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