Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women
Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance
Message-ID: <1328@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 12:44:26 EST
Article-I.D.: eosp1.1328
Posted: Tue Jan  8 12:44:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:39:05 EST
References: <257@hocsp.UUCP> <318@ahuta.UUCP> <640@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.legal:1246 net.women:4003
Summary: 

>In article <318@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes:
>And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First
>Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it.  

The late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used to interpret
the first amendment literally and consistently, that
Congress may make NO LAW that abridges freedom
from censorship.  He has  been virtually alone in this
position, with almost all other justices believing
that there are commonsense exceptions.

One must always be concerned that the next person's idea
about how to censor will be accepted as a good exception.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I personally would be receptive to censorship of materials
that are truly likely to make young children become more
violent people.  But in general, censorship of anything,
even Nazi hate literature, makes me uncomfortable.
There are almost always better ways, both legal and
sometimes illegal, to deal with things you disagree with,
than to resort to censorship.

  - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
  {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison