| 00:00:36 0.4 |
PEEP SHOWS, DIRTY MOVIES, AND MASSAGE PARLORS & THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEM INTERVIEW--REEL BEGINS
|
| 00:00:37 1.4 |
INTERVIEW BEGINS:
Barnard Sackett you know, talking about hypocrisy Martin, many years ago, I had a theater in a small town in Pennsylvania. And there at that time, Jerry Lee Lewis was very big. I think I know what you call it, his type of performance. And Roxy about 17 years ago, and in Philadelphia, there was a very charming young lady named Julie Gibson. She used to do a dance called the dance of the bashful bride, she started off naked, and put her clothes on was very clever. But the point is that we I put these two people together for a show at this theater that I had. And we were condemned by the local Catholic Church. And yet two days, we opened on a Sunday, two days before we opened, the priest came to me and actually asked permission to bring his friends, other Catholic priests and stand backstage to watch the performance on Sunday. And as you know, there's a hipocracy but remember, I'm a human being something I must do. I must tell the people you can't do this, the priest, the priest said this. I never watched. But he came there and also with ministers as well, to watch that performance of Julie Gibson. And thank you very much after seeing the show. Wakefield Poole You mentioned Jerry Lewis. I don't know Barnard Sackett Jerry Lee Lewis Wakefield Poole I know. But it reminded Jerry Lewis to me, there was an article in variety last week about Jerry Lewis cinema, and Greenville, South Carolina. I don't know if you read it, but it's interesting. His franchise states that only GP films can be shown. And they were losing their shirts. And so the man booked in Clockwork Orange, oh, Calcutta. And I forget what the other X rated film was. And he did phenomenal business. I mean, the house was packed out grossed The Godfather, which was the big thing. Barnard Sackett That's different they are legitimate films you're talking about, as far as changing Wakefield Poole I'm saying still an X rated film, they wouldn't allow an X rated film to be shown in the Jerry Lewis cinema. And the man went against this franchise because he said, I'm losing money because of that stipulation. And he just booked in an X rated film. And still now he's being sued in this franchise. Wakefield Poole People in thiscountry want to see sex? They want to see it, why deny it? And who does it hurry? I just don't understand why tonight, why so much pressure against something that basically hurts no one at all. Why, if not the word politics, what other reasons said you could do it Barnard Sackett sick people Martin Hodas They go hand in hand Anyway, basically, Bob Brown David in April 1969, the United States Supreme Court ruled and Stanley versus Georgia, that a man had a right to own pornography. He had a right to keep it in his home. It could be film, it could be magazines, it could be books, it could be anything. He could keep it in his home, he could invite 100 or more friends, as many as he could squeeze into his home. He could show them all the pornographic materials he had, he would not be violating the law, Stanley versus Georgia April 1969. It's it follows logically that if the Supreme Court ruled that the man has that right under the Constitution, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from buying this. It follows logically that somebody has to sell it. Now the police are preventing the sale, the manufacturer, the distribution of the very materials that the Supreme Court has already ruled two and a half years ago, a man can fill his house well, and bring his friends over to see all the Supreme Court said was he's not supposed to show it commercially for profit, which is absolute nonsense, Martin Ross but with this man be able to purchase material without us being there. Bob Brown I don't know how he could purchase it because even David Susskind on what basis, the police and the system groups harassing you, kind of illegal action. Are you a public nuisance? Bob Brown We're not a public nuisance. The public groups that harass us, for the most part, have paid political propagandists all paid obscenity propagandists, just as the three people in the commission's report, the President's Commission and obscenity, pornography, the three out of the 18 who filed a Minority Report, were all members of propaganda groups and got paid David Susskind in your opinion. Bob Brown No, they are David Susskind In your opinion, but let me ask you, Barnard Sackett Mr Keating who was in was in Cincinnati, or in Cleveland. he ends out in the voluminous amounts of mail against a so called pornography he had he writes to church organizations Bob Brown Nevermind his crusade David he gets paid every week for a job that he's performing for the Legion of Decency David Susskind right but he's entitled to do that. Bob Brown He's entitled to do whatever he wants, but he's a paid propagandists for that group. He certainly is not important David Susskind But On what grounds do they do they harass you the cops? Do they say that your Bob Brown David, I told you on what grounds David Susskind a nuisance Bob Brown but you don't really take two that very easily. David Susskind Oh, no, no, please, let's get I don't want to deal with the framework Bob Brown because the pressure is on them and they want to get the pressure off them. Now this is just a circus. As I said before, it's a sign show it's a lot of fun. Martin Hodas how in God's name when when right now in this country, Supreme Court judges themselves have admitted last year that the laws are so vague that they themselves really have to go into witness. They can't decide themselves. Even even when they view a picture, they still can't decide whether that picture is an explicit sex picture which hardcore pornography or not, but yet, they go ahead and they send 21 and 22 year old cops out the view film, and they let them go ahead and decide whether to make an arrest or not. Now, how was that logic? Is there any logic there whatsoever? David Susskind Well obviously you can't send Supreme Court justice to the 200 book stores. Martin Hodas Well, obviously, right. But okay, in that case David Susskind but finally, it's the judiciary that is dealing with the issue Martin Hodas No, the case, the basic most of these cases are thrown out of court the only place but they keep on doing it. Bob