Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <4251@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Jan-85 14:05:42 EST Article-I.D.: tekecs.4251 Posted: Sat Jan 5 14:05:42 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 03:15:12 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP><1317@dciem.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 26 Xref: watmath net.legal:1222 net.women:3977 > 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. > Um, well maybe it warps *your* views, but why should the activities of healthy, normal people be circumscribed because of the attitudes of a few sickos like you? :-) Well, if it doesn't warp your views, what makes you think it warps anyone else's? I would claim that people seek out that which already conforms with what they believe - that pornography (what *is* it, anyway?) changes no minds. Of course, you can get out of that by making a distinction between pornography and erotica, one being degrading and the other not, but as a practical matter it's hard (for the legal system) to draw a line between the two. I heartily applaud your final sentence, however. This net is bio-degrading... Jeff Winslow