From: sahanna@hotmail.com Subject: Part I: Pornography & Violence Date: 1998/01/11 Message-ID: <884579632.413990920@dejanews.com> X-Authenticated-Sender: sahanna@hotmail.com Organization: Deja News Posting Service X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 12 04:34:01 1998 GMT Newsgroups: alt.feminism Much to the chagrin of anti-pornography advocates, current First Amendment jurisprudence does not allow for the elimination of pornographic speech. Regardless of whether a particular pornographic publication is legally obscene, as measured under the standard the United States Supreme Court first established in Miller v. California, *413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973)*, and most recently amended in Pope v. Illinois, *481 U.S. 497 (1987)*, it is protected under the First Amendment and may be consumed by an adult American in his own home. *Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969)("If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch"); United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351, 355-56 (1971)("The right Stanley asserted was the right to read or observe what he pleases--the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home")*. Although the First Amendment does not allow for the complete elimination of pornography, pornographic obscenity may be regulated by the government. In order to be deemed obscene and subject to regulation, the speech in question must be a description or depiction of sexual conduct that: (a) appeals to the prurient interest in sex; (b) portrays sex in a patently offensive way; and (c) has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (a) and (b) are to be evaluated from the point of view of an average person applying *contemporary community standards*; (c) is to be evaluated from the point of view of an average person applying *national, reasonable person standards*. The speech or work is also to be judged in its totality. *Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 299-301 (1977); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987)(holding, "[j]ust as the ideas a work represents need not obtain majority approval to merit protection, neither [does] the value of the work vary from community to community based on the degree of local acceptance it has won. The proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious [value] in allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole."); see also Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 504 (1987)(speculating it was "quite impossible" to establish an objective assessment for literary or artistic value)(Scalia, J., concurring)*. Some would argue--and I among them--that this tripartite test of obscenity is elitist and classist. If hard-core pornography is obscene, why isn't the work of, say, Robert Maplethrope? I suggest the difference is that the latter is considered art by white, wealthy elites while the former is consumed by those deemed "lower class." Much like the acceptability between gambling at the horse track and on the stock market is merely a function of income of its participants, the difference between what is of social and political value is whatever white, wealthy elites say it is. Nevertheless, even obscenity is protected under the First Amendment. As Justice Scalia noted in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, *505 U.S. 377, 383-84 (1992)*, when one claims obscenity, like fighting words, is unprotected by the First Amendment, one is employing a legal shorthand. Obscenity may not be held in the same esteem as the President's State of the Union Address, but it is not "entirely invisible to the Constitution." Although obscenity may be regulated by the government, its control over this speech is not without limitation. One of these limitations is the prohibition of content discrimination. Under what the Supreme Court has described as being a bedrock principle of First Amendment jurisprudence, the government cannot silence one viewpoint or opinion in favor of another. For example, the government cannot criminalize flag burning, *Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 497 U.S. 310 (1990)*, or cross burning intended to intimidate blacks, *R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)*, because to do so, the government would be, in effect, take sides. To ban flag burning, the government would be taking the position this nation's symbol is sacred. To ban cross burning intended to intimidate blacks, the government would be taking the position blacks should not be exposed to hateful language. Although many would agree these are good positions to take, the Supreme Court has held the government may not take them. In short, the government "has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." *Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972)*. Another limitation on the regulation of obscenity is that any legislation restricting the free expression of obscene speech must meet the necessary and important government interests the Supreme Court has recognized as being valid for limiting such speech. As of right now, the Supreme Court has recognized only one such government interest: "This Court has recognized that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles. It is in this context we are called on to define the standards which must be used to identify obscene material that a State may regulate. . . [S]tatutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited." *Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at xx (1973); see also United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. at 360 ("regulatory action [is permitted only] to protect children and unwilling adults from exposure to materials deemed to be obscene")(Marshall, J., concurring)*. In reading this, it is clear the Court's rationale for permitting regulation of obscenity is the fear of exposure to such materials to children and those offended by pornography *vis a vis* how the materials are distributed. Given these current constitutional limitations in the regulation of obscenity and pornography (the two are not the same; broadly defined, the former is a specific form of the latter), attempts by anti-pornography feminists to eliminate pornography from American society through the courts and the legislature have been stifled. I have previously written it is probably the goal of anti-pornography legislation such as the Pornography Victims' Protection Act (PVPA) and the Pornography Victims' Compensation Act (PVCA) to drive pornographers out of business through civil litigation and fear of multi-million dollar judgments. I was asked- -nay, ordered *twice*--to name advocates of this position. This "request" struck me as curious in that it is obvious every anti-pornography feminist would be ecstatic should this goal come to pass. Consider these quotes from some prominent feminists: Pornography "will continue as long as boys are raised to believe they must control or conquer women as a measure of manhood, as long as society rewards men who believe that