Brown Most of the cases are thrown out of court. The court calendars are jammed they are absolutely jammed. It's it's impossible, like a like a log block on a river. You cannot move the cases out of court. Now there's a lot of talk of victimless crimes. This is certainly a victimless crime, if it is a crime. What I'm maintaining here, that the police are making arrests regardless of what they're doing to the court system, regardless of what they're doing to the people's faith in government. They are making arrests to take pressure off themselves. Wakefield Poole It's the same with the prostitute. David Susskind Would you make any dividing line between legality and illegality in your businesses? I mean, selling to children, you would recognize Bob Brown Selling to children, yes. David Susskind Excessive advertising, overly explicit sexual ads. Martin Ross Any body, pandering the public come into an establishment, David Susskind that would illegal right, but everything else in your view Bob Brown listen, I'm 56 years old David, if I don't have the right to go in and buy this merchandise, if I don't have the right to sell it. When am I going to get this after I'm dead? I'm 56 years old. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits me from buying this or manufacturing it or selling it. Incidentally, David, the first law in the United States against pornography had nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. It was an 1821 long after we became a nation long after we had a constitution, Vermont, not even the United States government. Vermont passed a law in 1821 the first obscenity law on the books in the United States forbidding the sale of obscenity now what is obscenity? I don't know what it was an 1821 I don't know what it is now David Susskind Probably ireligious verbiage your Barnard Sackett so called illegal at one time on the beaches right? Martin Hodas Bikinis is a girl by the way there's a girl suing right now for the right to go ahead topless in on the local beaches. She's always she's saying it's very interesting. She's suing the local I forget where it is in some ways in New York, where she's saying how in God's name can you say that a woman's body her breasts are obscene Hello. She was arrested on the beach for obscenity she went David Susskind It's not obscene. It's it's Martin Hodas well this is what she was arrested for. Obscene David Susskind Parading on a public beach Martin Hodas We've taken a lot of steps now Bob Brown maybe they meant she was unattractive Martin Hodas Maybe she was flat chested and I can understand why they would ban her David Susskind That's one wonders. I mean, are you for the girl topless on the beach? Is that okay? Martin Hodas Well. I am not for it or against it. But I basically can't see now maybe maybe 10 years ago more people would have been against it. But I say today, I mean to sit down and logically think about it and say is the female body obscene is a woman's breasts obscene and this is the law this against it? In other words, it's an obscenity law. And I say to myself, no, basically it is and we have to be technical about it. And in France, they have it in other countries. They have it they have beaches there where were nudity is not forbidden. David Susskind Yeah, right outside of Saint Tropez Martin Hodas Yeah. And I basically I think the woman's going to win her suit. I can't see her losing it. Personally, I think it's going to be another step in, you could say the sexual revolution, where those who want to go ahead and go topless on a beach are going to be allowed to possibly when there's kids around, basically they might knock it out on that statue. Bob Brown David, here's something where there are no kids around. David Susskind All right, hold that thought. And don't think about swimming. We'll be back in a minute. |
| 00:10:01 566.23 |
CUT TO BREAK
|
| 00:10:14 578.86 |
SLATE CARD/COUNTDOWN CLOCK
|
| 00:10:23 587.93 |
INTERVIEW RESUMES:
David Susskind Bob Brown you want to say something? Bob Brown Yes I wanted to say something. I had nothing to do really with showing this merchandise to children, the United States government since this summer, which is not so long ago. has sent overseas to deprive nations over 14 million condoms. The United States government has done that at a cost of the American taxpayer are $3.02 per gross. Now the interesting thing about these condoms that makes it different from what we've shipped in the past, is that these are in colors. They are in red, white and blue. They are in black. They are in gray. And they are in pink, to encourage the people overseas to try these things. Now, the United States government has embarked on this. The United States government embarked on another project that cost us $2 million a commission for obscenity and pornography. Yes. Which nobody's paying any attention to Barnard Sackett the what you're saying is maybe in all the hardcore films if the men wore prophylactics will be acceptable. Bob Brown That might be people David Susskind Do you disagree in New York Times reporter a fairly recently went to a porno theater. And he described it as being filled with men who generally sat alone, careful not to sit next to anybody. Some seats between them when the house lights came on. He said they looked embarrassed to be there. Is that an unfair description? Barnard Sackett I like to know who the man was Wakefield Poole I think so too Barnard Sackett I think I think we should have him analyze first. Wakefield Poole I think it's terribly untrue Bob Brown really everything's in the eye of the beholder. Martin Hodas He did an article he I was in that article. And I'll tell you right now, it was quite slanted, like most things I found that are in the newspapers. I don't think basically after I've read so many things about myself in the newspapers, and I was wondering after I put it down who this individual was. So basically, I've come to the conclusion that the newspapers just they do certain things for sensationalism, they're a business they want people to read their their press and they don't want to they don't have this press in there for people to to look at and just get a unordinary feeling from it has to be a little bit sensationalist. So they have to they add in a little bit between the lines and everything for us to say whether this reporter was telling the truth or not Barnard Sackett Martin I'll tell you a funny