Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Kendall Clark wrote:
>
> >Surely the industry deeply exploits its workers. Ought leftists care about
> >that?
>
> I believe Susie B addressed that point too.
>
> Doug
>From other accouints I've read, Miles Jackson's narrowly defined thesis
is accurate -- but Doug's earlier point about how one draws the line
getween "aggressive violence" and mere sexual arousal points to _some_
of the dangers of translating that thesis into either law or political
activity. (I have nothing in principle against "suppressing speech"
through political action such as pickets, boycotts, ostracism, etc but
that raises its own problems.)
Focusing on Kendall's argument quoted above, however, and taking Kendall as roughly representative of "anti-porn" politics, I would say that not only the validity but the good faith of such politics and the simple intellectual honesty of its adherents is called into question. In the overall context of this debate his ". . .Ought leftists care about that?" is as much a simple lie as anything I've ever seen on the editorial page of the WSJ. This very thread has shown that _the_ leftist position is that, yes, leftists should care about that --AND FOR THAT VERY REASON SHOULD NOT CLUTTER THAT ESSENTIAL POINT BY BRINGING IN THE SORT OF NONSENSE ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY THAT KENDALL IS peddling. Yoshie said it. Susie said it. I've read it over and over again by "pro-portn" leftists for 20 years or so.
In the face of that sort of deliberate slander, argument becomes pointless.
Carrol