Porn measure violates rightsTo the Editor:
Cambridge wants to control our speech and actions through the pornography bill that, if passed will ironically be amended to the Human Rights Ordinance.
This bill will violate our freedom of speech. The bill defines pornography as "graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following...." There is a long list that follows. This bill would, among other things, outlaw for writing and even the telling of many dirty jokes.
The amendment is so ridiculous that it even invades our privacy. One of the parts of the definition of pornography is,"(viii) women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals." Among other things this clause describes sex. If someone blatantly proposes sexual relations with someone else, that would be pornography --"graphic sexual explicit subordination...by words." A casual comment, in privacy, to a female friend about certain body parts would be pornography if this amendment is passed.
This bill is a step towards a police state. The bill does not protect you even in your own home. Unlike almost all other laws intent is not a requirement (sec. 18 e.). If this bill is passed, and challenged, there is a good chance that it will be struck down as unconstitutional. We should not have to let a bill like this get that far.
The only reconciliation that I see in the bill is that a police officer photographing or taping pornographic acts as evidence is himself producing pornography and could therefore be charged as well.
Adam Dershowitz '89->