Censorship absolutism: An unraised question??

[PETER BROMBERG]

Note: this began as a response to Christopher Jackson's excellent
posting.

Christopher,

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to Mr.
Burt in the manner that you did.  You said everything that needed
to be said, and said it so well.  I have been following this thread
closely and it's almost propelled me out of my lurker mode.  I get
frustrated too when I see librarians advocating restrictions to
information access rather than promoting access and explaining
why this is A GOOD THING.

One point that I've haven't seen raised anywhere yet (not the
papers, the net--not anywhere as far as I can tell) is that no one is
actually questioning that "pornography" (whatever that is) is 
inhertly harmful or damaging to our children.  I know I'm on the far
end of the continuum here, but I don't think seeing pictures
people naked or engaged in sexual acts is an inherently harmful
thing.  I think that children are going to be naturally curious about
it (as they are about EVERYTHING), and that that natural
curiousity is increased tenfold towards anything that is put out of
their reach and labeled as taboo.   

When I was seven or eight years old I found a bunch of "dirty"
magazines in the local woods.  The sight of naked people doing
things to each other was  interesting to me but not all that
charged.  It *was* taboo enough that I hid them when I got home
(the idea that nudity is bad is an unquestioned societal value that
you just *can't* avoid internalizing  Mom found them, asked why
I was interested, asked if I had any questions--hey, I had NO idea
what these people were doing.  I was a little embarrassed about
being caught with the pictures and that was that.  I haven't grown
up to be a sexual predator,  I am appropriately ashamed of my
nakedness, and I usually say please and thank you, so seeing that
porn must not have warped me too badly.  I can say this though: 
If the parental reaction had been one of anger or punishment or
disgust, THEN I would have built up a big charge around the
event.  THEN I probably would have wanted to see more and
more.  THEN I would have developed an unhealthy, "sex is dirty"
attitude.  

Ultimately, I believe that our attitude toward sex and nudity is
what is harmful and damaging, not the sex and nudity itself.   I'm
reminded of Lenny Bruce's point that he could take his child to a
movie and watch people get shot, stabbed, burned, etc. but
couldn't take his child to a movie in which two people took off
their clothes and made love (or sex, choose your euphamism...).  It
might also have been LB that pointed out that a naked body could
not appear on Television (at the time) unless it was on the news
and it had been MUTILATED.   (I apologize if your reading this
post over coffee and toast)

So let's not let this idea that seeing dirty pictures leads to BAD
THINGS go by without question.  I for one do NOT accept it as a
given.  

OK, sorry I went on so long.  Just wanted to toss my coins into
the fountain.  


Peter Bromberg, Librarian
Garcia Consulting, Inc.
EPA Region 2 Library
290 Broadway, 16th FloorNew York, NY 00007
212-637-3505
212-637-3086 (fax)
bromberg.peter at epamail.epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/Region2/library

Opinions expressed are my own and do 
not reflect those of my employer, my friends or relatives,
the guy I sat next to on the train this morning or
anybody else (as far as I know).