example. I have a film a called a rock icon that opened in Washington. The Washington Post refused to accept the advertised with the name Erotica con. So I went down to the Washington Post and I saw the advertising message Why won't you take the title is because pornography, it's pornographic? It's obscene. It's dirty as a way to go to what does it mean? He says, Don't you know what it means? I said of course I do. I made it up is Oh, I thought was a word. The dictionary actually happened The Washington Post. So we got the word through. You got your head. Of course the title got through not the ad. David Susskind There's not really harassment there's a good deal of amusement in your work, isn't it? Barnard Sackett Yes. If you that's why just like going to see the so called pornographic films David people come in come in with a sense of humor. They come into enjoy themselves, you know, not to be afraid to look at one another. We put the house lights on during intermission. People look at each other. They want to make friends. Wakefield Poole The guilt syndrome has gone to I mean, that's I think that's a thing of the past. David Susskind I'm curious, what kind of people make your pornographic movies. What kind of actors? Wakefield Poole as the actors David Susskind wild exhibitionists. Wakefield Poole No, no, you're wrong. Bob Brown demure housewives Wakefield Poole no ordinary people. I mean, Barnard Sackett they want to learn the business. Wakefield Poole They want to learn the business. Not only that, I think everyone has a desire to be immortal. And it's a chance you know, Hollywood, the old days of Hollywood, everyone used to run to Hollywood, you know, to try and get into films. Now. porno films are being made underground films. And it's that same thing that made people in the 30s and the 40s rush to Hollywood it's that being a mortal being there to to having the experience of seeing oneself there. I don't think it's to see themselves have sex. I think it's just the idea of being on film. Martin Hodas You know, there is no doubt in my mind that in the years to come we'll see maybe two maybe five years maybe 10 years we're gonna look back right now and what on what this government has done you could say to people in our business we're gonna look back at it as we look back today on what Massachusetts did to the witches up there in those days David Susskind Oh, I hardly think so Martin Hodas Well I basically believe in I think almost every business believes in it. I think I think that is such nonsense what is going on today is such nonsense and all all the money that's being spent in everything to like this fella Keating and everything to show people you know what's happening in your neighborhood the show that's what for what for? In other words they burnt witches in those days and they thought they were doing the right thing. Ascending and Descending people today that are making sex film to gently think of doing the right thing. And who are you to say basically that in 10 years from now, we're not going to look back at it and say it was a travesty of justice this is definitely going to happen. David Susskind I think you can't compare yourself to the New England witches have Martin Hodas Well right now let me tell you in those days they believed in witches. This is wrong. Bob Brown This F lee Bailey, the noted criminal lawyer has just come out with a magazine which is supposed to be a competitor to playboy. The first issue came out in October. So obviously there's more than one issue. The name of it is gallery. Definitely Bailey just felt like putting this out. He is. David Susskind It's a hobby. Bob Brown It's a hobby, okay. But it's a sex magazine. The first run has 425,000 copies that that will be unavailable in no time. Playboy put out a competitor to itself, we compare it to its to itself called Oui oui, French. And their first run was 800,000 copies about three months ago, within a week, you could not buy a copy. They are all collector's items. David Susskind There is no doubt that there's a wide appetite for this. And I also want to say it's my job to question you sharply. But if you said what do you think, I believe in the prohibitions of that commission of the obscenity commission that children should not be allowed to get access? And certainly you shouldn't entice with overly graphics? Bob Brown Well, we all agree with that. David Susskind But I would say that consenting adults have a right to read the books books they want to read Martin Hodas I don't think there is a bookstore in this country Bob Brown We all agree with that but that doesn't make a bit of difference. David Susskind we will come to the time in this country when an adult may make his own decision with respect. Bob Brown I'd like it to happen in my lifetime David Susskind It will happen in your lifetime Martin Hodas why do we have to wait for it right now to constitution says we are entiltled to it right now? David Susskind You might have to wait another four years or so. But let me ask you a question. Do you personally enjoy the stuff you sell and show? Barnard Sackett I personally don't look at the films that I play I don't have the time for it. Well, that's Martin Hodas a very very boring in other words, anything to do with sex is very boring to me. Right? David Susskind I would agree with that I Martin Hodas find after a while you know, it's like a Chinese proverb that says you know, that which is the least obtainable is the most desired that which is the most obtainable as at least desire. That's stolen cookie. Yeah, basically, that's the size of yourself. You've made it easy and it's no longer that desire, but that's why the business has fallen off to what it has. It's because a guy knows that hey, you know, he says I can come next week and get a magazine so David Susskind you yourselves are bored with it. Wakefield Poole Bored doing it or bored seeing it? David Susskind board seeing it board reading it Barnard Sackett board see get to such an extent I decide to try something I'm very serious about this. I've decided I'm going to take one week of an advertiser film, and you come to that theater, you see absolutely nothing on the screen for an hour and a half. But music, are you gonna hear his music? I'm serious about this. I might run the film, you know, process film, get all that, you know, the the mock through, that's all and let people have their I don't have a title