of a rule, if any, about banners in general. The student claims he unfurled the banner merely for kicks – to aggravate the principal, among others – not to convey a pro-drug message. You may not believe that was really his sole purpose, but that is the position he takes.
If the principal had acted because unfurling a banner, regardless of its message -- “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” or “Jesus is Lord,” – was prohibited, then probably no credible constitutional claim could have been made. It would have been enforcement of a content neutral rule, however, by the principal's own admission, it was not. The leading Supreme Court case applicable here, Tinker, allows schools to take action when a student’s speech is “disruptive,” and this case is another chance for the court to clarify what it means by that erstwhile content neutral rule.
If the principal is found guilty of violating the student’s first amendment rights, then the court may award money damages, though they might not amount to much. What’s the cost of a banner that was created for merely kicks, after all? And the student’s subsequent notoriety has more than compensated him for his expulsion, in my opinion.
I read the transcript of the argument before the court. Starr specifically argued that the school and principal should have the right to censor and punish students whose expression is disruptive to, or undermines, its anti-drug educational mission. Indeed, Starr went so far as to argue the school could censor and discipline speech which conveys any message that’s “disruptive” to its “educational mission,” as defined by the school in its sole discretion.
What if a school doesn’t like a student’s pro-gay or anti-gay message because it runs counter to parents’ politically correct or religious sensibilities as embodied in its “educational mission”? There are all sorts of controversial issues upon which student speech could be squelched – are we really going to educate our young adults if we do not allow them to begin to express themselves in the context of school supervised activity, however erroneous they happen to be? Painful as it may be, that’s how we learn.
Indeed, when I was in high school I wrote a letter to the editor of the school newspaper which argued that the ban against recreational use of marijuana was unfair – what alcohol was to my parent’s generation, pot was to mine. But it was a letter to the editor, not a banner with a message that had nothing to do with what the school supervised “field trip” was all about, and, while it created a bit of a stir among the educators, no school educational or recreational activity was disrupted.
I’m a free speech advocate, obviously. Nonetheless, I think the school could have constitutionally ripped down the banner and disciplined the student. The purpose for which the school temporarily released the students under its supervision was to see and celebrate the passing of the Olympic torch through the town, and the banner “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” had nothing to do with that. Behavior, speech or otherwise, that materially disrupted that school activity could have been and should have been disciplined. The students knew what the purpose of their release was; it wasn’t recess.
From my review of the transcript, I suspect that is what Justice Kennedy believes, and, as the swing vote on the court, his opinion might very well end up being the one to which the court eventually gravitates.
So, I don’t think our first amendment rights need be threatened here, unless the Supreme Court opts to adopt the content based rule advocated by the school principal and Kenneth Starr, and then there is a lot to be worried about.
Yours/Always Controversial
The principal ended up expelling the student for many days. The principal testified that she acted specifically because of the message she believed the banner conveyed – do drugs – not because of a rule, if any, about banners in general. The student claims he unfurled the banner merely for kicks – to aggravate the principal, among others – not to convey a pro-drug message. You may not believe that was really his sole purpose, but that is the position he takes.
If the principal had acted because unfurling a banner, regardless of its message -- “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” or “Jesus is Lord,” – was prohibited, then probably no credible constitutional claim could have been made. It would have been enforcement of a content neutral rule, however, by the principal's own admission, it was not. The leading Supreme Court case applicable here, Tinker, allows schools to take action when a student’s speech is “disruptive,” and this case is another chance for the court to clarify what it means by that erstwhile content neutral rule.
If the principal is found guilty of violating the student’s first amendment rights, then the court may award money damages, though they might not amount to much. What’s the cost of a banner that was created for merely kicks, after all? And the student’s subsequent notoriety has more than compensated him for his expulsion, in my opinion.
I read the transcript of the argument before the court. Starr specifically argued that the school and principal should have the right to censor and punish students whose expression is disruptive to, or undermines, its anti-drug educational mission. Indeed, Starr went so far as to argue the school could censor and discipline speech which conveys any message that’s “disruptive” to its “educational mission,” as defined by the school in its sole discretion.
What if a school doesn’t like a student’s pro-gay or anti-gay message because it runs counter to parents’ politically correct or religious sensibilities as embodied in its “educational mission”? There are all sorts of controversial issues upon which student speech could be squelched – are we really going to educate our young adults if we do not allow them to begin to express themselves in the context of school supervised activity, however erroneous they happen to be? Painful as it may be, that’s how we learn.
