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!!