Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wlcrjs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie From: zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <449@wlcrjs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 21:33:56 EST Article-I.D.: wlcrjs.449 Posted: Mon Jan 7 21:33:56 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 07:55:22 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP><1317@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL Lines: 20 Xref: watmath net.legal:1237 net.women:3990 Summary: I am far from a supporter of pornagraphy but I think that a short step back needs to be taken. 1) Any rule or law which seems to be limmiting the fredom of a person to do as they please in society today is subject to chanllenge as being either discriminatory to a small group or groups or as being unconstitutional per se. 2) Pornography is not merely the actions of consenting adults. We have laws and rules in this country at least to help each individual be an individual free to do as the will provided that excersize does not impair (sp) or impune the same freedom for another. No matter how a law designed to deal with pornography is presented there will always be some minority block (even the pornographers) who will feel that the law isunconstitutional because their rights are being infringed upon. Long live ANARCHY!!