🚀 go-pugleaf

[A follow up to a thread in misc.legal - Carl]

adnan@redstart.icd.ab.com (Adnan C. Yaqub) writes:

[...]
>Obviously no one is saying that by looking at one Playboy magazine a
>person will become an instant rapist.  However, there is overwhelming
>evidence to indicate that continued exposure to pornography is harmful
>to individuals and society.  I have more complete information about
>some of the studies dome on the effects of pornography at home which I
>can post if there is interest.  One good reference is the report from
>the President's Commission on Pornography.
[...]

Commission on Pornography's report was not scientific.

From _Polluting the Censorship Debate: A Summary and Critique of the
Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography_
an ACLU Public Policy Report, July 1986:

p. 1 "The Commission had no funds to authorize original scientific
research, no subpoena authority to demand that witnesses appear and
little interest in probing beneath the surface of most witnesses'
claims. In innumerable instances the final Report relies on the
unquestioned testimony of a single witness for its conclusions on
complex matters in finance, science, or law. Scientific data
purportedly provided a 'significant' support for the Commission's
conclusion about 'harms' from pornography. Curiously, though, the
Report shows a studied unwillingness to link specific social science
studies to specific finding, or to reveal just what balance was struck
between social science and other, 'non-scientific' information,
particularly stories from a parade of 'victims' of pornography.
Materials which presented alternative viewpoints, reached conclusion
non consistent with the presupposition of the Commission, or simply
demonstrated that the same 'effects' of pornography are generated by
other media expression were suppressed or ignored."

p. 4 "The Commissioners were, on the whole, quitessential censors,
sharing all the elitism of censors of the past. They believe they know
best what is right for all Americans to see and read. Neither the
turgid prose of some of the Report, nor the conditional style of a few
sections, will keep those who favor government suppression of speech
from waving this Report as a call to arms against sexually-oriented
materials. This Report will fuel a wave of new efforts to curtail
pornography. Yet in the long run, it may have no significant effect.
When Americans have a chance to hear the case against censorship, they
usually repudiate a strategy of suppression. We hope that in the debate
engendered by this Report, the public will do likewise."

[A Xerox copy of the detailed 180-page ACLU Critique is available for
$2 from "The Center for National Security Studies\Publications Dept\
 122 Maryland Ave., N.E.\Washington, DC 20002"]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign