Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!hudson!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.books,net.movies,net.legal,net.women,net.politics Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <556@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 17:15:06 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.556 Posted: Fri Dec 21 17:15:06 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 00:46:33 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.books:1117 net.movies:5324 net.legal:1138 net.women:3874 net.politics:6445 For people reading this in net.politics, check out <249@ahuta.UUCP> in one of net.{books,movies,legal,women}. The subject is an ordinance that defines the sale, distribution, display, etc. of "pornography" to be a violation of women's civil rights. > [My summary: If this ordinance is actually upheld, we're in big trouble. Free > speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and who knows what else have all > been trampled in the activists' attempt to right what *they* think is wrong. > I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you, than have some self-appointed Moral > Majority tell *me* what to think. This ordinance is just the first step to a > police state and I won't stand for it!] > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl The ordinance is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Don't count on the Supreme Court performing its duty. The military draft was a blatant violation of the thirteenth amendment. Luckily the justices are apt to pay more attention to one of the original ten than to any latter amendment. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143