Chris, FWIW, I don't reply to your messages because they are too long.  Too 
wordy.  I don't have time to parse all of that.  Sorry.

A short time, in the studies I've seen, is less than 90 minutes.  Yes, 
someone driven temporarily mad by the sight of people fucking (and some of 
the studies I've seen have not been specifically on violent porn, but on porn 
in general) could, theoretically, run out, grab a passerby and go at it.  
I've never heard of such a case.  Cases where someone who was already 
predisposed to such actions using, among other things, porn to incite 
themselves, yes, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not merely quoting the FBI about the non-existence of snuff films.  
*Every* discussion I've seen eventually comes to the conclusion that they 
don't exist, no matter how hard they tried to find them.  And sometimes, if 
something cannot be found, it is because it doesn't exist.  As for the movie 
in Times Square, such explicit evidence of murder would have made all the 
papers, and the various police would have been more than a tad interested in 
same.  I know of no location where murder is legal.  Even in South America, a 
rather Catholic area.  (The "Made in South America, where life is cheap" line 
is rather breathtakingly racist, really.  My father says the same thing about 
Asians.)  The urban myth of snuff films has been circulating for at least 20 
years.  If it was real, someone would have turned them in by now.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see a whole lot of difference in the rhetoric 
of the anti-sex and anti-porn so-called feminists.  Most of the anti-porn 
feminists I've read *do* object to nondegrading images.  The claim seems to 
be that any sexual image of a woman objectifies her, and therefore degrades 
her.  

If you can definitively define the difference between erotica and porn, I'd 
love to hear it.  Those that I have heard usually boil down to what *I* like 
is erotica, that stuff s/he likes is porn.  One of my favorite examples is 
Preston's Flesh and the Word, widely hailed as a masterpiece of gay male 
erotica.  Problem is, most of the stories in it were originally published in 
magazines such as Drummer that almost no one defines as anything but 
pornography.  Preston's take was that erotica is hardcover, porn is 
paperback.  Which works about as well as any other definition I've heard.

The surveys that included such things as being whistled at as sexual 
harrassment (rape was overstating my case) are usually touted by TBTN.  And 
speakers at TBTN marches frequently define the harrassment as a form of rape.

The MacDworkinite ordinance may have been written with the best of 
intentions.  The problem, and my point, is that that isn't how it is being 
used.  Look at the types of people who push this idea, and ask yourself if 
Falwell et al. are *really* in favor of it for "feminist" reasons, and not 
just so they can ban porn.

The coercion into pornography clause gets really problematic when you read 
their other writings that state that any woman who agrees to be in porn has 
been misled, and didn't really give consent.

Then talk to Nina Hartley and the Pink Ladies about working in porn.

As for the "defaming a person by using their image" clause, well.  It does 
run counter to the idea that you can parody public figures, doesn't it?

I can't remember where I encountered the study, but it was a study of the 
correlation between the availability and domestic spousal abuse.  The 
researchers were rather horrified to find that in areas where porn was more 
widely available, there was less spousal abuse.

Of course the ACLU uses porn to raise money.  So does Dworkin et al.  Sex 
sells.  But I wouldn't accuse Dworkin et al. of being in it for the money 
they get from porn.  Why is it different when the ACLU does it?  The ACLU 
also defended the KKK--did they get money from them, or was the hate mail 
they got payment enough?  

And the churches funded a lot of anti-porn propaganda.  This is the nature of 
propaganda--if you have money, you can usually get your message out.  It says 
nothing about the truth or falsity of your message.

I've read Chomsky, thanks.  Have you read Strossen, or do you consider the 
ACLU so tainted it isn't worth bothering?  Have you read Califia?  Or, to 
take it out of the modern sphere, John Stuart Mills?

Short form is that I've worked on the fringes of porn since 1988.  The *only* 
harrassment I've seen or gotten has been either from anti-porn self-described 
feminists or the post office.  (I was to be a witness for Adam & Eve at one 
point, and during the opening discussions with the post office people, I said 
I also rejected movies I found misogynistic.  The postal inspector honestly 
did not know what the word meant.)

The major earlier "protect women from this horrible stuff" would have been 
Comstock, who spent a not inconsiderable amount of time putting Margaret 
Sanger in jail for teaching about birth control.  Where is the difference 
between that and using the CDA to block access to web sites on sexual health?