success . . . depends on women's subservience." --Gloria Steinem "Pornography is bigotry, *period*." --Catherine MacKinnon "Pornography's world of equality is a harmonious and balanced place. . . . All the ways men love to take and violate women, women love to be taken and violated. . . . [It] eroticizes hierarchy, it sexualizes inequality. . . . [It] institutionalizes the sexuality of male supremacy, fusing the erotization of dominance and submission with the social construction of male and female." --Catherine MacKinnon "[H]ard-core pornography is not a celebration of sexual freedom; it is a cynical exploitation of female sexual activity through the device of making all such activity, and consequently all females, 'dirty.'" --Susan Brownmiller "Without the presence of the female, masculinity cannot be realized, even among men who exclusively want each other; so the female is conjured up, not just to haunt or threaten, but to confirm the real superiority of the mind of the reader. . . . In pornography, the homosexual male, like the heterosexual male, is encouraged to experience and enjoy his sexual superiority over women." --Andrea Dworkin, on the threat to women posed by *gay* pornography Given these sentiments, can anyone really argue proponents of anti-pornography legislation simply want to give perceived victims of pornography their day in court and nothing more? Even gay men do not escape the wrath of anti-pornography feminists. The anger, passion, and fervor against pornography expressed in articles, books, and lectures by these feminists leaves little doubt: they do not want to share the world with pornography. They want it eliminated completely. And, given their position, it is logical they should want it eliminated from the face of the planet. If one considers a form of speech to be the vehicle for an insidious discrimination culminating in violence, it would be foolish to suggest that person wouldn't fight tooth and nail for its total eradication. However, since I have been given the inane task of doing the obvious, I shall list the names of those I can safely argue would not lose a wink of sleep should anti-pornography legislation drive pornographers into bankruptcy: Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Patricia Ireland, Molly Yard, Caryn Jacobs, Mari Matsuda, Edward Donnerstein, Gloria Steinem, Teresa Hommel, Gail Dines, Gloria Allred, Adrienne Rich, Jane Rule, Daniel Linz, Susan Brownmiller, Robin West, Susan Deller Ross, Kathleen Gough, Kate Millett, Betty Friedan, Deborah Epstein, Sandra Bem, Daryl Bem, and Meri (despite our difference in opinion, her scholarship and my respect for her intelligence warrants her mention on this list). One could add the Christian Coalition and the conservative Republicans who co-sponsored PVPA and PVCA to this list. Further, when anti-pornography proponents argue in this newsgroup they advocate no criminal liability for pornographers, they are being dishonest. Quietly, but surely, feminists have been lobbying prosecutors to use the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to subject pornographers and retailers to criminal liability and justify seizure of their inventory. The Supreme Court upheld the use of RICO in this fashion in Alexander v. United States, *113 S.Ct. 2766 (1993)(remanded on Eighth Amendment grounds due to excessive fines)* In short, what this means is, if your local 7-11 sells a rapist a copy of *Playboy*, a savvy prosecutor could seize the store's entire inventory and prosecute the sixteen year-old female clerk who sold it. Feminists' quiet advocacy of the use of RICO should harken one back to when pro-choice activists convinced prosecutors to use RICO to arrest pro-life protesters in front of abortion clinics. I hope the irony of "liberals" arguing in favor of the use of legislation designed to stop the mafia in these circumstances is not lost on anyone. The grounds for this hatred of pornographic speech are twofold, both of which have been raised as justification for limiting pornography's free speech protections: (1) anti-pornography advocates believe pornography poses a "clear and present danger" in that its images and words lead men to commit rape and sexual violence against women; and (2) anti-pornography advocates argue pornography impermissibly contributes to a discriminatory atmosphere in which women are forced to live. Due to the ideas expressed in pornography, men are compelled to view women as purely sexual beings. This negative sentiment then manifests itself in the sexist thoughts and actions that permeate the workplace, schoolhouse, legislature, and bedroom. For most consumers, pornography renders them unable to view women as equals. For some, pornography drives them into a violent rage, leading them to commit sexual assault, molestation, and rape. In short, pornography not only creates the possibility of physical harm, but the reality of discrimination toward women. Unfortunately for anti-pornography feminists, courts have not been receptive to either of these grounds in laying a foundation for the eradication of the pornography. On the first ground, no court has given much credence to the notion that pornography poses a "clear and present danger." Although an avant garde theory tossed to and fro by academics with reckless abandon, jurists have been more restrained in their interpretation of this legal doctrine. This exception to free speech was carved out by the Court during the First World War. A social activist was prosecuted for mailing a brochure protesting conscription, describing the draft as a practice akin to slavery. Consider the words of the brochure: "Do not submit to intimidation. . . . If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." None of the activist's literature advocated a violent means of achieving his goal nor overthrowing the government. The government of the United States of America was not amused. It charged the activist under the 1917 Espionage Act. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, carving out the "clear and present danger" exception to the First Amendment. Thankfully, Schenck v. United States, *249 U.S. 47 (1919)*, is a decision with a narrow scope. Read literally, it applies only when the nation is at war: "When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Still, even under a literal reading of Schenck, our government could prosecute conscientious objectors in times of war. Our government could jail college students protesting the draft for an unjust war. This is something to consider as your Vietnam War-protesting President sends more aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf to ensure Americans don't flip out the next time they pull up to the gas pump. However, even if the courts were willing to consider extending the "clear and present danger" doctrine to pornography, crime statistics would reveal pornography is not the threat to the physical safety of women that anti-pornography feminists want us to believe. According to the 1995 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, there