Indeed, when I was in high school I wrote a letter to the editor of the school newspaper which argued that the ban against recreational use of marijuana was unfair – what alcohol was to my parent’s generation, pot was to mine. But it was a letter to the editor, not a banner with a message that had nothing to do with what the school supervised “field trip” was all about, and, while it created a bit of a stir among the educators, no school educational or recreational activity was disrupted.
I’m a free speech advocate, obviously. Nonetheless, I think the school could have constitutionally ripped down the banner and disciplined the student. The purpose for which the school temporarily released the students under its supervision was to see and celebrate the passing of the Olympic torch through the town, and the banner “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” had nothing to do with that. Behavior, speech or otherwise, that materially disrupted that school activity could have been and should have been disciplined. The students knew what the purpose of their release was; it wasn’t recess.
From my review of the transcript, I suspect that is what Justice Kennedy believes, and, as the swing vote on the court, his opinion might very well end up being the one to which the court eventually gravitates.
So, I don’t think our first amendment rights need be threatened here, unless the Supreme Court opts to adopt the content based rule advocated by the school principal and Kenneth Starr, and then there is a lot to be worried about.
Yours/Always Controversial
Friday, March 16, 2007
On Smoking and Other Things
Author’s note: The following article is commentary about the proposed ban on smoking in private clubs which the local board of health is considering. Smoking is already banned in Northampton from bars, restaurants, etc. While the article does not concern freedom of speech, directly, the reader will see that these subject matters involve many of the same underlying concerns that the reader may find worthy to think about, as I do.
There are undesirable secondary effects to a lot of things besides smoking and pornography (the latest two vices the City has been eager to banish as a practical matter). For instance, alcoholic beverage consumption leads to alcoholism, traffic fatalities, domestic violence, etc. Smoking is harmful, at least to those who regularly smoke, no doubt about it. But, government and political leaders should focus instead on ameliorating undesirable secondary effects in less intrusive manners, in my opinion.
For example, if people don't like people smoking outside, then the City could bring it back inside, with air filtration systems and no smoking areas to "protect" those who are sensitive to it, instead of trying to control the intimate details of people's private social lives. Requiring extra sales taxes to be paid for tobacco products is an example of where government regulation does directly address undesirable secondary effects, rather than the intimate private behavior of the citizen. (There’s solid evidence that smokers place a disproportionate financial burden on the health care system.)
I am concerned by how many liberals and conservatives, alike, feel justified to dictate intimate aspects of our private lives (albeit often in different respects), and turn a blind eye to how they would encroach upon our rights to be wrong, as well as right, in how we choose to live among ourselves. The more we allow the will of the majority to dictate intimate aspects of our lives, be it a conservative or liberal majority, we may have more democracy, but less and less freedom.
We need to accept the notion that tolerance of those who would voluntarily live differently than we would wish them to live with respect to their private lives, is essential for a community and a society that is to be rightly called free, as well as democratic. Otherwise, one day we may find ourselves trapped, suffocating in a place which is more totalitarian than free, except in name.
Yours/Always Controversial
There are undesirable secondary effects to a lot of things besides smoking and pornography (the latest two vices the City has been eager to banish as a practical matter). For instance, alcoholic beverage consumption leads to alcoholism, traffic fatalities, domestic violence, etc. Smoking is harmful, at least to those who regularly smoke, no doubt about it. But, government and political leaders should focus instead on ameliorating undesirable secondary effects in less intrusive manners, in my opinion.
For example, if people don't like people smoking outside, then the City could bring it back inside, with air filtration systems and no smoking areas to "protect" those who are sensitive to it, instead of trying to control the intimate details of people's private social lives. Requiring extra sales taxes to be paid for tobacco products is an example of where government regulation does directly address undesirable secondary effects, rather than the intimate private behavior of the citizen. (There’s solid evidence that smokers place a disproportionate financial burden on the health care system.)
I am concerned by how many liberals and conservatives, alike, feel justified to dictate intimate aspects of our private lives (albeit often in different respects), and turn a blind eye to how they would encroach upon our rights to be wrong, as well as right, in how we choose to live among ourselves. The more we allow the will of the majority to dictate intimate aspects of our lives, be it a conservative or liberal majority, we may have more democracy, but less and less freedom.
We need to accept the notion that tolerance of those who would voluntarily live differently than we would wish them to live with respect to their private lives, is essential for a community and a society that is to be rightly called free, as well as democratic. Otherwise, one day we may find ourselves trapped, suffocating in a place which is more totalitarian than free, except in name.
