Subject: Re: Rimm study
From: Mike Godwin <[email-masked]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 21:09:39 -0400

Matthew Elkin writes:

> The statement [by Handler] attributes to Rimm the claim that anyone who
> hid their newsrc *was doing so to conceal* that they were viewing childporn.
> 
> The supposed evidence for this claim is this quote from Rimm's study:
> 
> >pedophilia and child pornography consumption. Preferential molesters
> >(i.e., pedophiles with a true sexual attraction to children) frequently
> >employ inventive mechanisms to evade discovery, as discovery will
> >likely lead to incarceration. Kenneth Lanning, Child Molesters: A
> >Behavioral Analysis 16-19 (3d ed. 1992). Given this behavior pattern,
> >it is at least possible that some Internet users who block their accounts
> >prefer sexual images of children and wish to avoid detection. 
> 
> Clearly the attributed claim is not supported by the text. The text states 
> that there *may* be a difference in the porn consumption rates between 
> those who hide their .newsrc and those who don't.

Matthew misreads Rimm here. The passage is not about "porn consumption."
It is about "pedophilia and child pornography consumption."

Matthew is actually correct, technically speaking, to say that Handler's
comment cannot be supported by the literal text of the passage in
question. But that is not the end of the inquiry. What makes Rimm's text
in footnote 30 so interesting is not what it _says_ (substantively speaking,
it conveys almost no solid information whatsoever) but how
it _functions rhetorically_.
 
The text is designed to *suggest without expressly asserting* that those
who opt to conceal their usage information from general view are more
likely to be pedophiles who are hiding their illegal activities. 
It is artfully crafted to create an impression while simultaneously
preserving deniability for Rimm ("Hey, I never *said* that those privacy
nuts were more likely to be pedophiles!"). The citation to another
paper (the Lanning paper) makes the footnote seem less vaporous than,
in fact, it is.

This turns out to be a standard Marty Rimm maneuver: rather than lie
outright, Marty prefers to make statements that are literally or
technically true, but that give the reader or auditor a false impression.
(Marty actually does lie outright on occasion, but that's never his
first choice, tactically.)

Matthew continues:

> only makes the 
> significantly weaker claim that it is *possible* that those who hide their 
> newsrc file are subscribed to groups that are known to carry illegal or 
> otherwise emarrassing porn, not that they *do*.

It is important to remember that Rimm is *not* talking about "illegal or
otherwise embarrassing porn" -- he's talking about child pornography,
the mere possession of which is illegal (in contradistinction to merely
obscene materials, which, when possessed and read in the privacy of one's
home, cannot be contraband, per Stanley v. Georgia). So Marty is not
trying to suggest that people are concealing *embarrassing* porn -- he's
suggesting that they're hiding the evidence of criminal activity.

> And Rimm draws no 
> substantive conclusions from this point; he is merely pointing out a where 
> his study *may* have missed a significant number of porn consumers. 

Again, a standard Rimm tactic -- he *deliberately avoids* drawing any
substantive conclusions because the passage in question is not intended to
function as something that conveys substantive factual claims. Instead, it
is designed to give rise in the mind of the reader the inference that
there's something fishy going on with those people who change the
permissions on their Usenet usage files.
 
> This criticism (like most others) is based on a misrepresentation of the 
> Rimm study.
 
Well, Handler's comment is a misrepresentation as to the letter of the
text in question, but it perfectly captures the spirit of the passage.

I strongly urge participants in this forum to find a copy of the Rimm
study and read it for yourself. One of the wonderful things about it is
that, as you read the thing, it becomes increasingly apparent that the
unsupported conclusions and fallacious methodology of the article cannot
be the function of mere undergraduate incompetence. Clearly, they 
were *deliberate*.

