Tuesday, January 31, the Los Angeles Times ran an article concerned. with the subject of Pornography, specifically the paperback novels on the newsstands of the city. It is my self-appointed task to take this inflammatory diatribe (one of many) apart, quote by quote, to see just what it amounts to. It must be understood that I am not knocking the Los Angeles Times, either for its public spirit, or for the nature of the articles they are running. It should sell lots of newspapers, since the same people will be attracted to the headlines about lurid books, prostitution and gambling, as would be attracted to the paperback books they condemn. The main fault with the Times' article, and with most such exposes, is that they fail to get over the first hurdle and see into the real heart of the matter.

While presuming to analyse the subject of Pornography in Los Angeles, the writer, in fact, discussed only one facet-the paperback novels which constitute 'borderline' cases. Hardly anything was said of true hard-core pornography (apparently there is little to discuss in the Los Angeles area), and nothing about such things as pornographic photography, as opposed to the physique and cheesecake varieties, or smutty recording. Maybe these things really aren't a problem in Los Angeles. In the discussion of borderline paperbacks the article did attempt to sound fair and open-minded, although only one 'expert' was quoted on the "other" side of the question, while they quoted almost everyone they could think of in condemning the paperbacks.

First, let us look at the quote by J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI. "What we do know is that in an overwhelmingly large number of cases sex crime is associated with pornography. We know that sex criminals read it, are clearly influenced by it."

Probably the statement is true, as far as it goes. What Mr. Hoover omits, however, is that for every thousand people who read these books that Mr. Hoover thinks are pornographic, less than one commits a sex crime as a result. By like logic, we should deny the whole population the use of sugar because of its effects on diabetics. It might also be said, with equal justice, that scenes of violence in movies and books are seen and read by the people who commit crimes of vioence, but only the most censor-happy would propose such complete censorship of such violence as they do actively advocate against any mention of sex.

It might be well to point up here that there is a vast body of expert psychological opinion supporting the idea that such reading has very little effect on well-adjusted persons, that it certainly does not turn them into criminals, that a person who commits sex crimes is already maladjusted and that it is quite conceivable that this person would commit the same kind of crime even though he were never exposed to this so-called pornography. Certainly Mr. Hoover and other law enforcement officials have been unable to prove that pornography is, indeed, guilty of the ills that they lay at its doorstep. If Mr. Hoover and his friends would concentrate on ways to discover the potential sex (or other) criminal, and to provide proper and effective therapy, then we might, indeed, see some progress in the fight against these crimes. And if the courts would bring the interpretation of what is truly criminal by way of sexual activity up to date, instead of clinging to out-dated Puritan standards, I am sure the job of the law-enforcement agencies would be greatly aided, for all the policemen, etc., who are presently busy harrassing homosexuals (for but one example) could devote their time to far

7