Alexandria, Virginia is probing interstate transportation of obscene materials, and has subpoenaed the corporate records of two New York porn distributors, one distributor in Los Angeles, and some local corporations. These businesses handle S/M material along with other types of porn. The subpoenas were handed out after the FBI raided Washington, D.C. area video rental stores and confiscated tapes and âmarital aids.â
This stepped up activity against sadomasochists and S/M imagery by the feds and local vice squads is a direct response to the Meese Commissionâs report on pornography, which claims (in language provided by the feminist anti-porn movement) that âviolent pornographyâ (i.e., S/M material) is itself violence against women and fosters it in the rest of society. After the report was issued, Attorney General Edwin Meese committed the Justice Department to an intensified campaign against pornography, and called for federal prosecutors to go after âchild pornography, sadomasochistic scenes, rape scenes, depiction of bestiality or excretory functions and violent and degrading images of explicit sexual conduct, and other similar hardcore material.â He specifically exempted âsoft-core pornographyâ from this vendetta. (He also vowed, âThere will be no censorship while I am attorney general.â)
Well, this is one woman who doesnât feel that these law enforcement officials are making my life safer. It may seem odd for me to include information about specific cases in a book introduction since it will quickly become dated. But this anti-S/M moral panic is not being covered in a systematic, comprehensive way in the gay press or other progressive publications. Gayle Rubin has given a series of lectures about these disturbing events at several S/M and leather conferences, but it appears that nobody outside of the sexual minority that is under attack knows what is going onâor cares. The same anti-censorship forces that mustered to protest the dangerous biases of the Meese Commission have not called any press conferences, written any articles, or issued any public statements to denounce this witch-hunt.
It would please me to be wrong about this, but I get the impression that most anti-censorship feminists are just relieved that itâs âonlyâ S/M material, which they never approved of anyway, which is being threatened. When they attacked the Meese Commission or criticized obscenity legislation authored by anti-porn activists, these women were repeatedly characterized by their opponents as sadomasochists, supporters of child abuse, advocates of rape, pimps, fascists, etc. They resented being associated with what they think of as the sexual lunatic fringe. I donât think many of them will have the guts to risk getting smeared again by trying to arouse some public indignation over gross violations of S/M peopleâs First Amendment rights and right to privacy. But somebody needs to say that this is censorship, that it is not okay, that we cannot afford to ignore it. It seems that the sex debate in the womenâs movement is right back where it startedâthe only people who dare criticize anti-porn crusades are perverts, because we are the ones most at risk and we are the ones with nothing to lose. Meanwhile, itâs business as usual back in Womenâs Studies and the ACLU.
The written wordâthus farâreceives protection under the First Amendment in this country, even if the words are about âviolentâ sex. But in the rest of the English language marketâEngland, Canada, Australia, New Zealandâno such protection applies. It may be very difficult for a citizen of any Commonwealth country to buy a copy of this book. And we should remember that censorship is not always a matter of state intervention. It can be a matter of which books are ordered by a bookstore, in what quantities, and how they are displayed; which books are
This stepped up activity against sadomasochists and S/M imagery by the feds and local vice squads is a direct response to the Meese Commissionâs report on pornography, which claims (in language provided by the feminist anti-porn movement) that âviolent pornographyâ (i.e., S/M material) is itself violence against women and fosters it in the rest of society. After the report was issued, Attorney General Edwin Meese committed the Justice Department to an intensified campaign against pornography, and called for federal prosecutors to go after âchild pornography, sadomasochistic scenes, rape scenes, depiction of bestiality or excretory functions and violent and degrading images of explicit sexual conduct, and other similar hardcore material.â He specifically exempted âsoft-core pornographyâ from this vendetta. (He also vowed, âThere will be no censorship while I am attorney general.â)
Well, this is one woman who doesnât feel that these law enforcement officials are making my life safer. It may seem odd for me to include information about specific cases in a book introduction since it will quickly become dated. But this anti-S/M moral panic is not being covered in a systematic, comprehensive way in the gay press or other progressive publications. Gayle Rubin has given a series of lectures about these disturbing events at several S/M and leather conferences, but it appears that nobody outside of the sexual minority that is under attack knows what is going onâor cares. The same anti-censorship forces that mustered to protest the dangerous biases of the Meese Commission have not called any press conferences, written any articles, or issued any public statements to denounce this witch-hunt.
It would please me to be wrong about this, but I get the impression that most anti-censorship feminists are just relieved that itâs âonlyâ S/M material, which they never approved of anyway, which is being threatened. When they attacked the Meese Commission or criticized obscenity legislation authored by anti-porn activists, these women were repeatedly characterized by their opponents as sadomasochists, supporters of child abuse, advocates of rape, pimps, fascists, etc. They resented being associated with what they think of as the sexual lunatic fringe. I donât think many of them will have the guts to risk getting smeared again by trying to arouse some public indignation over gross violations of S/M peopleâs First Amendment rights and right to privacy. But somebody needs to say that this is censorship, that it is not okay, that we cannot afford to ignore it. It seems that the sex debate in the womenâs movement is right back where it startedâthe only people who dare criticize anti-porn crusades are perverts, because we are the ones most at risk and we are the ones with nothing to lose. Meanwhile, itâs business as usual back in Womenâs Studies and the ACLU.
The written wordâthus farâreceives protection under the First Amendment in this country, even if the words are about âviolentâ sex. But in the rest of the English language marketâEngland, Canada, Australia, New Zealandâno such protection applies. It may be very difficult for a citizen of any Commonwealth country to buy a copy of this book. And we should remember that censorship is not always a matter of state intervention. It can be a matter of which books are ordered by a bookstore, in what quantities, and how they are displayed; which books are
Similar Books