> Someone already has done a study on the types of pornography in
> magazines.  (Park Elliott Dietz and Alan E. Sears PORNOGRAPHY AND
> OBSCENITY SOLD IN "ADULT BOOKSTORES": A SURVEY OF 5132 BOOKS, MAGAZINES,
> AND FILMS IN FOUR AMERICAN CITIES, 21 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 7.) And anyone
> who has actually read the Rimm study would know this because Rimm refers
> to this study many times.

I actually have ASCII copies of the Dietz/Sears "study" if anyone would
like one. I noted a month ago that the Dietz/Sears article was clearly the
primary influence on the Rimm article (Rimm uses similar content
categories and strikingly similar methods, given the difference between
the media in question). It turns out, by the way, that Dietz and Sears
were former members of the Meese antiporn commission whose "study"
was clearly aimed at vindicating the conclusions reached by that
commission. Strangely enough, Rimm omits to mention this in his lengthy
footnote about the Dietz/Sears article. Stranger still, Matthew
Elkin's postings in this thread mark a slip from Matthew's usual
balanced presentation of the facts and authorities: *he too*
unaccountably fails to mention this aspect of Dietz/Sears. 
 
> And if anyone disagrees with the findings of either the Dietz/Study or
> the Rimm study the best way to proceed would be to do a similar study
> and see if the findings are different.

Actually, a more efficient way is to point out obvious flaws in the
methodology of the Dietz/Sears study. And, in fact, this is precisely
what Linz and Donnerstein do in their followup to the Dietz/Sears
article. (Yes, if you're interested, I have an ASCII copy of that too.)

The Linz/Donnerstein critique begins with the following general
observations:

"No scientifically sound analysis of the content of pornography in the
United States as a whole currently exists. Dietz and Sears's article
takes us a small step closer to quantifying the contents of pornography.
Some of the methods employed in the present study, however, prohibit us
from making solid generalizations from the findings reported here to the
nationwide pornographic marketplace. Our critique of the article will
concentrate first on the methods  employed in the study and then on the
findings obtained through these methods and the authors' interpretation
of these findings....

"Exactly what do Dietz and Sears seek to determine from their content
analysis? In this case, they are not answering a question posed by a
social scientific theory about the effects of exposure to pornography,
but are interested in answering critics of the work of the Attorney
General's Commission...."

But don't rely on this excerpt -- read the primary sources!
Dietz/Sears can be found at 21 U Mich JL Ref 7, while Linz/Donnerstein
follows hard upon at 21 U.Mich.J.L.Rev 47. Once you read them, it becomes
clear that Rimm article is modelled, both substantively and rhetorically,
on the Dietz/Sears article -- the very title of Marty's article echoes
that of Dietz/Sears.

> From what I know of Rimm's
> actual study (as opposed to the misrepresentations of his study by
> people on both sides of the debate) I doubt a new study would come to
> substantially different findings. 

And yet Marty prepared in advance for the risk of different findings 
by subsequent researchers -- he attempted to render his study immune
to falsification in what has become my favorite footnote in the
article, footnote 9:

   '[9] As a result of federal legal action against a few well known
   "adult" BBS operators, including Robert and Carleen Thomas (Amateur
   Action) and Robert Copella (Pequena Panacha), some systems have
   removed their paraphilic, pedophilic, and hebephilic imagery from
   public display. This has created a thriving underground market for
   "private collections" and anonymous ftp sites on the Internet, which
   cannot be studied systematically. Thus, it may be difficult for
   researchers to repeat this study, as much valuable data is no longer
   publicly available. See infra notes 89-95 and accompanying text.'

Breathtaking, isn't it? 

Normally I wouldn't have taken the time to respond to Matthew's
disingenuous response to Handler, but I thought it worthwhile, 
as an enthusiastic student of the life and works of Marty Rimm,
to point out here that engaging in debate about the *literal* or *technical*
meaning of a given statement or claim by Rimm often misses the point of
the statement or claim.

This is especially worth remembering when one is debating Matthew, who
in pursuit of his undeclared agenda is deeply interested in seeing 
Rimm vindicated.

--Mike