and an end. And let people imagine what they think they've seen on that screen. And I thought putting a girl on the door, the take tickets, you know, very flimsy outfit, which will set them up with the idea. David Susskind I've heard everything. Now I want to thank you very much for coming. Do you have a final Bob Brown Yes I have a final one in 1957? In the Roth case, which was very important case David Susskind you're a historian of pornography Bob Brown Well, I've been in porn enough almost a lawyer on 1857. Roth versus United States and Albert, Albert versus California. Supreme Court Justice Bennon ruled that obscenity and sex are not synonymous. Now therein lies the crux of the problem, David, all these law enforcement officials, all these sex organizations who pay their people to fight it, claim that sex just sex is illegal, immoral, degrading, wicked, vicious and should be put out of business. Well, if it were, we wouldn't be here. But that's the problem. To them. Sex is illegal. And they're the ones who need those Wakefield Poole Biggest obscenities of Vietnam War. David Susskind I buy that. We'll be back in a minute. Thank you gentleman |
| 00:19:23 1127.79 |
CUT TO BREAK
|
| 00:19:42 1146.54 |
SLATE CARD/COUNTDOWN CLOCK
|
| 00:19:49 1154.01 |
INTERVIEW RESUMES ITH TWO LAWYERS:
David Susskind subject of obscenity and pornography two lawyers, men I respect very much Alan Schwartz is co author of censorship, the search for the obscene and he is legal counsel for the Communications Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union. One of the founders of the conservative party in New York State and currently it's Vice Chairman Kieran O'Doherty is an attorney here in New York City. Do you think that this is a problem to be worried about a serious problem? Kieran O'Doherty Oh, there's no doubt about it. David most of the countries worried about David Susskind why is it troublesome? Kieran O'Doherty Well, it's a it's it's debasing the general climate in across the country. We've had an epidemic of dirty books, dirty movies. David Susskind Is it more debasing the violence is it more debasing than the Vietnam War Kieran O'Doherty I think that's a contributing factor to the increased violence. David Susskind How does pornography contribute to increasing violence? Kieran O'Doherty It encourages in fact there are psychiatric studies to back this up, I'm sure Alan will agree with me, it encourages a, a certain, a certain permissiveness a, like a sex on the brain. And it's not only it's not only applicable the problem with the with younger children with most of the states are trying to cope with it, it goes into the adult area of conduct as well. David Susskind Alan? Alan Schwartz I don't agree. As a matter of fact, the studies that I've seen not only the studies which the President's Commission has shown, but the Kinsey study on sexual offenders of a couple of years ago, all tend to demonstrate that there is no demonstrable causal relationship between reading or seeing pornography, whatever that may be an antisocial or violent behavior. I think this is a serious problem, not from the point of view of the fact that we are seeing more people are offended, supposedly, by what is being shown. But because of the confusion, which is developed, between the sexual, the moral and the legal prohibitions in our society, I think we are now in a very confused state about these things. And I find that very dangerous. David Susskind I think the confusion is very widespread. But you sound certain, Kieran? Kieran O'Doherty Yeah, I am pretty certain. I mean, right now I'm speaking in terms of an instinct and a general feeling about the public to I've got some basis in that to the Gallup poll, you know, has gone into this and three quarters of the American people have the register, they're concerned about it. We have a very interesting proposition on the ballot in California this year, which is going to tighten the law, certainly against the publication of obscene and pornographic material and California David Susskind how would you define that? Kieran O'Doherty How would I define pornography. And now of course, now we get to we, we have, of course, the current definition, which is the Supreme Court definition, of prorate material, material, which will lustfully insight. And on the other hand, is as long as it has some redeeming social value, apparently, or literary value, early artistic value, it can survive a censorship law. We have a couple of cases before the Supreme Court this term, which will probably receive a broader definition or a more specific definition. But there are of course, laws against obscenity and pornography in almost every jurisdiction of the country. David Susskind Would you do what about the current definition prurient interest in redeeming social value? Alan Schwartz I would do away with it. And it's a matter of fact, decisions, the Supreme Court recently have been going away from that towards a concept of privacy. For example, there was a case last year decided, I think, Marshall wrote the majority opinion, which held that regard that a man in his own home, could read or do anything he wanted to it was a case in which obscene material was sent to the guy's house. And someone prosecuted him, they had a trap there or something. And the Supreme Court held that as far as adults were concerned, in their own home, they could do whatever they want in this field. And I think you're getting into a concept, that what is private to an adult is his own business. And the government has no business, imposing its well, or its regulations on what he does. I think that I say do away with all of that. And I think whenever you try to define obscenity or pornography, you're trading synonyms. We've had this in the history of the Supreme Court and all the other courts, I don't think you could ever do it in such a way as to protect people who are trying to come out with something which has or may have redeeming social value, while at the same time getting those people who are so called, you know, corrupters of society, whatever, whatever that may mean, therefore, I think we have to do what the President's Commission says we should do away with all laws relating to obscenity with adults are involved. And I think this is where we're going to get get to whether we get there next year, or the year after depends to a certain extent on the makeup of the court at that