Yours/Always Controversial
Sunday, March 11, 2007
News Flash: NPN Would Like to Banish More than Porn!
Recently Nopornnorthampton officially notified me that they will no longer publish my comments at their website. Had my comments been pornographic or indecent? defamatory? No.
It all started in a short email from Adam advising they wanted me to “withdraw [my] participation from Mopornnorthampton starting now. If you are unable to make this pledge, I regret we will no longer publish your comments on NoPornNorthampton.”
Adam and Jendi have been naturally very upset with the “savage” personal attacks made about them by Mopornnorthampton. They also didn’t like the fact that I played the Toss Adam’s Head game at the Moporn site. You can play it, too, at http://www.mopornnorthampton.com/node/67. I actually got a respectable 6969!
I admit, on the one hand, at times I’ve regretted that I played the head tossing game, but, on the other hand, noticed that this sort of thing comes with the territory of speaking out in public on controversial issues. Welcome to public life, Adam and Jendi. But if the kitchen is getting too hot for you, then get out of the kitchen!
Adam and Jendi just aren’t into head tossing games, and any other fun and games, it seems, based upon his reply and my experience with them. Heaven forbid they ever “lighten up.”
In a follow up email he continued “…I have begun feeling rather foolish providing a forum for you and making efforts to be fair and on-topic while you participate with Mopornnorthampton and let their tactics take place without criticism. I am also tiring of your consistent misrepresentation of our views, as in this comment which I will not publish:
‘I think I asked this before when you brought up Gloria [Steinem]: where does she actually argue for the legal banishment of pornography, as you do, in addition to vigorous criticism of it?…’”
As I replied to Adam, “[t]here doesn’t seem to be a porn regulation that NPN doesn’t want or believes violates the first amendment. So, for that reason, and the reasons I’ve cited before and with which I trust you are familiar, my view of your view is that you advocate the banishment of porn, as a legal and practical matter. … … I’m really not aware of where NPN would stop with respect to the mere ‘regulation’ of porn.”
Of course, after reflecting upon the request I didn’t pledge to withdraw my participation from Moporn. But I am not the first person who has been ostracized from NPN. I follow the mysterious and insightful Doug Shubert, who announced at Moporn earlier this year that Noporn had officially stopped accepting his comments. But no reason was given. Doug Shubert’s comments were better than mine, more often than not, in my opinion.
I don’t think NPN was primarily motivated by the fact that I left comments at Moporn as I do at Noporn – my published comments were pretty mild relative to comments left by others -- and the head tossing game was old news. No, they just can no longer deal with criticism for which they really have no good reason not to agree with, and they long to live with their own intellectual hypocrisy undisturbed.
Heaven forbid they admit they would have us repeal the first amendment – even though few countries actually elevate the right to free speech to constitutional status. If NPN finally did admit that this is the consequence of their position, they would be actually in agreement with most of the international community, like China.
In addition, I suspect the request was an attempt to pull back from the process they had begun at my request of spelling out in specific and concrete detail what Cap Video would have to do to resolve NPN’s objection to its opening a store at 135 King Street. They faced, perhaps for the first time, the end of the very purpose for which they exist.
In my opinion, as many others in the anti-NPN community will continue to share my view that NPN argues for the banishment of pornography, they have accomplished little more than further straining the credibly their website may have, and it certainly makes their claim to be “educational” duplicitous. It is too bad NPN does this sort of thing to me, Doug and God only knows who else. For as critical I have been of the materials they post and the positions they take, we do need credible voices informing us and reminding us that not all is harmless fantasy in porn land.
Yours/AC
P.S. Adam also mentioned that NPN views are “nuanced and balanced.”
It all started in a short email from Adam advising they wanted me to “withdraw [my] participation from Mopornnorthampton starting now. If you are unable to make this pledge, I regret we will no longer publish your comments on NoPornNorthampton.”
Adam and Jendi have been naturally very upset with the “savage” personal attacks made about them by Mopornnorthampton. They also didn’t like the fact that I played the Toss Adam’s Head game at the Moporn site. You can play it, too, at http://www.mopornnorthampton.com/node/67. I actually got a respectable 6969!
I admit, on the one hand, at times I’ve regretted that I played the head tossing game, but, on the other hand, noticed that this sort of thing comes with the territory of speaking out in public on controversial issues. Welcome to public life, Adam and Jendi. But if the kitchen is getting too hot for you, then get out of the kitchen!
