Sorry Misfit, Reismans accomplishments are legion. Your debunk attempt falls in the land of laughable fail.
[FONT=Georgia]
INTERNATIONALLY[/FONT][FONT=Georgia]
SOUTH AFRICA, 1995: The Office of the Attorney General thanks Dr. Reisman for “your knowledge and your expertise....your assistance in saving this nation from a potential disaster....we have achieved a major victory on the pornography front....which would not have been possible without the aid of your expert knowledge, books, videos and articles.” Dr. Reisman’s testimony on the ways graphic, antisocial imagery reconfigures brain, mind and memory helped pass
The Film and Publications Bill of 1995, by an overwhelming majority of 300 votes, prohibiting child pornography in any form (written, visual, cartoon, “artistic” or pseudo), and prohibiting current types of “adult” pornography.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
AUSTRALIA, Parliament 1994 and 1992: Following her April 6, 1992 invited testimony and report on pornography and the harm factor to the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards, Parliament banned "X" Rated materials from pay cable TV, while her March 1994 research paper aided Parliament’s decision, based on harm, to similarly ban "R" Rated materials from pay cable TV.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
CANADA, Supreme Court 1992: Dr. Reisman provided briefing materials on pornography and harm, aiding the Canadian Supreme Court's unanimous decision February 27, 1992 to ban all pornography as "obscene" as it undermines equality by degrading, subjugating and dehumanizing women. Subsequently, in 1993, Dr. Reisman was tasked by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to produce a research paper, "Pornography in Neighborhood Convenience Stores: Neurochemical Effects on Women," for a pornography case challenging the new law--results pending.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
NEW ZEALAND, Tribunal 1991 and 1989: Dr. Reisman's research was delivered by-proxy via Dr. John Court to the New Zealand Pornography Commission investigations in 1989. She was again asked for, and delivered, written testimony to the New Zealand Indecency Tribunal in 1991.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
ISRAEL, Knesset 1982: Dr. Reisman founded a media monitoring, non-profit foundation in Israel, funded by private and public sources which has presented findings on Israeli media to the Knesset and throughout Israel. At minimum, major corrections and improvements were made in controlling advertisements, largely due to Dr. Reisman's data collection, cadre training, and public dissemination of information.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
Massachusetts, 1989: Oakes v. Massachusetts. Massachusetts Attorney General, James Shannon cited Dr. Reisman's DoJ, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention study in this successful brief and in oral appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Shannon wrote (1/8/90):[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia] [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]I contacted Dr. Reisman in connection with an important child pornography case,
Massachusetts v. Oakes…which I argued in the United States Supreme Court in January, 1989…I had to convince the court that both nude and sexually explicit photographs of children were exploitive and harmful. To make the point, I quoted Dr. Reisman’s study, “Images of Children, Crime and Violence in
Playboy,
Penthouse, and
Hustler Magazines,” in which she showed that sexually exploitive photographs of children condone and promote a distorted view of sexuality, often by pairing...sexuality and violence, or depicting children as desiring sexual activity with adults.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
Ohio, 1989: Osborne v. Ohio. Amici cited "Neurochemical Evidence Shows That People React Differently To Pictures Than They Do To Words Raising New First Amendment Considerations" and thanks "Dr. Judith Reisman for her valuable development of this concept" (:23) and, "J. Reisman's New York Review of Law and Social Change," (1979) where she addressed media, science and civil rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]On behalf of the Amici in
Osborne v. Ohio....thanks for your invaluable assistance rendered to us in researching and writing this brief. Your ideas on how the visual images effect people substantially more than the written word is indeed a new concept and could have many significant ramifications in the area of the First Amendment. If in fact the court and legislatures do believe that visual images, specifically of sexual, sexually violent and violent material, will have a greater impact on people in general and children in particular, there may be justification for more strict legislation in these areas than would apply to the written material. Moreover, under a First Amendment analysis, since the harm is greater, there would be more of a compelling state interest to have stricter laws. (H. Robert Showers, 10/12/89).[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