were 97,464 reported rapes in the United States that year. Assuming every single rape could be traced to an avid consumer of pornography--defined here as a purchaser of one thousand dollars of pornographic materials annually--less than one percent of all avid pornography consumers would be rapists. However, as we all know, there are millions of readers of pornography in the United States--an estimated forty-to-fifty percent of whom are women. With so many readers of pornography who commit no crimes and only a minute few who do, it is clear pornography the does not present the danger anti-pornography feminists assert it does. Nor have courts been willing to consider pornography to be of the nature of speech deemed as inciting or threatening to incite imminent harm. The Supreme Court first developed this standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio, *395 U.S. 444 (1969)*: "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit [the government] to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation *except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action*." *Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. at 447 (emphasis added)*. Using this standard, the Court refused to hold a Ku Klux Klan rally, featuring a burning cross, hooded men bearing firearms, and the cries, "Bury the niggers!" and "This is what we are going to do to the niggers!" as being unprotected speech. Although feminists have tried to differentiate pornography from racist speech by classifying the latter as political, under Brandenburg, the distinction is meaningless. All that is important is whether the speech incites or threatens to incite imminent lawless action. However, the ease with which feminists are able to call "Bury the niggers!" a political statement but classify a Playboy centerfold as the most invidious form of speech should indicate the whitewashing (pun intended) they are willing to do in order to rewrite the law to their benefit. Additionally, courts have traditionally been resistant to the idea of holding producers of motion pictures and television programs liable for illegal actions committed by viewers. Almost without exception, courts have held "the [F]irst [A]mendment does not hold those whose ideas inspired the crimes to answer for such acts." *Watters v. TSR, Inc. 715 F. Supp. 819, 822 (W.D. Ky. 1989)*. For example, in DeFilippo v. National Broadcasting Co., *446 A.2d 1036 (R.I. 1982)*, the court refused to hold the producers of "The Tonight Show" liable for broadcasting a hanging stunt that prompted a thirteen year-old to accidently kill himself trying to replicate the feat. In Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co., *178 Cal. Rptr. 888 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)*, the court rejected traditional negligence theories against the network for broadcasting a movie which depicted a group rape. Holding "imposing liability on a single negligence theory here would frustrate vital freedom of speech guarantees," the Court refused to hold the network liable for airing the movie which was said to have inspired the rape of a nine year- old by a group of youngsters. *178 Cal. Rptr. at 894*. Specific to pornography, in Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, *814 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987)*, the court refused to hold the publication liable for printing an article on the practice on autoerotic asphyxiation that prompted a minor to accidently hang himself in an attempt to follow the magazine's instructions. The plaintiff in Herceg relied on an incitement theory against Hustler Magazine, a cause of action the court easily rejected. Measured against the backdrop of the facts of Brandenburg, the Herceg court could not, in all good conscience, hold a pornographic magazine posed a threat of imminent harm. Still, mass media remains a favorite scapegoat for the inspiration of a commission of a crime, especially when the person emulating the film or magazine is young, attractive, and white. Within days of the December 1997 shooting, there have been reports from Paducah, Kentucky that residents place substantial blame for a teenager opening fire on a prayer meeting on the motion picture, "The Basketball Diaries." In the film, there is a fantasy sequence where the character shoots a number of classmates with an automatic rifle. Continued in Part II -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet Continued from Part I Unable to convince the courts that pornography creates a threat of physical harm toward women, anti-pornography feminists have turned their attention to the discrimination arguments advanced as justification for allowing unfettered regulation of pornography. On this ground, the anti-pornography feminists will probably have more success. Already celebrated as a victory is the Canadian Supreme Court's decision, Butler v. The Queen, *1 S.C.R. 452 (1992)(Canadian)*. In Butler, the Court upheld the convictions of a video store owner on 250 counts of possessing, distributing, and selling obscene material--mainly, non-violent, hard-core pornography. The store owner argued the pornography was protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, Section 2(b)("Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"). In Canada, where fundamental freedoms are not necessarily fundamental nor protected as vigorously as they are in the United States, *see Section 33 of the Charter which allows the government, for *any* reason, to encroach upon fundamental freedoms*, the Court rejected the store owner's argument. Admitting pornography could not be scientifically or statistically proved as being a cause of violence, the Court reasoned pornography does contribute to negative attitudes toward women. These negative attitudes were sufficient enough reasons for the Court to hold the government was permitted to protect society from speech which is degrading to women. On this side of the border, feminists have successfully convinced courts to severely limit free speech in the workplace. Though Title VII, *42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e through e-17 (1994)*, does not explicitly create a workplace harassment cause of action, the Supreme Court has established one in Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, *477 U.S. 57 (1986)*. In Vinson, the Court held sexual harassment is a form of impermissible sex discrimination under Title VII of which employers have a duty to ensure their employees are free. Seven years later, in Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., *510 U.S. 17 (1993)*, the Court ruled conduct which contributes to a "hostile or abusive work environment" constitutes a form of sexual harassment akin to quid pro quo demands for sexual favors. Under the "hostile or abusive work environment" doctrine, *any* form of speech which offends the sensibilities of a female co-worker is suspect. Under Harris, even protected speech, such as political, religious, art, or social commentary, can be actionable if it is (a) severe or pervasive enough to (b) create a hostile or abusive work environment (c) based on sex (d) for the plaintiff and for the reasonable person. Concerning the last element, at least one federal circuit--the Ninth, I believe--operates under the assumption "the reasonable person" must be a woman. Some federal courts have extended the "hostile work environment" doctrine to the academic setting. Just as employers are liable for incidents of sexual harassment that occur, so too are high schools, colleges, and universities. *See, e.g., Doe v. Petaluma City Sch. Dist., 830 F. Supp. 1560, 1573-75 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Patricia H. