ideals of pornography and how many writers are discussing the new bill about to be passed by the Senate to allow for civil prosecution of those who publish said material, and from those who have been abused through what they believe is a result of pornography. Discussing the views of Irving as he places his ideals to the front and argues against such bills in the name of freedom.
Bibliography cites sources
Pornography and censorship: how to blame the third person from a man's crimes
Pornography has been around for centuries, ever since man and woman has been able to fully enjoy the opposite and indeed in many ways the same sex, yet this form of pornography has through out the centuries been given different names, for instance art and literature (Stevenson 2001 and Bailey 2000).
Pornography enters man's most intimate regions and fantasies, as they bring forth a plethora of repressed and suppressed images and thoughts releasing a multitude of passionate feelings (Stevenson 2001).
Those who are opposed to pornography have a general distrust of human nature and the way of free expressionism, many argue that sex urges should be tethered and in many cases locked away used only for the procreation of the race, yet many pro-pornographers argue that "penises yearn to be free" (Stevenson 2001).
Danish criminologist Berl Kutchinsky has traced early pornography as far back as to 1650, here three pornographic classics are said to have appeared La Puttana Errante (The Wayward Prostitute), L'Ecole des Filles (Girls School), and Satya, these works have all been translated into all the major languages of the world, and later became the role model and templates for all subsequent pornographic books and films (Stevenson 2001).
The text was written by Irving in the exchange, it was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review; the aims of the paper are the condemnation of the laws against pornographic censorship, Irving in his thesis called upon simple ethical and logical ideals.
Irving is in fact looking at the new bill being discussed at committee level at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the pornography victims' compensation bill, this bill is passed will give those victims of sexual crimes the power to bring civil law actions against the publishers and distributors of pornographic material or rather material that is classed as is "obscene or constitutes child pornography."
However it must be proven that the type of material was "a substantial cause of the offense," and also whether those responsible for the distribution and publication should have "for-seen" that any material of this type would know that an "unreasonable risk of such a crime" would be created.
Arguably Irving is stating that if this bill or any of its like is passed then there will be a plethora of law-suits against pornographic material that people will argue has caused sexual abuse even if there is no full substantial credence.
However, Irving brings forth the argument that sexual offences such as rape and child molestation are older than any form of erotic literature or medium, Irving also brings forth the argument that a two-year President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970), which cost the tax paper $2 million, decided that "no reliable evidence… that exposure to explicit sexual material plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal sexual behavior." Moreover, the Meese Commission in 1986 came to the same conclusions and failed to find any hard link to pornography and sexual crimes.
Moreover, in 1957 a case of the supreme court Samuel Roth v. U.S. ruled that for material to be declared legally obscene it had to be "utterly without redeeming social importance." Under this new definition, the United States Supreme Court determined that the imported French film The Game of Love which had been closed in Chicago for displaying nudity, did not contain obscene images and therefore did not fall under the obscenity laws (Stevenson 2001).
The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Roth when they overturned subsequent cases on obscenity against the homosexual magazine One and the nudist magazine Sunshine & Health (Stevenson 2001 and Anonymous 2001).
Irving gives the new outline of who is bring this third bill, and asks why is that they have not learned from history of their previous committees he puts forward the fact that they are not happy to accept that human emotions are uncontrollable in some and therefore need to place the blame upon material of devious natures rather than admit that a person is wrong.
Irving also provides the persuasive argument that the new bill goes against the actual "spirit of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution" and therefore the instigators of this bill are seeking a dishonest approach to its passing through what Irving defines as "backdoor censorship," Irving also adds that as the laws of America differ from state to state there can be no set rule against obscenity, further more there can be no allowance for what its distributors will be informed is obscene until its publication, and therefore whether any action will be taken against them or not.
Irving has the view that the idea of the bill is to make those who are making the pornographic material turn to their inner conscience and stop the work in order to prevent any form of sex and violence together being thought of by readers and viewers.
Irving is easily arguing against the passing of this bill for in essence he as a writer is calling for freedom of mind and spirit from legal issues and censorship, he uses the analogy of schools banning certain material from the reading list.
It seems that this book gave open access to the body of a woman with detailed informative arguments and discussions on health and personal issues faced by women, it was believed at the time that this book was seen as anti-women and subversive.
In this instance we can see that Irving is putting forward the same arguments against the bill in favour or pornography, for although ideals on rape and molestation are wrong the overall causation to blame pornography is in essence a use of a scapegoat, pornography as Irving puts it is being blacklisted, however what happens when something is placed onto the illegal list.
The simple answer becomes that the problem does not go away rather it goes underground, there can be no check and balance on pornographic material that is in many ways harmless, rather the harder forms of obscene material that is never published but is passed through underground networks will become stronger and the laws will be made a fool of, coupled with the fact the as with the issue going underground and the harsher forms becoming stronger it may increase the amount of child molestations and rape as there is no legal outlet for frustration.
The bill that is being discussed does not just look at banning pornography it also looks at the censorship of material that on no account can be deemed obscene, the bill has nearly been passed.
If this bill does get passed the there will be little hope for writers and publishers of material that may have a pornographic or adult content in many ways Irving is giving the view that once it has been passed it will be in a way open season on these people, and that the antipornography bill will give people the strength to persecute where they believe harm to society is being done, this in a way brings us back to that days of the MacArthur witch-trials and those of Salem.
Irving uses the books of Nathaniel Hawthorne to illustrate his point and brings forth the Puritanical ideas of those living in Massachusetts at the time, how they persecuted and blacklisted…