Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) Newsgroups: net.books,net.women Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade anybody (reply to Zeszuto) Message-ID: <192@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 18:07:09 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxr.192 Posted: Thu Jan 10 18:07:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:27:30 EST References: <4699@tektronix.UUCP>, <2758@ncsu.UUCP> <2529@ihuxf.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 12 Xref: watmath net.books:1194 net.women:4026 Zeszuto's posting dealt with pornography and erotica, with the former being objectionable and the latter not. Can Zeszuto or anyone provide a valid legal definition of pornography? Such a person should immediately contact the Supreme Court, which has failed at that endeavor for at leat 20 years. It ended up with something like "I know it when I see it" Sorry but what I see is not what you see and in a democracy what you see has no intrisic superiority to what I see. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs