Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site smu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!mike From: mike@smu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.books Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women, i Message-ID: <11300010@smu.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 12:41:00 EST Article-I.D.: smu.11300010 Posted: Fri Jan 4 12:41:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 03:36:07 EST References: <243@looking.UUCP> Lines: 9 Nf-ID: #R:looking:-24300:smu:11300010:000:383 Nf-From: smu!mike Jan 4 11:41:00 1985 I have also noticed that all nettish people seem to be rallying to the cause of free speech, free expression, freedom of the press, etc. I am also in favor of press freedom and I think most thinking professional people are as well. Is *anyone* out there really in favor of the anti-porn ordinance? I'd be curious to see an argument in support. Mike McNally ...convex!csevax.smu