3. Defamation and Loss of Status in the Community

Part: 
Four
Chapter: 
1

The Commission received testimony from witnesses who reported that pornographic materials were used to place them in a bad light. The witnesses stated that they had been depicted in pornography without knowledge or consent. Although avenues of recourse may have been available, some were advised to avoid further adverse publicity. For example, one woman testified:

The buyer had their choice of seven famous women pictured in the nude; all of our full names were listed and, of course, choice of color of T-shirt. I was appalled and angry and had meetings with a lawyer regarding what action I should take. All my then advisers, this attorney, my personal manager (regarding career) and my business manager (regarding accounting and finances) advised strongly against taking any action whatsoever. They all concurred that it would be extremely costly and would draw attention to and sell more of these shirts.[909]

Other witnesses stated that pornographic materials were used to hinder their standing within the community. This apparently was particularly true for individuals who had at one time been depicted in pornography. For example, Linda Marchiano testified:

And the fact that this film is still being shown and that my three children will one day walk down the street and see their mother being abused, it makes me angry, makes me sad. Virtually every time someone watches that film, they are watching me being raped.[910]

Notes

  1. Public Hearings before Minneapolis City Council, Session III, (Dec. 1983), p. 5.
  2. Public Hearings before Minneapolis City Council, Session I, (Dec. 1983), p. 56.