Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!eosp1!robison From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <1328@eosp1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 12:44:26 EST Article-I.D.: eosp1.1328 Posted: Tue Jan 8 12:44:26 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:39:05 EST References: <257@hocsp.UUCP> <318@ahuta.UUCP> <640@uwmacc.UUCP> Reply-To: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton Lines: 25 Xref: watmath net.legal:1246 net.women:4003 Summary: >In article <318@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First >Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. The late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used to interpret the first amendment literally and consistently, that Congress may make NO LAW that abridges freedom from censorship. He has been virtually alone in this position, with almost all other justices believing that there are commonsense exceptions. One must always be concerned that the next person's idea about how to censor will be accepted as a good exception. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I personally would be receptive to censorship of materials that are truly likely to make young children become more violent people. But in general, censorship of anything, even Nazi hate literature, makes me uncomfortable. There are almost always better ways, both legal and sometimes illegal, to deal with things you disagree with, than to resort to censorship. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison