🚀 go-pugleaf

On 17 May 2005 09:20:48 -0700, "Bibliophilia" <cmiller@crs.loc.gov>
wrote in message id
<1116346848.194657.214680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: in the
newsgroup talk.bizarre

>> We are still a censored nation though.

>We are. I think Dworkin had a point about rape, porn, prostitution all
>having the same root - the ideas  that women are property and sex is
>about dominance rather than pleasure.

 That doesn't apply to many types of pornography including "female
domination" and "male homosexual" pornography.  There are many women
who produce, or willingly participate in the production of sexual
material that could be referred to as "pornography".

 There's a difference in my view between the "pornography industry"
which can indeed exploit ( and which in my view deliberately exploits
and takes advantage of illegality and prefers illegality to the
decriminilisation of sexual entertainment) and people who produce and
distribute material (no doubt for a price) which is related to their
own often legal sexual activities.

 The first ("the pornographic industry") which is alleged in many
cases to be controlled (or at least partially controlled) by the Mafia
is more likely to take advantage of people who do not wish to be taken
advantage of.

>Conceptually, she has it right, but it's a matter of degree,
> in that rape is worse than porn, which is worse than prostitution. 

 Just inside my front door there's a box of 10 videotapes lodged with
the Office of Film and Literature Classification in 2002 which
includes a very explicit film regarding rape (with a VERY VERY graphic
front cover) which I simply bundled up with some other material in
2002 acting of the advice of the State Attorney General of New South
Wales (Bob Debus), and following his instructions took it personally
to the arm of the OFLC (A Federal Agency) that has the power to refer
matters regarding illegality to the New South Wales Polce. 

 That haven't done so and in September last year insisted that I pick
it up from their offices or they would return it me by registered mail
- which they did - on the explicit instructions of the Director of the
OFLC (www.oflc.gov.au) Mr. Des Clark.

 I lodged a protest with the Federal Ombudsman but was told that the
material wasn't sufficiently offensive or a matter of concern to refer
the matters to the New South Wales police.

 I now have a letter from the Federal Ombudsman's office which states
that this is a "reasonable decision" of the OFLC (who have the power
to enforce). 

 I have noted elsewhere that it the reasonable decisions of reasonable
adults that is the cornerstone of censorship laws in both this country
and in the State of New South Wales.

 Although Ms. Dworkin may have found fantasy depictions of rape
offensive and various bondage movies demeaning to women I can assure
you the women at the OFLC and the Ombudsman's Office in Pitt Street,
Sydney Australia do not appear to agree with her.

 The evidence is sitting in a box and delivered to me (registered
mail) by a legislative arm of the Federal Government and endorsed as
"non offensive" and "reasonable" by a second agency of the Australian
Federal Government.

 I can only repeat it's the reasonable decisions of reasonable adults
that is the cornerstone of censorship laws in this country and in the
State of New South Wales.

 This isn't fiction.

 (posted also to aus.censorship)