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