What might have been a telling article on computer privacy became a soapbox for the author's opinions when Jonathan Lewin used fully one third of his space for an opinionated attack on the consumers of 'porn,' as he chose to term it. Rather than the psychotic perverts he portrays, I suspect most downloaders of Internet pornography are rather like a very mild-mannered friend of mine who recently discussed with zeal the obscene screen-saver she had compiled as a joke for her roommate. I can think of at least seven people I know well, four women and three men, whom I know to have viewed computer pornography for their own entertainment and amusement. They are not, as the article would suggest, victims of "compulsive sexual behavior," nor do they suffer from "a great deal of emotional stress." They do not "usually feel terrible, very embarrassed, very bad,...less than worthy," nor are they plagued by fears that 'if [they] died accidentally [they] wouldn't be able to remove the material." In fact, most of them are involved in stable, monogamous relationships. They do not engage in bondage, bestiality, or any other nonstandard sexual practice. None of them has ever employed a prostitute, though some of them have rented adult movies and visited the Combat Zone--activities which the article places on the same level as prostitution.

The idea that viewing a particular image (or a particular arrangement of ones and zeros in this case) can make you mentally ill has been around for a long time. It came right after the it-will-make-you-go-to-Hell idea, and right before the it-will-make-you-into-a-rapist-and-batterer idea. Pornography is nothing new: there have been pornographic movies since the invention of the motion picture, pornographic photographs since the invention of the camera; there has been pornographic literature and visual art since ancient times. And there have also always been those who wish to take away our rights to view what we please on the grounds that society is being damaged. Needless to say, while they masquerade as defending our welfare, their intentions are usually more insidious. They know that people will be much more willing to give up their rights to read 'subversive ' texts once the idea that printed matter can be dangerous is widely accepted.

One of their most effective tactics has been to instill fear though a set of ideas or institutions that already has fear on its side. At one time, this was the Church. Now that we are more secularized, preventing mental illness and violence against women has become the new mask worn by the people seeking to control our thoughts. We are all so eager to guard against these possibilities that we overlook the fact that people are asking us to give up our right. As aspiring journalists, the Crimson staff ought to be very careful before it condemns any sort of visual or printed information as detrimental to viewer's well-being. Does pornography cause violence and mental strain? I believe not, but even if it did this would be nothing compared to the strain and violence possible in a society where a select few are able to decide what others may and may not view. Douglas R. Miller '95-'96