Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <1690@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 21:40:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1690
Posted: Mon Sep 23 21:40:52 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 03:45:56 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <4500038@ccvaxa> <2504@watcgl.UUCP> <1669@watdcsu.UUCP> <11729@rochester.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: University of Woolamaloo
Lines: 26
Summary: 

In article <11729@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>> 
>> My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott.  But, if child porn was
>> to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing
>> it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to
>> such a ban.  If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or
>> that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness
>> of children, I would be opposed.
>> 
>How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal?  It would have
>to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting.

If I assume that you understood my article, then why would you want
disgust to be used as the grounds for banning child porn?

>                                                          I would like
>to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal.

I don't feel strongly about whether child porn is banned, as I do
about why it is banned.  The fact that it involves committing a crime,
ie. sexually exploiting children, seems as good a reason as any, and
better than the reasons usually given.
-- 
David Canzi

Hmmm, folks must not be heavily into freedom these days. -- Garfield