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