Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!leimkuhl
From: leimkuhl@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Pornography
Message-ID: <6000014@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 16:30:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.6000014
Posted: Thu Jan 17 16:30:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 10:32:33 EST
Lines: 35
Nf-ID: #N:uiucdcsb:6000014:000:1511
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!leimkuhl    Jan 17 15:30:00 1985



  I've read with interest most of the responses to "Pornography
  degrading to women in this group.  But I don't think anyone's
  pointed out a very important reason why pornography should not
  (and cannot constitutionally) be banned or controlled.  

  The simple fact is that pornography is expression and expression
  cannot be censored in the US.

  Regardless of whether or not you think that pornography is degrading
  to women, pornography is an exercise of the guaranteed right to free 
  speech.  It is not important what the content of the message is, but
  only that it is a message.  The intents and ends of those who 
  produce pornography do not bear on their right to do so.

  The only exceptions to the right of free speech occur when there is
  defamation or libel, but these are civil matters--furthermore, they
  are not class grievances.  Only individuals or groups of individuals
  technically can be libeled, not whole classes.  

  If the courts were to censor pornography because it is "degrading to
  women," they would be likewise required to censor the newspaper
  of the KKK for being degrading to jews, but also the organ of the
  moral majority for being degrading to homosexuals.  Where does such
  censorship end?  Is the <> not degrading to conservatives?
  Isn't <> degrading to blacks?

  Let's stop this foolish censorship nonsense before we completely 
  destroy the diversity that makes our art and culture so unique.



-Ben Leimkuhler