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F. Supp. 1288, 1290-93 (N.D. Cal. 1993)*. Unfortunately, Butler and Harris upset a tradition in the Anglo- American common law that has existed for centuries. Typically, in both criminal law and tort law, in order to find a person culpable for a wrongful act, two elements must be present: a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act (actus rea). For example, if a person thinks about pushing Patricia Ireland off of a bridge and writes her thoughts in her diary, no crime or tort has been committed. A guilty mind is present, but no guilty act has occurred. If a person, having an epileptic seizure, accidentally bumps a woman on a bus, no crime or tort has been committed. A guilty act has occurred, but no guilty mind is present. Although there are some torts and crimes for which a guilty mind is not a requirement for liability, these are few in number. However, there are no torts or crimes for which a person can be held liable with a guilty act. The discrimination argument against pornography is predicated on the inference that sexually-explicit speech fosters negative attitudes toward women which *might* lead to violence. Therefore, in order to prevent future physical harm and diminish the effects of a sexist society, all readers of pornography are presumed to be potential rapists, sexual harassers, and, well, men. Although no one can know which readers will become criminals, the fact that some will justifies overturning the First Amendment guarantees to pornography upheld in Miller, Stanley, Reidel, and countless federal appellate court decisions. The end result is that millions of law-abiding pornography readers are punished not for their actions, but for their thoughts. A key question remains: it is enough that discrimination breeds sexism in the workplace and classroom or violence on America's streets that the right to free speech should be curtailed in an unprecedented fashion? Anti-pornography advocates would answer in the affirmative. However, if stopping violence and discrimination is central to the feminist argument that pornographic speech should be limited, should other speech that contributes to violence and discrimination be similarly curbed? If the courts grant the anti-pornography feminists their wish and permit the curtailment of the right to purchase, distribute, and publish pornography based on its potential to harm and create a discriminatory environment, should the courts extend this privilege to encroach upon fundamental freedoms to other groups who are similarly persecuted? Consider the following: According to the 1995 Sentencing Report, the gunshot mortality of young black men in the United States is 112 out of 100,000. That's 112 out of 100,000 who are shot and *killed*. This incidence rate is *two* powers of ten higher than that of white women and more than one power of ten higher than that of white men and black women. It's perhaps the most depressing statistic no one ever talks about. Even for black men who survive their twenties, they are still seven times more likely to be murdered than any other race or sex. According to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, black men have a life expectancy of 62 years; white women have a life expectancy of almost 79 years. According to the United Nations, the life expectancy for men in Honduras is 64 years; in Iraq, 66 years; in North Korea, 67 years; in Poland, 69 years; in Singapore and the United States, 72 years. A Duke University study found the life expectancy of black men is not increased by way of a better income or neighborhood: either the bullet in a drive-by shooting gets you or a heart attack from the stress of being the only black man in the law firm does you in. Regardless, black men pay into a Social Security system from which most will probably never see a dime. White women, conversely, will collect for an average of 14 years. Also, according to the Centers for Disease Control, less than one-tenth of one percent of white women in the United States are HIV+. Almost three percent of black men are similarly infected. However, according to a May 1996 Wall Street Journal article, the loin's share of federal money that goes to preventative AIDS programs is for the benefit of college-aged, white, heterosexual women. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 77 percent of America's drug users are white. However, according to the 1990 FBI Uniform Crime Report, blacks represented 40.7% of drug-related arrests. Apparently, whites have the resources to beat the rap because, according to the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives and the Sentencing Report, blacks represent nearly 85% of all drug-related convictions. The Washington Post reported in December 1997, in the predominately white, upper class Washington, D.C. suburb that is Fairfax, Virginia, less than half of the 560 teenagers arrested of drug offenses in 1996 were actually charged. Apparently, those 560 who were caught must have been incredibly blatant about their drug use: over 12,000 Fairfax County juveniles-- virtually all white--were treated for their addiction, half in county-paid programs and half in privately-funded facilities. This figure belies the fact that less than one percent of Fairfax's young drug offenders ever see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a jailcell. And, yet, America still begrudges Orenthal James Simpson, the first black man in the history of the Republic to get a fair trial in the face of overwhelming white opposition. According to the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, on any given day, 42 percent of black men between the ages of 18 and 35 in the District of Columbia are somewhere embroiled in the criminal justice system: in prison, on probation, on parole, on bond awaiting trial, or being sought for arrest. In Baltimore, the figure swells to 56 percent. According to the National Center of Institutions and Alternatives and the Sentencing Report, black men receive longer sentences than whites or women who commit similar crimes. Additionally, white perpetrators of crimes against blacks receive more lenient sentences than blacks perpetrators of crimes against whites. In a 1987 study prepared for an appeal to the Supreme Court, it was found murderers of whites received a death sentence *ten* times more frequently than murderers of