Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice5.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!rdz From: rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <624@ccice5.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 13:11:00 EST Article-I.D.: ccice5.624 Posted: Mon Jan 7 13:11:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 05:17:00 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP> <618@utcsrgv.UUCP> Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY Lines: 20 Xref: watmath net.legal:1230 net.women:3985 > I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less > of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that > some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm > that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite > sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability > to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the > fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence > far more than was ever intended. > > Tom West > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west I have several Canadian friends and resent your implication that they are not intelligent enough to be exposed to pornography and still retain a non- warped view of the opposite sex. But then mabey that's because I've run XXX tapes accross the border to them. P.S. The OPP doesn't get this net, does it? (cringe) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***