Violence and Pornography

Re “No Socially Redeeming Value,” by Donna Rice Hughes and John D. McMickle, Commentary, Jan. 29:

I am so sick and tired of puritan ethics. It would be nice if all we had to do to stop rape was ban pornography. Pornography in this commentary is being used as a scapegoat.

We should allow legal forms of pornography for two reasons. First, it is the necessary price we pay so that we can allow controversial works that do have socially redeeming value. If we do not allow films that are pornographic, then critics will use these same arguments to ban films that do have redeeming social value. This is what was done with James Joyce’s “Ulysses” and the movie “Last Tango in Paris.”

Second, we must not play the ostrich sticking our heads in the dirt. Instead of saying ban all pornography (and by the way, holding directors financially responsible for any rapist who views their material is the same thing as banning pornography--it would ban pornography economically), we should say, why do so many people watch pornography? Is it only men who are watching it? How many of these people are couples? Is it possible that pornography is a legitimate part of a person’s right to privacy?

I am not saying that pornography is good. I am saying that the issues involved are more complicated than Hughes and McMickle would have us believe. Believe me, I wish there was an easy way to stop rape and empower all people (women and men) to feel the dignity that they deserve.

LARRY FREEMAN

Los Angeles

*

Hughes and McMickle ask if pornography brings any benefit to society, and conclude that it does not. I feel, however, that they did not ask the right question. The question we need to be asking is, “If we agree that pornography is evil and dangerous, is it more evil and more dangerous than the Big Brother government we would need to stamp it out?” I feel it is not, and therefore must be tolerated for the sake of freedom.

TOM DIGBY

Los Angeles

*

In their attack on pornography, Hughes and McMickle get it backward. To avoid censorship, they demand that it be proven that pornography is “constructive” and serves a “beneficial purpose.” Of course, they never define these hopelessly subjective and vague standards.

Under the American system, all speech is presumptively protected. It is the government that bears the heavy burden of justifying suppression.

As far as holding pornographers “accountable” for the “personal and social pain” their books and movies supposedly cause, shall we apply that rule to everyone? Has Hughes been held accountable for the “personal” pain she caused Mrs. Gary Hart or the “social” pain she caused the rest of us by helping end the career of a talented presidential candidate? Our society suffers far more harm from self-righteous do-gooders with questionable personal ethics than from sexually explicit words and pictures.

STEPHEN F. ROHDE

Los Angeles