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 ***