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