blacks. Also, not a single white woman has been executed in the United States in the past thirteen years. During that same timeframe, the State of Illinois alone has executed nine black men and released eight black men initially sentenced to death but were later discovered to be completely innocent of all charges. Further, black men do not receive the outpouring of sympathy white women accused of crimes have bestowed upon them. All of the following have been described as "victims" by the media and/or feminist organizations and embraced as casualties of the patriarchy: Louise Woodward, Melissa Drexler, Amy Grossburg, Hedda Nessbaum, Lorena Bobbitt (back in the news for assaulting her mother), Jean Harris, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, Sara Jane Moore, Mary Kay LeTourneau (the fifth-grade teacher who raped her young male student, served a jail sentence of six months, and is now demanding custody of the child resulting from the rape; no word of protest yet from NOW about the light sentence), Amy Fisher, Susan Smith, Kelly Flinn, Gina Grant, Heidi Fleiss, Sidney Biddle Barrows, Pamela Smart, Sherry Rowlands, Leona Helmsley. "Battered women's syndrome" is a valid defense for women accused of unreasonably reacting to years of abuse. Conversely, "black rage" has been discredited as a valid defense for blacks accused of unreasonably reacting to years of abuse. Colin Ferguson's "black rage" defense failed miserably during his trial for his vicious shooting on the Long Island Rail Road. Too bad he's not from Paducah, Kentucky, white, and chose to open fire on a prayer meeting: there, everyone is pleading for "forgiveness" for the gunman. Additionally, that black men are vastly more likely to be victims of police brutality is without question. Despite any protestations to the contrary, an attack by a police officer is more invidious than an attack by a private citizen. A police officer acts under the color of state authority; his actions are that of the government which was created to safeguard our rights. If you can't rely upon the state to protect you, then to whom will you turn? For blacks in the New York Metropolitan Area, this question is not entirely hypothetical. The roll call of dead and brutalized black men in the City of the New York at the hands of the white armed protectors of your rights and freedoms gives ample cause for such fear: Michael Stewart, Arthur Miller, Peter Funches, Jay Parker, Stephen Kelly, Kevin Thorpe, Phillip Pannell, William Whitfield, and Abner Louima. Conversely, the concepts of "white women" and "police brutality" are two that rarely meet--except when the former justify the latter as being necessary for their own personal safety. Even black members of the New York's finest are not safe from their white counterparts. According to a 1997 CBS News report, in the past fifty years, over forty black undercover cops have been shot by white officers. In that same time period, not a single white undercover cop has been shot by a black officer. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, only one-third of all black college graduates are men. Similarly, only one-third of black law students, medical students, business school students, and Ph.d candidates are male. At the top schools, where complaints about affirmative action flow like the Mississippi, the numbers indicate the allegations of an endless cavalcade of unqualified black men taking away hundreds of seats from qualified whites is utterly without merit: in 1990, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, black male enrollment at Amherst College was 2.0% of the entire student body; at Harvard, 1.6%; at Yale, 1.9%; Reed, 0.4%; Columbia, 1.5%; Dartmouth, 1.6%, Chicago, 1.3%; Bates, 0.8%; and Stanford, 1.9%. Considering that, according to the U.S. News and World Report in 1993, only *one* percent of all American college students are black, these numbers are, comparatively speaking, through the roof. Conversely, Jewish students, who were previously discriminated against by many top schools, now represent 27 percent of Ivy Leaguers according to a 1993 survey printed in the U.S. News and World Report (only 25 percent are Protestant). Such a figure serves as evidence that, when given a fair playing field, a previously oppressed class can achieve at the highest level. Finally, for those blacks who do graduate, a job may not be waiting. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, black college graduates are unemployed at a rate of 2.24 times than whites with a college degree. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 5,915,000 of the approximately 15 million black males in the United States were employed in 1990. Of those lucky enough to find jobs, most didn't need to learn how to tie a Windsor knot for the occasion. Only 30.4% of black men have white collar jobs, compared to 47.2% of white men, 57.7% of black women, and 72.5% of white women. The greatest strides in the workplace were made by white women. In 1960, only 43.4% of all adult white women were employed. By 1990, 70.0% were. For black men, the numbers have dropped, from 87.3% in 1960 (when only 12.1% had white collar jobs) to 73.8% in 1990. As only one-third of professional degrees earned by blacks go to men, only 1.0% of all doctors in the United States are black men, 1.1% of lawyers, and 1.5% of college instructors. Of blacks in corporate professional positions, 26.2% are men; of blacks in technical jobs, only 27.4% are men. All this during two decades when affirmative action was allegedly giving black men preferential treatment. And for those black men who do find jobs, their paychecks don't exactly weigh them down on the way to the bank. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, black men earn 73.1 cents for every dollar made by white men, down from 75.1 cents just ten years prior. However, according to the same source, white women earn 84 cents and black women earn 79 cents. Even black male attorneys feel the racial penny pinch: according to the Census Bureau, black male lawyers earn 79 cents for every dollar made by white men; white women earn a full dollar; black women earn 90 cents. Education doesn't necessarily create parity. According to the Census Bureau, black males who complete one to three years of college earn 82.5 cents for every dollar made by a white male similarly educated. However, black males who hold graduate degrees (Ph.d, J.D., M.D., M.B.A., M.A.) earn only 77.1 cents for every dollar made by a white male similarly educated. Given this dizzying array of statistical data, it cannot be disputed by any rational-thinking human being that black men do not suffer from severe discrimination and animosity in the United States. Based on this evidence, the plight of black men far outweighs the harmful effects of a sexist society suffered by the wealthy, white women who dominate the feminist movement. In light of the racism and hostility that black men must face in the American society each and every day, should black men be able to demand that rights of whites and