Adam and Jendi just aren’t into head tossing games, and any other fun and games, it seems, based upon his reply and my experience with them. Heaven forbid they ever “lighten up.”
In a follow up email he continued “…I have begun feeling rather foolish providing a forum for you and making efforts to be fair and on-topic while you participate with Mopornnorthampton and let their tactics take place without criticism. I am also tiring of your consistent misrepresentation of our views, as in this comment which I will not publish:
‘I think I asked this before when you brought up Gloria [Steinem]: where does she actually argue for the legal banishment of pornography, as you do, in addition to vigorous criticism of it?…’”
As I replied to Adam, “[t]here doesn’t seem to be a porn regulation that NPN doesn’t want or believes violates the first amendment. So, for that reason, and the reasons I’ve cited before and with which I trust you are familiar, my view of your view is that you advocate the banishment of porn, as a legal and practical matter. … … I’m really not aware of where NPN would stop with respect to the mere ‘regulation’ of porn.”
Of course, after reflecting upon the request I didn’t pledge to withdraw my participation from Moporn. But I am not the first person who has been ostracized from NPN. I follow the mysterious and insightful Doug Shubert, who announced at Moporn earlier this year that Noporn had officially stopped accepting his comments. But no reason was given. Doug Shubert’s comments were better than mine, more often than not, in my opinion.
I don’t think NPN was primarily motivated by the fact that I left comments at Moporn as I do at Noporn – my published comments were pretty mild relative to comments left by others -- and the head tossing game was old news. No, they just can no longer deal with criticism for which they really have no good reason not to agree with, and they long to live with their own intellectual hypocrisy undisturbed.
Heaven forbid they admit they would have us repeal the first amendment – even though few countries actually elevate the right to free speech to constitutional status. If NPN finally did admit that this is the consequence of their position, they would be actually in agreement with most of the international community, like China.
In addition, I suspect the request was an attempt to pull back from the process they had begun at my request of spelling out in specific and concrete detail what Cap Video would have to do to resolve NPN’s objection to its opening a store at 135 King Street. They faced, perhaps for the first time, the end of the very purpose for which they exist.
In my opinion, as many others in the anti-NPN community will continue to share my view that NPN argues for the banishment of pornography, they have accomplished little more than further straining the credibly their website may have, and it certainly makes their claim to be “educational” duplicitous. It is too bad NPN does this sort of thing to me, Doug and God only knows who else. For as critical I have been of the materials they post and the positions they take, we do need credible voices informing us and reminding us that not all is harmless fantasy in porn land.
Yours/AC
P.S. Adam also mentioned that NPN views are “nuanced and balanced.”
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Studies, Experts & Testimonials
Studies, experts, etc., etc. It seems that one will always be able to find studies, experts and testimonials saying what one wants to claim regarding pornography.
Personally, I am willing to accept the notion that as alcohol can and does lead to nice things, as well as bad things, so too, porn can and does lead to nice things as well as bad things. Just as alcohol arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions, so too pornography arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions.
But, in our society today, there’s no push to banish alcohol, as there is an overwhelming push to banish porn. Yet the banishment of alcohol would not infringe upon any constitutional rights while the banishment of porn would. How do we explain this political circumstance?
One may be quick to point to extremist, such as fire and brimstone religous fanatics and feminazis; but they do not account for the breath of middle of the road support anti-porn measures have.
I suspect it is because more women consume alcohol than consume porn, at least openly, and therefore it is more socially and politically accetable than porn? We tend to incorporate from a very young age the puritanical notions of our ancestors, without much examination, almost as unconsciouly as we inherit DNA passed down from one generation to another. But men have been historically excused more than women from the puritanical shame heaped upon men and women alike for their sexuality.
Nonetheless, I do dare say if one were to compare the totality of the harm caused by alcohol, alone, with the totality of harm caused by porn, alone, one would find the harm caused by alcohol to be significantly more than the harm caused by porn. Why isn't NPN focusing on banishing the consumption of alcohol to the same places that it advocated banishing porn? No bad secondary effects have been associated with drinking establishments, historically?
It’s just another incongruity in our warped, puritanical society where the prison sentences for drug possession in some states can be far more severe than prison sentences for fraudulent business executives of large corporations, even though the harm caused by the fraudulent business executives far exceeds the harm caused by the ordinary drug user. Perhaps with all the best intentions, this is the insanity that NPN nonetheless ultimately serves to perpetuate.