time. It's difficult really, to predict what even conservative judges will do in this field. This is such a personal field, as you know, you can get a guy like Rehnquist's who might very well come out in favor of making this completely free one doesn't know I'm not saying he will, whereas power might come out the other way. David Susskind Would you go along with what Alan said to the extent that what a person does in his own home if he wants to read a pornographic book or see a pornographic movie on his own home projector? Is that all right in your view? Kieran O'Doherty That's a tough one to answer. David, I'm concerned to curse in the first place about the public dissemination of it now in the area of commercial entertainment. For example, that we have in New York City today, of course, smoke peddlers all over the city, dirty movies fronting the Every one that goes over the Broadway we David Susskind I'm going to come to that in a minute Kieran O'Doherty On the general question of a person's right to obtain pornographic literature and read it in the room, I suppose it will be certainly legally put it this way, I'm going to say on a legal basis, obtaining underground as one could do, even prior to even prior to the complete Open Sesame the last 10 years one could obtain underground in Paris a copy of an obscene book you couldn't very readily obtained here, bring it back and get it through customs via smuggle it in and read it in your own home, I suppose. Again, there's some evasion ongoing, David Susskind you buy a book and you take it home a real hardcore pornographic book, you read it, you should have that right and be beyond the prosecution of the law. Right? Kieran O'Doherty I reserve an answer on that one. David Susskind I should have the right to do that. Or Alan, you certainly wouldn't be caught dead. Certainly Kieran O'Doherty I would. I would do everything possible to cut off the source of available hard pornographic literature for you to read in your private David Susskind but if I was lucky enough to find one, Kieran O'Doherty if you decided in your own conscience that you morally had the right to get hold underground from a highly difficult source a piece of hardcore pornography that you want it to look look at and read. I guess I wouldn't go into the home and try to prosecute you finally, David. David Susskind Okay, now Alan Schwartz I would defend your defense. David Susskind Thank you, Alan. And we'd now peep shows on Broadway, porno bookstores, movie houses, specially specializing pornographic films, should they have the right to exhibit and sell? Alan Schwartz I think that they should have the right to exhibit and sell not because what they're doing is of social value, but because there is no legitimate reason for the government to prevent what they're doing. I think what people are upset about in this city, particularly is not what is being shown in these theaters or peep shows. But the fact that the areas in which these things are located at the moment, seem to be areas of very high crime, drug rate and stuff like that. That is not necessarily and certainly not provably the fault of what is being shown in the theater. It is the fault of a lack of police protection, a lack of governmental regulation of the areas. This is one of the things that the League of Broadway theaters, as you know, David has been very concerned with. And the answer is not to try to cut off what is legitimate communication, whether we like it or not to adults, the answer is to get it in an area where it can be regulated. So it is not a health hazard. So it is not a crime hazard. And to make sure that the way this stuff is advertising does not offend people who don't want to see these things that can be done. That is not done sufficiently. I think that, for example, as was said, I think earlier on the show, the President's Commission recommends a public display statute, which is very narrowly drawn, which will make it a crime to exhibit in a place where the public would automatically see it or probably see it. You know, people having intercourse together are exposing genitalia and things like that. You can advertise these these shows, it seems to me and I'm in a more dignified way without offending people pass by. But if an adult wants to go in and see these things, unless and until it's been proven, I don't mean just instinct, but proven that this has some kind of a deleterious effect on the behavior of that person, which would affect society and affect others. I just don't believe that we have a right to go in there and stop it Alan Schwartz Kieran we'll come right back to your answer. I have to pause and give private enterprise which I know you disastrous this opportunity. |
| 00:29:20 1725.14 |
CUT TO BREAK
|
| 00:29:35 1739.85 |
SLATE CARD/COUNTDOWN CLOCK
|
| 00:29:44 1748.98 |
INTERVIEW RESUMES:
David Susskind Kieran O'Doherty, should an adult have the right whether it's good or bad for a soul to go in to a peep show or dirty movie or buy a porno book? Kieran O'Doherty Well, now you've changed the question from the prior one that Alan were talking about. I mean, it seems to me that the the availability commercially of these peep shows smut peddlers dirty movies dirty books, is a tolerance of moral pollution. Now, if we're going to if we're going to have laws that seems to me that are our sensible laws and warning everybody that cigarette smoking is harmful, stopping pollution and daily hair in general. It seems to me we want to be concerned about allowing tolerating these kinds of shows which are morally debasing, I don't really think there's any conflict about this between us by the way, even though you may argue to the contrary, I'll say so far as a lawyer here. I think there's a general comment Understanding in this area that these, this kind of stuff is morally debasing and is, in fact polluting the moral climate of this country. David Susskind I don't know what certain phrases mean, moral climate, I know I that I find them kind of ridiculous, I would find a point a movie ridiculous I thought I'm curious yellow or something was ridiculous. It's all fresh, but I wouldn't want it for myself, but I see no real proof or sign that it's bad for the soul or bad for the mind or deleterious or shrivels person's moralities. Alan Schwartz So I think this what I said at the beginning that there's a confusion I think between sex, morals and the law, if you