women be restricted in order to diminish this discriminatory atmosphere that permeates the workplace, classroom, and bedroom? After all, if feminists can call for the outright elimination of pornography based on potential violence from a tiny number of readers and the pervasiveness of negative attitudes toward women, why can't black men demand the curtailment of rights for whites and women based on the reality of death, poverty, unemployment, and hatred they must endure? For example, should the rhetoric of feminists be actionable as it contributes to a hostile environment for black men? Consider the teachings of Susan Brownmiller: rape is "a conscious process of intimidation by which *all* men keep *all* women in a state of fear." *Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)*. While some feminists consider this a valid argument, I could argue it is hateful toward black male college students to be forced to listen to a white women describe them as potential rapists. It harkens one back to the not-too-distant- past when white women would falsely accuse black men of rape. Without the benefit of a trial and jury--much too troublesome for racist Southern white men and women--these falsely accused black men were lynched. Thousands of such lynchings occurred over an eighty year period, with white women delightfully participating in a practice that terrorized blacks. Just ask the locals in Rosewood, Florida about it the next time you visit Disney World. Even today, there are few more powerful accusations than a white woman pointing at a black man and repeating those fateful words, "He raped me." White women are certainly aware of this power they wield over black men: witness the false accusation of black Dallas Cowboys' Erik Williams and Michael Irvin. Americans were eager to believe Williams and Irvin committed the rape and had the audacity to video record the act, primarily because, as black professional athletes, it is easy to cast them as uncivilized, uncontrollable animals (when Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott, a woman touted by Time Magazine as being a shining example of feminism in the early 1990s, described her black players as "million dollar niggers," nary a complaint left the lips of prominent feminists). When the accusation proved false, it was no surprise to black men that feminists circled their wagons and defended the Caucasian woman--guess they didn't want to waste the money they spent on the rope. The harm of one lie, they argued, was minimal because it helped shine a spotlight on the problem of rape. Such an argument is further proof of feminists' willingness to sacrifice innocent black men to advance their cause. Perhaps, to paraphrase Brownmiller, the false accusation of rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which *all white women* keep *all black men* in a state of fear. Continued in Part II(b) -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet Continued from Part II(a) That Brownmiller's statement contributes to a belief among white women that black men are animals is without question. Although white women are more likely to be murdered or assaulted by their husband, boyfriend, or lesbian lover than any of the fifteen million black males in America, feminists and the media perpetuate the feeling that the "boogie man" is still the black man hiding in the bushes. This is why Susan Smith's story about a black man kidnapping her children was immediately believed by white people. This is why Charles Stuart's story about a black man carjacking his car and shooting his pregnant wife was immediately believed by white people. This is why even white liberals were willing to endorse the civil rights violations of black men in order to find the alleged perpetuators. In short, society encourages whites to view blacks as uncivilized, drooling creatures who prey on white women. Brownmiller adds to this sentiment, dressing it up as feminist theory. Although some feminists would argue Brownmiller's teachings are political speech and should be protected, under rulings like Butler and Harris, why should this make a difference? Andrea Dworkin's writings are certainly political, but Canadian authorities have seized them at the border, citing them as hate speech under the Butler standard--and Butler is a decision feminists tout. Under Harris, political speech is not a defense to speech that a female plaintiff considers as contributing to a hostile work environment. Therefore, given that political speech is not defense in either of these situations, why should it be a defense here? Why is it okay to perpetuate the American tradition of lynching black men from which white women not only benefitted but actively participated under the guise of calling it "political?" Why is it so easy for feminists to justify their racism as being political? For example, in the early 1990s, the Milwaukee school system, cognizant to the severe disadvantages black males face, decided to open an all-black male public school. The school would focus on those specific problems that plague black boys, remedy them, and then mainstream the boys into the regular schools. Black parents hailed the program. White feminists opposed it, threatening to sue the school system. The school, they argued, was discriminatory to girls. Blacks parents, many of whom were single mothers, saw their daughters as getting along better than their sons and thought the school would help the boys match the success of the girls. Unfortunately, without the political or financial firepower the white feminist lobby had behind it, the black parents lost their case and black boys continue to flounder in the Milwaukee school system. And in the Philadelphia school system. And in the Chicago school system. And in the Houston school system. . . . However, in September 1996, just three months after the Supreme Court handed down United States v. Virginia, *517 U.S. ___ (1996)*, holding the state-supported Virginia Military Institute's all-male admissions policy was unconstitutional, the New York City Public School System opened an all-female middle school. The middle school emphasized math and the sciences, areas which girls traditionally do not fare as well as boys. Feminists praised the school, claiming it was necessary to segregate the girls from the boys in order to help the girls learn math and science in an environment without boys dominating their teachers' attention. They pointed to studies which concluded boys speak up more in class, shouting down the opinions of girls. This, they argued, held girls back. As such, the removal of boys from the classroom was necessary. The middle school, which continues to operate, straddles the border of East Harlem and Harlem, the same East Harlem and Harlem with thousands of black boys who do far worse in math and the sciences than either white or black girls. It sits in the same East Harlem and Harlem with thousands of black boys who graduate from high school at a far lower rate than either white or black girls. It sits in the same East Harlem