Advertisement

Dersh & Me

As long as they don't use it to constrain, theright to swing your fist ends at the tip of mynose. And that goes for censorship as well. Ifyou're trying to censor me, then we're no longertalking about your definition of correctness,we're talking about how you impose it on me.

Pornography is a big topic in your book. Alot of anti-pornography people on campus argue notthat they should ban Playboy or even the worsthardcore porn, but that the publishers should beheld accountable.

That's the same thing. Should the publishers offeminist material be held responsible if somefeminist reads it and shoots into ReadingInternational bookstore as a feminist did a coupleof years ago?

When the film The Burning Bed--whichshowed a woman killing her husband because herhusband had abused her--was shown on televisionand four women killed their husbands saying theyhad been influenced by that TV show...Should theTV show be responsible for that?

It's an idiotic position. It's just idiotic andit's simply a mask for censorship. It seems to methat the First Amendment clearly dictates that ifyou have the right to express your point ofview--whether you're Karl Marx or JesusChrist--you then can't be responsible if peoplemisuse your point of view.

Advertisement

Can you imagine what would happen if thepublishers of Marx were responsible for every actof violence done in his name? Or the publishers ofMao or the publishers of Andrea Dworkin?

I mean, Andrea Dworkin has probably caused moreviolence than Playboy magazine. If you have aFirst Amendment right to say or do something, thenit's very difficult to argue that we should havecensorship through the back door of civilliability.

It denies responsibility. Are rapists going toget up in court and say "I didn't do it, thePlayboy made me do it." And I'm appalled thatintelligent students at Harvard University wouldbe taken in by that claptrap.

Your office is filled with souvenirs of yourlife as a lawyer-celebrity. What are some of themost fun things you've been able to do because ofyour prominence?

Everything I do is fun. That's why I wouldn'ttrade my life for anything.

I wouldn't take a Supreme Court appointment. Iwouldn't take a presidency. I wouldn't take aCabinet position. I'm having too much fun.

I'm taking advantage of my tenure. I'm invitedby my tenure to say whatever I think and I do it.And what could be more fun? It's an exhilaratingfeeling knowing that the KGB or the Harvardthought police is not going to come after you.

What about things that purists wouldconsider beneath them? For example, I understandyou've done some consulting for the People'sCourt.

Sure, I love that. I like popular culture. Ithink to be a lawyer in the real world you have tounderstand popular culture. I watch People'sCourt, I like the show and I like Joe Wapner.

What's not fun is meeting celebrities who areyour clients. Because you meet them in times ofcrisis and it's always very difficult. It's veryhard work and it involves a lot of very difficultemotional times for people. There aren't a lot ofsmiles

Advertisement