Page 371 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At the other end of the curve, at the opposite extreme, is prohibition - when you deliberately make something illicit. The interesting part about this end of the curve is that it also increases usage. Whilst this is a simplistic version for policy makers, it certainly has some impact on this debate. If we restrict the usage of X- and R-rated videos so that they are generally unavailable but available to people who wish to use them, then we might be able to optimise the minimum usage. That is what I am attempting to do - optimise the minimum usage. I think that that is the only logical approach to this question.
I have had a letter from Dr Mugford, presenting his ideas on drugs, which he has also applied to X-rated movies and to pornography. After describing his particular paradox, he says:
On the other hand, it would seem to apply strongly to prostitution and pornography, even though the absolute parallel to prescribing certain drugs does not occur.
In the case of pornography, any harm arising from its sale will tend, as in Fig 1 -
That is the curve I have just described -
to arise at the extremes - of either a flourishing black market, which thus loses all control of content through proper surveillance or of very widespread availability on a "Mars Bars" basis.
That is the other end of the curve. He continues:
I think that the issue of what harm non-violent erotica does to viewers is still a vexed question. My own view is that depictions of human sexual acts that do not involve violence are certainly preferable to the gross violence that goes under the R label and far less likely to cause harm.
That is why my own thinking is along the lines of restricting both the R and X categories. He continues:
If we assume, however, that harm can result from pornographic videos, then the type of policy you have advocated clearly has the best chance of minimising such harm.
So if there is harm, if the sort of illogical arguments that are put forward by Mr Stevenson and others who like to misrepresent the debate are to apply, then this policy is the one that will minimise such harm. That is why I have presented it.
The debate so far has gone through a series of misrepresentations and those misrepresentations are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .