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?