USA LOWER COURTS[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
Crawford v. Lungren, 1996: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the right of California’s newsrack laws to protect minors in support of Amici arguments by the National Law Center for Children and Families. Amici cited to Reisman’s Canadian paper, “Pornography in Neighborhood Convenience Stores: Neurochemical Effects on Women,” that “Images reach the brain more quickly than print” (:15).[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
Steffan v. Perry, 1994 and 1991: The U.S. States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lower court in 1991, under Judge Oliver Gash, cited Reisman’s book in rejecting Steffan’s appeal. Upon challenge in 1994, Colonel Ronald Ray Esq., Ret., and Reisman filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the Naval Aviation Foundation in support of the Department of Defense ruling, that homosexuality and sexual conduct cannot be separated. General P.X. Kelley, former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Commandant of The Marine Corps, wrote of Reisman’s “groundbreaking work in
Kinsey, Sex & Fraud,” (October 5, 1994) in recommending she and Colonel Ray enter the Steffan case.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
United States v. Knox, 1994: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District, ruled in support of arguments presented in the Institute for Media Education Amicus and Arnold & Porter written with Colonel Ron Ray and Randall Shaheen, citing Reisman’s research on images and for OJJDP, to protect children from use in child pornography.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
TEXAS, 1993: Despite obstructions, the Court’s successful use of Dr. Reisman’s findings continue. A Texas prosecutor wrote the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]As a prosecuting attorney, I have tried approximately 35 obscenity jury trials in which the defense has called a sociologist as an expert witness on community standards. Your book,
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, has proven invaluable on cross-examination. This sociologist studied at the Kinsey Institute and bases a lot of expert opinions on his studies at that institute. To be able to point out to the jury the fraud that Alfred Kinsey and his institute have perpetrated is a very effective tool…I encourage you to continue your work in this area to point out to the public the frauds sociology and psychology have given us (March 8, 1993).[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
OHIO, 1991: State of Ohio v. Contemporary Arts Center, (Mapplethorpe trial): The presiding judge rules in agreement with Dr. Reisman’s expert testimony re: what was Mapplethorpe’s artistic “whole” to be viewed by the jury. Frank Prouty, the State prosecutor writes:[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]As you know, the State filed a Motion in Limine regarding what constituted the “whole” as that issue related to the Mapplethorpe exhibit. Your testimony was critical to the Motion, and your testimony ensured a favorable ruling for the State…The issues and interpretation you presented concerning the child photographs and the remaining photographs substantiated the prosecution’s view…The perspective you established was both concise and persuasive, and should be considered in any interpretation of pornography and its affect in both children and adults (March 4, 1991).[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
CALIFORNIA, 1989: Ventura County Superior Court cites Reisman’s research to convict child pornography
Hustler cartoonist, Dwaine Tinsley.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Mr. Hardy indicated that your report [Dr. Reisman’s “Images of Children, Crime and Violence”] was extremely helpful throughout the prosecution of the Tinsley case. Mr. Hardy used the report as a reference source for putting together his closing arguments, and for his cross examination…Mr. Hardy considers your report to be a great piece of work, and has recommended the report…to the National Association of District Attorneys…your report…was a great help in the prosecution of this case(March 28, 1989).[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Dr. Reisman has been successfully consulted on sexual harassment in the Minnesota workplace; on a mother’s rights to child custody from an AIDS father in Kentucky; in testimony before the Attorney General’s Commission on pornography; on homosexual versus parents rights in a Connecticut classroom on fraudulent sex education in Falmouth schools. She is currently consultant for a first amendment versus parental rights case involving one government school, in a second school versus parents’ case involving subversion of parents to provide contraception to minors and a third case involving sexual harassment in the workplace.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]
Not entire article.
[/FONT]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/572509/posts