and Harlem with thousands of black boys who, according to the American Counsel of Education, "are disproportionately at risk in American society" and "begin life in circumstances that diminish their chances of educational attainment." To many parents of black boys, to put a school in the middle of their neighborhood and exclude their sons for the benefit of a lot of Upper West Side white girls is a display of hatred toward black males of the highest magnitude. Feminists justify their support for the all-female middle school and all-gay high schools in New York City and Dallas as being necessary for girls and gay students in a society that is hostile toward them. Without such schools, these students' special needs are neglected. Their opposition to black male academies, they claim, is not racism, but political. Such schools, they argue, harms girls, especially black girls. Need I review the disadvantages of black men in America to prove that feminists are lying through their lily-white teeth? How could feminists justify all-girl and all-gay schools but oppose an all-black male school that would have catered to a student body that is far less likely to succeed in this society? Other than naked racism, there is no other reason. Feminists are, for the most part, wealthy white women who will never have a black son to guide through the racial landmines of life, hotspots that benefit them directly. They benefit from the legacy of slavery. They benefit from the legacy of lynchings. They benefit from the low enrollment of black men in high education. They benefit from the low number of black male professionals. They benefit from the high concentration of black men behind bars. They benefit from the short life expectancy of black men. They benefit from the willingness of white men to put them on a pedestal to the detriment of blacks. Why, then, should anyone expect the pearls-and-Perrier set to defend an all-black male school that would diminish the extent of these centuries-old benefits? The reasons they offer may be political in their mind, but they reflect a hatred many times more severe than that feminists claim is inherent in pornography. Taken to its logical extreme, all feminist writings and teachings can be actionable as hateful toward black men and contributory to a hostile society. Central to feminism is the belief that our society is predicated upon a patriarchal structure that undermines the autonomy of women. As such, feminist theory dictates the dismantling of any and all institutions that advance men at the expense of women. However, feminist theory ignores the fact that black men suffer more than any other group in our society. Additionally, feminist theory ignores the fact that women of privilege--white women--are partly to blame for the disadvantage black men must endure. Race is more a determining factor of success in the United States than sex. To deny this simple truth not only subordinates the discrimination against black men to that of a more privileged class of people but refuses to recognize the sins that more privileged class has committed. It also justifies the opposition of any attempts to improve the lot of black men, the truth be damned. For example, Catherine MacKinnon's comparing slavery to pornography in a Boston University Law Review article is beyond revolting. Only a racist of the highest order would equate the deaths and enslavement of tens of millions of blacks to pornography. Then again, what else can one expect of a woman who used the term "house niggers" to describe women who enjoy their chosen profession as actresses in pornographic films? This was the language MacKinnon chose to use in a 1992 Playboy interview. Gee, I wonder if feminists would consider "house niggers" to be speech that contributes to a hostile atmosphere for black men. Probably not. Consider this from MacKinnon's 1987 book "Feminism Unmodified: Discourse on life and law": "The whole point of women's social relegation to inferiority as a gender is that for the most part these things aren't done to men. Men are not paid half of what women are paid for doing the same work on the basis of equal difference. Everything they touch does not turn valueless because they touched it. When they are hit, a person has been assaulted." MacKinnon's writings clearly ignore the status of black men in society. Black men *are* paid less than women. To deny that a crime against a white woman is not perceived as a greater wrong than a crime against a black man would border on delusional. She, either by ignorance or arrogance, refuses to admit that (1) black men are in far more dire straits than women; and (2) part of the reason for the poor status of black men in America is the racism of white women. She and the wealthy, white-dominated feminist movement add to a hostile environment toward black men by lumping them together with white men as oppressors of women. She ignores the effects of racism and sexism on black men for her personal gain. As demonstrated by their reaction to an all-black male school or the Million Man March, the hostility that MacKinnon and other feminists show toward any effort of black betterment is proof of the loathing of black men that is rampant in the feminist movement. Speech, however, is not the only area black men could argue harms them. Consider the statistics on gunshot mortality: would white feminists be willing to forfeit their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure to allow the police to make random searches of their home and person for guns? Why isn't it reasonable to suspend the Fourth Amendment to prevent 112 out of 100,000 young black men from being shot? If suspending the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments' right to read obscenity must be sacrificed to stop rape, why not suspend the Fourth Amendment to stop the deaths of black men? Consider that the economic advantage held by whites is at the root of many of the problems facing black men. Given this, would white feminists be willing to forfeit forty percent of their income to contribute to a slavery reparations fund? In 1986, the United States paid reparations to the decedents of Japanese-Americans interned in concentration campus during World War II, a practice defended by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, *323 U.S. 214 (1944)*. Germany was required to pay reparations to Israel following World War II. The United States sends more money in foreign aid to Israel than to all of sub-Sahara Africa *combined*. Given this history of throwing money at everyone else, why shouldn't blacks be given what Japanese-Americans and Israelis have been offered? Consider the employment plight of black men. Would white feminists be willing to forfeit their jobs and hand them over to black men? As black men are underrepresented in damn near every field that doesn't involve a taxicab or a uniform with their name sewn on, it is beyond dispute that hostility toward black men has precluded their advancement into and up the ladder in white-collar professions. Would white