Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!dual!hav From: hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) Newsgroups: net.books,net.movies,net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <894@dual.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 15:50:45 EST Article-I.D.: dual.894 Posted: Fri Dec 28 15:50:45 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Dec-84 05:51:47 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA Lines: 18 <*munch*> This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being degraded by making them? Since when must a woman be protected from what she chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my choice? This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! Better yet, it never should have been written!!! Helen Anne Vigneau Dual Systems Corporation