Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!west From: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <618@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 05:03:59 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.618 Posted: Mon Dec 31 05:03:59 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 05:24:10 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP> Reply-To: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 23 Summary: Helen Anne Vigneau writes: >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? Well, I would claim that men and women used in such movies and such ARE being degraded. I don't support the ordinance, but I claim that pornography, because of how it views humans in general, degrades the person who appears in it and human beings in general. And that is *irrespective* of the willingness of the participants to degrade themselves. I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence far more than was ever intended. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west