feminists be willing to exempt black men from the slew of sexual harassment prevention programs and workshops that have become popular in corporate America? If sexual harassment is about power, when and where do black men have any power outside of the National Basketball Association and National Football League? In fact, in the area of sexual harassment, the courts have been to subordinate the rights of black men to the advantage of white women. Within the past two years, there have been two cases of all black men being removed from companies at the request of white women. In one case, a white woman claimed she suffered from a phobia of black men. Acting under the Americans with Disabilities Act, she demanded her employer fire all the black men in her company in order to comply with the federal legislation. In another case, a white women claimed the *presence* of black men in the workplace constituted a hostile work environment. She said she didn't care much for the "black culture" or the way she believed black men treated black women, claiming they were both sexist. Although she admitted neither black man in the company never uttered a word in her direction, she argued their presence made her uncomfortable. In both cases, the black men fought their termination in court--and lost. Even Title IX, *20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-86 (1972)*, could be suspect. Last year, the National Women's Law Center filed a complaint with the appropriate federal agencies alleging that thirty-nine named universities were in violation of Title IX. The violations were due to the institutions' disparate expenditures in the athletics department: put simply, more money was spent on men's sports than women's sports. The primary source of the problem for all thirty-nine schools was in their football programs, the most prestigious and expensive of college sports. Given the bloated budgets, rosters double or triple that of NFL squads, exclusive practice facilities, stadiums, and auxiliary support programs for football players--perks ranging from athletic dorms to private tutors- -without football, all thirty-nine schools would easily be in compliance with Title IX. However, four of the thirty-nine schools are historically-black institutions, a disproportionate percentage compared to the national share. With student bodies only one-third male, the presence of a football program make it impossible for these schools to be in compliance with Title IX. However, if these schools were to drop football, perhaps one hundred black men at each school would lose scholarship money without which they could not attend college. Without these men on campus, the percentage of black men at these schools will drop to 25%-30%, a possibility that probably doesn't upset the National Women's Law Center. As every historically-black college with a football program is in violation of Title IX, thousands of black men--already underrepresented on college campuses--could be denied a college education. The end result would be even fewer black men in law firms, hospitals, and boardrooms. That black men in specific and the black community in general could be irreparably harmed by the National Women's Law Center suit is something that feminists either have not considered (because black people rarely see the light of day in their pristine little world) or *have* considered and don't give a damn. The bottom line is this: if feminists want to restrict the rights of Americans to indulge in pornography based on the discriminatory effects it has on society, then they should be willing to silence MacKinnon, Rich, Dworkin, Brownmiller, and others of their ilk whose speech contributes to a harmful atmosphere for black men. There is no doubt some feminist rhetoric adds to a long and shameful American tradition of casting black men as rapists, as animals, as the most base of creatures. Be it lynchings or longer prison sentences or police brutality or the unwillingness to hire a black man in an office setting teeming with white women, some feminist rhetoric contributes or has contributed to all of these. There is no doubt. If feminists are unwilling to extend this privilege to black men--and I don't think for a minute that they are--one must conclude they are dishonest, disingenuous, hypocritical, and racist in their position. How can they argue their need to be free from pornography is greater than the need of black men to be free from discourse, institutions, and practices that perpetuates their status as being inferior? How can they argue they sexism imparts a greater negative effect than racism? Black men make less money than feminists. Black men die by the bullet more often than feminists. Black men are more likely to be victims of crime than feminists. Black men are more likely to receive stiffer jail sentences than feminists committing the same crimes. Black men are more underrepresented in the workplace, classroom, judiciary, and legislature than feminists. Black men die from AIDS more often than feminists. Black men are more likely to be homeless, unemployed, and poor than feminists. The fact is clear: the plight of women in America doesn't even come close to the devastation that has visited black men, a near-genocide from which white feminists have not only reaped profit but helped sustain. In summary, what feminists want to do is silence opponents through state action *only* because they don't particularly like what their opponents have to say. If anti-pornography feminists truly believe First Amendment rights should be dependent upon the potential of discrimination and physical harm that speech may bring, then they must be willing to silence those feminists whose words contribute to a hostile environment for black men. Their perception of their words is of no consequence just as they argue the intentions of pornographers is of no consequence. All that matters, if one follows the logic of their argument, is that black men are discriminated against (yes), are victims of violent and life-threatening crimes (yes), and feminist speech contributes to the atmosphere of hostility black men must endure (yes). Further, speech is not the only individual liberty subject to abridgement or outright elimination under the standard anti-pornography feminists want imposed. If the exercise of any right--be it religion or abortion or a fair trial jury or to be free of unreasonable search and seizure--poses even the most remote possibility of physical harm and/or contributes to a discriminatory atmosphere for any group, under this standard, the right must be curtailed. Whether the exercise of the offensive right is intended to be harmful is no consequence. If a potential for harm exists, it will be irrebutably presumed a harmful intent is present. As such, the right will be deemed expandable and the actor guilty. If this is the vision for the world feminists have--where thoughts are criminal or tortious absent any overt act--then God help us. Respectfully submitted, S.A. Hanna -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet