Hmm.

A brief digression to move (hopefully) toward an interesting
point (or interesting question, maybe).

As the EPA considers regulations that it wants to promulgate,
it has to determine what level of protection that it wants to
provide to people (e.g. how much benzene-related illness in the
workplace is actually acceptable to allow), then craft the
standards that it enacts around that level of protection (often
(but not always) comparing the level of protection that they want 
to provide (and the degree to which the regulation can provide that
protection) against the damage it will do to the regulated party to
enact the protections.  (usually it's just some variation on cost-
benefit analysis, twisted around the goals Congress passed in the 
enabling statutes)

So, can a similar approach be applied to pornography?

I think that it's probably undeniable (though Margaret may hate
me for saying so) that pornography does contribute, to some degree,
to negative sexual behaviors (I'm starting with a pretty broad
here; "negative sexual behaviors" could cover pretty much the entire
continuum from whistling or leering up to rape, but probably shouldn't
include anything consensual and acceptable to all involved parties).

We can probably also agree that it isn't very clear to what extent
these "negative behaviors" are impacted by pornography.  It's pretty
clear that not every person that picks up Playboy goes out and rapes
a woman, but there are probably also a number of people who look at
Hustler or some of the more misogynist hard-core porn that are good folks
who try to do right by everybody and generally aren't hurting anybody.

But, I'm inclined to think (maybe somebody could back me up with some
facts here?) that most of the pornography-users who commit serious sexual
misconduct were likely pretty fucked-up anyway.  While porn may bend a
person's outlook toward the opposite (or same) sex to a certain degree,
it seems pretty ludicrous to say that it is so powerful that it would
cause an otherwise healthy and sane person to misunderstand or forget or
overlook the fact that rape (or sexual assault) is an awful thing to do.
(Others may disagree here.)

So, I think that there is little to be gained by widespread banning of
most porn (I'm disregarding snuff films here; even if they do exist, they
are, in fact, already illegal (at least to create)).  (yes, yes, I know
that's not what you proposed...I'll try to get to it)

What, then, are the costs of such a ban?  As Margaret has already
demonstrated, the lines regarding what is porn, what is erotica, and
(sometimes) even what is simply educational can be mighty blurry.  Mighty,
mighty blurry.  So, first, there is the danger that the ban might (and
probably would in some respect) go too far.  I'm inclined to think even
this danger (the danger of losing a body of innocuous (or, perhaps,
important) work just because it involves sex outweighs the meager 
potential benefits discussed above.

The danger goes further than that, though.  The problem is that when we
begin limiting expression because of speculative theories about its
impacts (and the mere fact of the enormous debates demonstrates the
uncertainty about porn's effects), we endanger all other forms of
expression because they "speculatively might" have some negative impact.
Yeah, yeah, nobody likes a slippery-slope argument, but this goes further.
Limiting one form of expression on this theory risks "chilling the
legitimate exercise of the right," even if it isn't pushed any further.
That's why yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't protected ("clear
and present danger" == a fairly certain (as contrasted with porn) negative
consequence directly associated with the exercise of the right), but a KKK
rally (arguably increasing racist attitudes that could lead to increased
hate-crimes) is protected.

So what about these law suits that have been proposed.  The speculative
nature about what the future impacts of any publication might be mean that
any producer will be forced to hold back some (their expression will be
"chilled").  Furthermore, the difficulties of proof surrounding issues of
causation between a publication and any particular harm means that jury
verdicts will be pretty unpredictable (more "chilling effects").

To me, the broad loss of substantive rights is a steep price to pay to
protect against such broad, incompletely-understood potential harms.

Sorry this "first-time-poster" has run on so long, but I've tried to give
a pretty complete, respectful argument for why I believe the way I do.

I'll close up with two quick quotes I ran accross today, somewhat on
topic:

>From the TV show King of the Hill:  "Nobody likes a know-it-all that sits
around talkin' about their genitalia."

And from a case in the New York Court of Appeals:  "If a husband feels
'aggrieved' by his wife's refusal to engage in sexual intercourse, he
should seek relief in the courts . . . ."  474 N.E.2d 567 (1984).

Bill D.