Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hercules.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!teklds!hercules!franka From: franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) Newsgroups: net.books,net.movies,net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <358@hercules.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 00:38:26 EST Article-I.D.: hercules.358 Posted: Mon Dec 31 00:38:26 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:48:07 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 45 Xref: watmath net.books:1159 net.movies:5386 net.legal:1180 net.women:3952 Summary: In article <894@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes: ><*munch*> > >This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the >hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that >if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty >little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being >degraded by making them? Well, somehow, people got the idea that the Christian right has proposed this law. Now far be it from me to defend this group, but in the spirit of accuracy and fairness, I must say that they jumped on the bandwagon after they saw that the proposal was in accordance with the result they wanted. Who did give this stupid, unconstitional proposal to the Mineapolis/St. Paul city council? A group of feminists. Yes, those who wish now to make people equal by denying rights (sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but that's the way I read the law) to others. > Since when must a woman be protected from what she >chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. But didn't you know? Your life influences the public and therefore, your life must be legislated by the state. Especially when there is a slight pos- sibility of a chance causal effect that might hurt someone in the unforseeable future. >If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or >anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, >incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about >prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the >name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my >choice? The state and a group of rabid men haters who are willing to push hard enough for it, that's who... > This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! >Better yet, it never should have been written!!! > Amen. Luckily, the ordinance was proposed and voted on last January (I guess news travels slowly to most of the idiots on this net). It narrowly passed and was vetoed by the mayor. Frank Adrian