take the first to have sex and morality, it may be that this is the kind of sexual activity that doesn't appeal to a lot of people or disgusts a lot of people. But I think you'd have to go a long way, then to say that somehow or other this is morally debasing or immoral, because you can make a good argument a for the fact that in other times in our history in the history of the world, this the kind of stuff we're talking about now is it was perfectly acceptable. From a moral and every other point of view, you could also make a good argument for the for the fact that our sexual morals have changed and are continuing to change the the laws recommended by the President's Commission, for example, the two exceptions to no law, the children and the public display all have six year limitations on them, because of the theory that maybe six years from now, our morals and our mores will have changed the point we won't even need those laws. Kieran O'Doherty Can I respond to that. Life magazine touched on that just a couple of weeks ago, and suggested that the prevailing community standards, which is part of the definition in order to determine what is prurient? What is offensive in terms of what is lustfully inciting and therefore be debasing by the way, the Supreme Court has stated clearly, of course, in all of these cases, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. Then we get to the problem of what is obscenity. I grant with you on that. The definition of obscenity and pornography has changed a great deal but remarkably since the days of calm stalkery when when Henry Mencken was inveighing against what might be regarded as the Baptist belts attitude toward anything that was indecent, that's granted. But it's the local option outlook, which life suggests which is one way of dealing with this, let us have prevented community standard let us have as we have in California, it carefully, specifically drawn statute that does have a jury of people involved here that will make a determination based on that statute of what is in fact, prurient or obscene under their definition. And instead of happiness. We do have now an abstract definition from the High Court of the United States where even one of the justices himself bitterly complained about having to sit inside and watch films and make themselves the High Court of obscenity they have a great many other matters to deal with rather than that, whereas we have 50 jurisdictions, different community standards, perhaps we're barely from state to state, and certainly no other city can claim to have the as much smut available in any kind of basis as the city of New York has today. David Susskind Do you have any way of gauging not as a lawyer but as a moral person? Do you have any way of gauging the effect of pornography on adults what it does to them? Kieran O'Doherty I only I can only have it on the basis of what I've what I've read about them and the materials available on Irving Kristol, as you know, had cited an awful lot of authorities in this series, we can talk about some noted scholars in the sorry that have gone on the field I grant there are people on the other side, experts cited in the commission's report, who will contend that it had it has no such causal relationship. Reader's Digest had an article with someone who interviewed 150 inmates in the prison 77 of whom felt that their sexual crimes were directly related to their accessibility to pornographic material. So even if only half of them had accessibility, that was a causal effect. Wouldn't that concern you, David? Alan Schwartz I can I David Susskind Yes but I would be hard pressed to accept that kind of causal relationship. Alan Schwartz I think that it's a matter of it. The burden of proof must be on the people that want to stop the speech, not on the people who are engaged in the speech. It seems this is fundamental to our First Amendment concept, our concept of free speech, but I did want to respond below. Kieran O'Doherty Let's get back to that first. Let's get that freedom of speech idea. I mean, your ACL yo, later you're with a council, the American Civil Servant work, you know, the American Civil Liberties Union does not take as just as did the late Justice, black and absolutist position. First Amendment No, we know that the person does not protect freedom of speech such as libel or perjury in citation to violence or the famous example of justice Holmes said crying out fire in a theater. So restraints on freedom of speech are presently embodied in American law Alan Schwartz reasonable restraints that are provable. Kieran O'Doherty Right now we're talking about reasonable restraint on propagation of obscenity. You also agree that Supreme Court has stated that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. The problem is defining it and unfortunately Alan Schwartz It's a very circular argument what is obscenity and what doesn't it protect if you call something I've seen that it's not protected? If you don't call it I've seen it is protected. I did want to respond and one thing Due to the recommendation or the possible recommendation of letting the local units decide these things, this has had the most chilling effect imaginable on free speech, in that if someone comes out with a book we had this case many times in the past, we had it with Henry Miller, which is now considered a classic Tropic of Cancer 80 lawsuits. in different jurisdictions, state and local jurisdictions practically bankrupted the publisher, because of the fact that once the book was published, in order to get it, keep it on the books stands in different places, you had to fight at different lawsuits. That is not a way of encouraging freedom of expression. And until a decision is made that each in each jurisdiction that this book is so illegal, or some how criminal that book should be given a chance to be to reach the public Kieran O'Doherty now civilization has dealt now in your if you're citing an extreme example here, it did take it Admittedly, it took 30 years or so for the Tropic of Cancer to come. And I don't agree with you. It's a classic or indeed, in fact, I frankly, would I tell you, myself, if I were sitting on a on a appellate tribunal, I would have found the book to be pornographic. So you'll know my standards. Now I've read the book, Tropic of Cancer, I regarded as pornographic. And I frankly believe the majority of Americans regardless testifies by appointment. But let me continue on that. We're not talking about Ulysses, we agree that we're not a James Joyce's Ulysses, which of course, took 20 years to return. I think that there in terms of real art, we are talking about a legitimate interpretation that we made by judges I have this I have confidence in the competence of judges to make the determination that where we do have a work of art that deals with sensuality, in the rest, were not taught by the erotic art, for example, certainly, I'm not talking about banning a Rubens painting because it happens to be a beautiful painting of a No, I mean, obviously, I we're talking about we're talking about the trash, and we're talking about the stuff that you wouldn't even dream of defending you wouldn't go into court to to to pray to protect the kind of guys that are showing the junk that that was discussed here. Alan Schwartz I didn't say that I would go in to protect the right of these people within the content, the context that I've described, to express their product and hand communicate whatever it is they have to communicate to the public. Yes, I will not because I like what they do or who they are. David Susskind Let me ask this question. The point Alan made, that you are I think you would make it a point you're innocent until proven guilty, that the burden is on you to prove that pornography is illegal, and or immoral or both. Kieran O'Doherty Well, let me just say this, Alan Schwartz that is almost impossible, Kieran O'Doherty you know, let me David Susskind how do you do that? Kieran O'Doherty suppose suppose I put it to you this way. David, we're gonna I'm going to talk about democratic values as against this extreme viewpoint being put forth here about utter freedom of speech, therefore allowing the district allowing propagation, dissemination publication of any kind of material of any nature. I mean, I thought justice Holmes made a very statement much cited in his common law. The first requirement of a sound body of law is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong. A pretty strong statement from Justice Holmes going David Susskind And the law frequently has not done that now and made in another era. Kieran O'Doherty we do have in every jurisdiction, we have certain laws right now, we've had a confusion admittedly, right off the supreme court now on the determination of just what is obscene. I suggest to you that there can be a general definition of this and understanding by the by the courts, I believe it's got to be decided in the courts. I don't know any other authority. I wish there was, of course, the kind of self restraint that we used to have by the publishers you know, as well as I do 20 years ago wasn't just a laws that kept certain books from being published. It was a judgment being made by editors and publishers across the country and also a a recognition of the general mores of the community. Now that's been offended across the country we've had after all, not less long, tedious, spontaneous, a community feelings that have been brought out with respect to dirty films being brought into their area. Is this this is their democratic rights during such time as David Susskind On the note you've made a consensus countrywide upholding this we have to stop we'll come right back. |
| 00:39:33 2337.71 |
CUT TO BREAK
|
| 00:39:49 2353.63 |
SLATE CARD/COUNTDOWN CLOCK
|
| 00:39:58 2362.38 |
INTERVIEW RESUMES:
David Susskind Aren't you on uneasy ground when you talk about country wide consensus opposed to Kieran O'Doherty I don't think so. I cited the Gallup Poll figure were three fourths of the American public registered they're concerned about this area pornography. You know, you remember the old saw that was they always quoted, I believe it was like Jimmy Walker. It was a funny crack at the time. At the time, he wrote, there wasn't one too many books of this kind around. But he said no, no one was ever raped by a book. Well, you know, any university professor would never say that No book, no book could not corrupt the person. They can also improve the person. I mean, that's why I get back to the argument of morally debasing. Once there's a community consensus arrived at and I believe it's there right now and proposition 18. In the ballot in our largest state, California, is right before the public because a sufficient number of Californians I believe 300,000 signed a petition asking Californians to enact what would be the most specifically drawn statute in fact, like Bill Buckley and a crack made it so specific in his description of what is obscene that to reprint the statute might itself be regarded by some people as indecent? Because it describes exactly what is obscene. This has been a problem in the courts to define what is obscene? Well, now we have a statute, I think we're going to see similar moves in New York and other states. David Susskind One hopes Alan Schwartz I'd like to say first of all proposition 18 is and is not the wonderful thing that has been portrayed here, and the publishers are really up in arms against it. I think that it has a lot of specific language in it. But it certainly doesn't give us any more specific definition of obscenity which can be, which you can bring cases on. And third, I think it's one of the most chilling propositions I've ever read. But I did want to go back to the other thing as far as the consensus of the country, a Gallup poll doesn't prove the consensus of the country. 300 people in California 300,000 people doesn't prove the consensus of the country. We don't know the consensus of the country on this thing. But even if we did, I assume also, that if we took a consensus of the country on whether they found a Communist Party slogans offensive, that consensus overwhelmingly would be yes, they do. And if they had their choice, they'd like those people to go far away. And yet we have a law, we have laws, which say those guys have a right to speak, because unless they are involved in some direct conspiracy, which harms the country, I think the same rule and the same rationale should be applied to so called obscenity and pornography, there's no legal or rational or my view moral reason why it should be any different. Kieran O'Doherty All you do, I don't think the communist analogy you suggest is a an accurate analogy. I mean, we've the difference between freedom of speech, ice insight and citation, the violence, the political