cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-11-04 - Re: Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman

Header Data

From: Steve Schear <steve@lvdi.net>
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2e67f26d4327e72c0977303dff37270dd0ac17ee4b4fcf450136c1169d6d8f9b
Message ID: <v03102803b08425599fe3@[208.129.55.202]>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971103132429.23538B-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-11-04 04:14:46 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:14:46 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve Schear <steve@lvdi.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:14:46 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971103132429.23538B-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <v03102803b08425599fe3@[208.129.55.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 1:25 PM -0500 11/3/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>As I wander back through all the posts on this list, it finally dawns on
>me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric.  It's
>nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving
>brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan.  Don't
>you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of
>society?  Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower
>them.  Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be
>taken from someone.  Unfortunately, that someone is the parent.  I have
>to ask myself just how many on this list have children.  Not many, I
>would say.

Daughter and two grandchildren.

>Someone on this list, I forget who, has made numerous attempts at
>convincing us that pornography 'does no harm' to children.  It is
>exactly at this point that I must draw a line.  Studies have shown that
>an event which lasts even so much as three-tenths of a second, within
>five to ten minutes has produced a structural change in the brain.
>Exposure to porn causes actual brain damage, especially in a child.

Which studies?  By whom?  Have they been independently verified and are
they accepted within the appropriate medical practice?

In any case, the First Amendment stumbling block you mention is all that
stands between enlightenment and darkness.  Personally, I think the SC is
way out of line determining who's moral values are selected in order to
define any aspect of pornography.  The 'Crowded Theater Test' should be
used for all First Amendment decisions: does excercise of this speech
(e.g., yelling, "Fire") directly endanger a particular individual or
explicitly identified individuals, not some faceless group like our youth.
Sexually explicit material should no more be restricted than other
non-sexual expressions (e.g., media violence or information on the
manufacture and use of explosives.)  Since both are protected and widely
available, so should porn of all types, no limits.

--Steve

Thread