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