conspiracy. I mean, when when the Supreme Court itself made that clear, David Susskind you cannot prove any specific damage to the body politic, from pornography, that it incites crime, that it promotes disease, or the kind of thing that would be decisive. It seems to me you have no case Kieran O'Doherty we're talking about a matter of degree David Susskind You are attempting to inflict your morality upon Kieran O'Doherty your morality and minor are reflected right now the New York City statutes where you and I live. And you know very well that despite what's going on in this city, which is a virtual Sodom and Gomorrah with respect to this, this particular area, things are still cannot be done on the open, can not be done. They couldn't have the you couldn't have indecent exposure, for example, at the candy drugstore. Could you know, and you're not supposed to sell these books to minors under 18? You're no you're not correct. All right. And we don't yet have a public free displays of copulation in public that that that would be intolerable. Correct. I mean, even even, even though overt homosexual acts in public are indecent, and we're talking about a matter of degree if the community consensus in this state and across the country is duly enacted through law, and through prosecutions in the courts brings about some censorship in this area. Would you agree to that, that that is the right of the community to bring about such enforcement? David Susskind not at the cost of prosecuting a minority who has the right to express themselves even though we don't like what they're saying, and I don't like this stuff. I wouldn't pattern Kieran O'Doherty what about theminority that wants to have bear baiting and current cockfighting or David Susskind I think you're doing it there's bear baiting on beaches and bear bear baiting? Not bear baby. Because Alan Schwartz I think there's not just a difference in degree my view, Kiean, it's it's a difference in kind when you're talking about doing things in private, which is what we're talking about, Kieran O'Doherty like heroin. Alan Schwartz Well, I don't think that that is completely a difference in cosmetic because heroin is a demonstrably evil drug that hurts people that can kill Kieran O'Doherty shouldn'y we make heroin available and more available for you to have in your home? Alan Schwartz It's not at all it's not an analogy because heroin, Kieran O'Doherty but we are, as opposed to David Susskind Heroin will kill you. And you earlier said cigarettes cigarettes will kill you, I physiologically kill you. But smut will not kill you Kieran O'Doherty just suppose a majority of Americans, a majority in the various constituents of various state believe that pornography and obscenity is the debasing and suppose that under the circumstances they decide to have the legislature act upon that the legislature does act in response to the general public will and we do have such laws. Alan Schwartz What about if a majority of people believe that the Communist Party manifesto and the slogans are debasing and obnoxious why should they be treated any differently? Kieran O'Doherty I think we do have laws against conspiracy Alan Schwartz conspiracy if it results in harm Alright, well, we're saying I think what we're saying here that's certainly not proven in this Kieran O'Doherty but it comes down to it comes down to the i different with the two of you that you don't believe pornography is harmful or you don't believe obscenity is harmful you in other words, you would strip out The person was against obscenity Alan Schwartz I think I've read a lot of the studies, not only the ones in the President's Commission, but the ones in the past the Rockefeller study in various and most all of them that I've read seem to indicate that there is no causal relationship. And that in some studies indicate that there may even be a beneficial result from the reading of you David Susskind in Denmark, we only have a minute left, they lifted all prohibitions against pornography. And one of the interesting things was the demand for its sales for the books. And those have dwindled to a point of disadvantage except for tourist trade Kieran O'Doherty that's not established. I looked at a study of that, David, that's not established. Well, that's a danger right away. One of the reasons their crime statistics have gone down is that it's no longer a crime to do certain things that were a crime before that, for example, statutory rape, there's no there's no no crime of statutory rape any longer. Alan Schwartz There's been a study, there's been a study which shows that even if you account for the change in the law, the crime rate has still gone down. David Susskind One last thing in this era of sexual revolution, that's true. Now, the values have changed dramatically. revolutionary Kieran O'Doherty women's lib movement don't like it, they call pornography sexism, they're right. David Susskind Isn't a losing cause? Why isn't censorship a baiting disappearing? Kieran O'Doherty censorship is is indeed difficult and has to be reasonably enforced, and I have confidence the judiciary of this country will reasonably enforce it. I don't think we're going back to the old fashioned days of the Bible Belt and come stalkery David Susskind The last 15 seconds. Alan Schwartz I think if we allow judges to use this subjectivity, we may very well go back to that or worse, because there is no reason for these people to be prosecuted. And we cannot allow subjective values of individuals determine what we read us say. David Susskind Gentlemen, I thank you very much, very much. We'll be back in a minute to say goodnight. |
| 00:47:16 2800.35 |
CUT TO BREAK
|
| 00:47:37 2822.1 |
SLATE CARD/COUNTDOWN CLOCK
|
| 00:47:46 2831.29 |
INTERVIEW CONCLUDES:
David Susskind That's it for tonight. I hope you found it interesting. Incidentally, if you live in... |
| 00:47:48 2832.43 |
PEEP SHOWS, DIRTY MOVIES, AND MASSAGE PARLORS & THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEM INTERVIEW--REEL AND INTERVIEW ENDS
|
Jump to this Point
Specialty CollectionThis reel is currently not available for online viewing.
Year: 1972
Color: Color
Genre: 1970S TELEVISION SHOWS
Description: "PEEP SHOWS, DIRTY MOVIES, MASSAGE PARLORS & THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEM" WITH BARNARD SACKETT, WAKEFIELD POOLE, MARTIN HODAS, BOB BROWN, MARTIN ROSS. ALSO KIERAN O'DOHERTY & ALAN SCHWARTZ.