(No, here I'm not advocating one way or another on the issue of the legalization of drugs.)
Personally, I am willing to accept the notion that as alcohol can and does lead to nice things, as well as bad things, so too, porn can and does lead to nice things as well as bad things. Just as alcohol arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions, so too pornography arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions.
But, in our society today, there’s no push to banish alcohol, as there is an overwhelming push to banish porn. Yet the banishment of alcohol would not infringe upon any constitutional rights while the banishment of porn would. How do we explain this political circumstance?
One may be quick to point to extremist, such as fire and brimstone religous fanatics and feminazis; but they do not account for the breath of middle of the road support anti-porn measures have.
I suspect it is because more women consume alcohol than consume porn, at least openly, and therefore it is more socially and politically accetable than porn? We tend to incorporate from a very young age the puritanical notions of our ancestors, without much examination, almost as unconsciouly as we inherit DNA passed down from one generation to another. But men have been historically excused more than women from the puritanical shame heaped upon men and women alike for their sexuality.
Nonetheless, I do dare say if one were to compare the totality of the harm caused by alcohol, alone, with the totality of harm caused by porn, alone, one would find the harm caused by alcohol to be significantly more than the harm caused by porn. Why isn't NPN focusing on banishing the consumption of alcohol to the same places that it advocated banishing porn? No bad secondary effects have been associated with drinking establishments, historically?
It’s just another incongruity in our warped, puritanical society where the prison sentences for drug possession in some states can be far more severe than prison sentences for fraudulent business executives of large corporations, even though the harm caused by the fraudulent business executives far exceeds the harm caused by the ordinary drug user. Perhaps with all the best intentions, this is the insanity that NPN nonetheless ultimately serves to perpetuate.
(No, here I'm not advocating one way or another on the issue of the legalization of drugs.)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Pedophilia and Porn
Recently, in the greater Happy Valley there have been two highly publicized child porn cases, and there is no doubt that in each case, neither man could be said to have had merely a passing curiosity. One was a high school teacher where the materials were found at his home; the other one was a pre-school teacher/day care center worker who admitted to viewing child porn at work, among other places. Neither is known to have actually molested any children at this time, although the consumption of child porn with live “models” almost surely means kids were molested in its production.
Like most of us, I can’t relate to anyone who takes an interest in child porn, save for research and prevention purposes. So, for me these incidents at first raised more questions than provided answers, and correctly, I think, forced me to challenge my own, pro-free speech, opinions about pornography.
I favor laws which prohibit the production of porn using children and measures to prevent pedophiles from having positions where they are entrusted with children.
The most obvious justifications for this position to me are: first, the bodies of prepubescent children are not ready for sexual experiences; second, prepubescent children cannot be expected to make informed choices; and, thirdly, even if well informed, we cannot expect prepubescent children to have a meaningful choice when interacting with adults (or pubescent teenagers) upon which they are dependant or taught to respect.
But, the anti-porn advocates have used these sad and tragic circumstances locally to justify their stance against all, including adult, pornography, and thus their continued invalidation of the naturally occuring, graphic sexual orientation of others, primarily heterosexual men. I think this is wrong.
In contrast to child porn, the consumers of, and participants in, adult porn are in far better positions to make informed choices and to make meaningful choices, however often such adults feel they had no real choices or conclude they were mistaken in the choices that they made.
To be sure all pornography, including adult pornography, can be and is often harmful for consumers and participants. But as my blog readers know, I’ve pointed out that the same can be said historically of consumers and providers of alcoholic beverages, among other socially accepted things. For example, just as there are porn addicts, there are alcoholics. But we, as a society, already have learned the hard way about the futility, if not the evils, of prohibition.
More specifically, anti-porn advocates argue that the adult porn fantasies of the catholic schoolgirl variety (e.g., with titles like “Barely Legal”) cause child molestation, just as adult porn fantasies of sex with adults cause rape. Arguably, child porn and adult porn do stimulate the tendencies of some people to molest and rape and, therefore, increase the incidence of molestation and rape. So, innocent third-parties are hurt, too. But, in the case of adult porn, at least, I doubt the incidence of rape and sexual abuse is increased more than drinking alcohol increases the incidence of spousal and child abuse and neglect, among other things. I really do not know in the case of child porn; how many people openly admit to viewing it, after all?
Certain anti-porn advocates are even more wrong, or naïve, I should say, when they harp upon child porn addiction as justification for banishing pornography. Unless they have spent years in alcohol, drug or sex addition programs such as AA or NA, I highly doubt that they are addiction experts. The real addiction experts, the recovering alcoholics and addicts with many decades of sobriety, will tell you that the roots of, and cure for, addiction are rooted in one’s personality, and in a higher power of their own understanding, not in the prohibition of the addictive substance or censorship of the sexually explicit materials themselves.
More impressive to me than the anti-porn advocates is someone identified as “Annie Mus” who wrote in the Talk Back feature of the on-line edition of the Gazette:
“Mary Higgins Clark, Smith School of Social Work, ServiceNet, Gov. Patrick, Department of Social Services, Church leaders, citizens of the Valley....Help these people BEFORE they harm our children, before we have to hate them because our daughters (and sons) suffer the shame and humiliation of being their ‘victim.’ It is time, no! past time, to offer help and support to pedophiles to come out of their deep dark closets and realize that, albeit they have these desires there are ways to keep them at bay.”
Now, there’s a voice of reason. Thank you, Annie Mus, whoever you are.
- AC
Like most of us, I can’t relate to anyone who takes an interest in child porn, save for research and prevention purposes. So, for me these incidents at first raised more questions than provided answers, and correctly, I think, forced me to challenge my own, pro-free speech, opinions about pornography.
I favor laws which prohibit the production of porn using children and measures to prevent pedophiles from having positions where they are entrusted with children.
The most obvious justifications for this position to me are: first, the bodies of prepubescent children are not ready for sexual experiences; second, prepubescent children cannot be expected to make informed choices; and, thirdly, even if well informed, we cannot expect prepubescent children to have a meaningful choice when interacting with adults (or pubescent teenagers) upon which they are dependant or taught to respect.
But, the anti-porn advocates have used these sad and tragic circumstances locally to justify their stance against all, including adult, pornography, and thus their continued invalidation of the naturally occuring, graphic sexual orientation of others, primarily heterosexual men. I think this is wrong.
In contrast to child porn, the consumers of, and participants in, adult porn are in far better positions to make informed choices and to make meaningful choices, however often such adults feel they had no real choices or conclude they were mistaken in the choices that they made.
To be sure all pornography, including adult pornography, can be and is often harmful for consumers and participants. But as my blog readers know, I’ve pointed out that the same can be said historically of consumers and providers of alcoholic beverages, among other socially accepted things. For example, just as there are porn addicts, there are alcoholics. But we, as a society, already have learned the hard way about the futility, if not the evils, of prohibition.
More specifically, anti-porn advocates argue that the adult porn fantasies of the catholic schoolgirl variety (e.g., with titles like “Barely Legal”) cause child molestation, just as adult porn fantasies of sex with adults cause rape. Arguably, child porn and adult porn do stimulate the tendencies of some people to molest and rape and, therefore, increase the incidence of molestation and rape. So, innocent third-parties are hurt, too. But, in the case of adult porn, at least, I doubt the incidence of rape and sexual abuse is increased more than drinking alcohol increases the incidence of spousal and child abuse and neglect, among other things. I really do not know in the case of child porn; how many people openly admit to viewing it, after all?
Certain anti-porn advocates are even more wrong, or naïve, I should say, when they harp upon child porn addiction as justification for banishing pornography. Unless they have spent years in alcohol, drug or sex addition programs such as AA or NA, I highly doubt that they are addiction experts. The real addiction experts, the recovering alcoholics and addicts with many decades of sobriety, will tell you that the roots of, and cure for, addiction are rooted in one’s personality, and in a higher power of their own understanding, not in the prohibition of the addictive substance or censorship of the sexually explicit materials themselves.
More impressive to me than the anti-porn advocates is someone identified as “Annie Mus” who wrote in the Talk Back feature of the on-line edition of the Gazette:
“Mary Higgins Clark, Smith School of Social Work, ServiceNet, Gov. Patrick, Department of Social Services, Church leaders, citizens of the Valley....Help these people BEFORE they harm our children, before we have to hate them because our daughters (and sons) suffer the shame and humiliation of being their ‘victim.’ It is time, no! past time, to offer help and support to pedophiles to come out of their deep dark closets and realize that, albeit they have these desires there are ways to keep them at bay.”
Now, there’s a voice of reason. Thank you, Annie Mus, whoever you are.
- AC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
