Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books,net.movies,net.legal,net.women
Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance
Message-ID: <117@cadre.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Dec-84 09:03:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.117
Posted: Tue Dec 25 09:03:49 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:41:43 EST
References: <249@ahuta.UUCP>
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 23

I agree with Evelyn.  While I do think that pornography is
a sore on the flesh of society, it isn't one that can be
healed by stomping it with the jackboot.  The essence of
a totalitarian society is one with enough draconian laws
that everyone is guilty of some violation.  You then stay
out of jail only by the good graces of the government.
Add ordinances such as these to the tax laws, drug laws,
and a few more "conspiracy" laws and we're getting there.
The first amendment is more important than making sure
that no one is offended or exploited.  Laws dealing with
pornography should confine themselves to "public" displays
(by which I mean really public, not behind some closed door
or in some club), sales to children, and cases in which the photographed party
is forced.  The printed word could never qualify as actionable
unless it contained names of real people, in which case the
current civil law would surely suffice.  When this ordinance
starts talking about the social undersirabilty of pornography
because of the ATTITUDES it causes in the readers, it is
treading on very thin ice, and is a very dangerous law,
since the next step could be politically undersirable attitudes.
If someone wanted to publish a book advocating the subjugation
of women, removal of their voting rights, etc., would that
be illegal?