Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <259@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 19:22:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccivax.259
Posted: Tue Sep 17 19:22:17 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:35:06 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> <393@scirtp.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 91

> > Before porn the free press was just that free, 
> 
> Was just *HOW* free? Pornography has always existed in some
> form or another.

    Pornography has existed long before the free press, today we just call
	those early works 'classical art'.  Remember, theater (even in the
	form of religeon) is only the second oldest profession.

> 
> > When porn is banned the free press will be just that free.
> 
> Just *HOW* free? How can something be free if it's banned?

    In fact, even today the 'free press' (including such mags as PLAYBOY)
	are more strict on themselves than any government agency will
	ever be allowed to be.  The EDITORIAL POLICY is the primary
	governing factor of any publication.  Even your raunchiest
	rags place limits on themselves (though sometimes the policy
	is that something is 'too tame', there are certain boundries
	they will choose not to cross).

> 
> >  Try if you can not to have such GLOBAL thinking
> > processes, i.e. if this happens then all that will happen.  
> 
> What?
> 
> > We as intelligent rational beings can surely make guidelines differenciating
> > between watching people take a shit in a porn movie 
> > and the more wholesome freee
> > media enlightening us to local and world events.

	If the people take a shit or whatever in the movie, the patron
	should be told in advance.  I think there may be a greater need
	for 'truth in advertising' laws governing porn, but you can't
	regulate it if you make it illegal.
> 
> Have intelligent people ever agreed on subjectively defining something?
> I've never seen it done, just look at the variety of opinions on the net.
> 
> > 
> > There is an organization in Boston who advocates legalizing 
> > sex with children offany age, but in particular with 
> > their own children whom they claim are theirs too
> > do with as they sexually please and should not be governed 
> > by outside sex laws..
> 
> So you have unearthed a bunch of perverts. BFD.
> 

	If there are grounds for prosecution under other laws such as
	child abuse, statutory rape, or any other violation of an
	already established law, the prosecution of the people involved
	should be on the basis of that crime.  This has been used
	successfully against 'snuff film' producers for awhile.  As it
	stands now, many states require proof that all models are
	18 or over (some >18 models are in high demand if they look
	younger though).  If a model in a film is even reported missing,
	porn can be used as grounds for search warrants.

> > Your irrational 'global thinking' would say we must not interfer with these
> > people in Boston, for if the government prevents their freedom of sexual ex-
> > pression then we will surely be next.  

	I personally find the violence, murder, brutality and glamorization
	of the network news offensive.  I would rather read a 'dirty book'.
	Remember the vietnam war?  See full color footage of murder,
	torture, and human cruelty at it's best, right after 'BOZO the
	CLOWN', perhaps if we had been a little more descrete and waited
	until 11:00 pm to show the 'juicy stuff', we may not have had all
	those wonderful race-riots, anti-war demonstrations, and even
	punk rocker's (the ones with pins in their noses?).  Your
	'enlightenment' may be another's pornography.
> 
> To grant press freedom to pornographers *DOES NOT* give them license
> to perpetrate crimes against children, or unconsenting adults.
> Child Pornography necessitates the corruption of minors, which
> clearly should continue to be illegal.
> 
> > I say bullshit.  
> > We are more intelligent than that, at least most of us are.
> 
	Speaking of intelligence (a result of reading), have you heard about
	any of the 'remedial reading' courses for high school illiterates?
	If a student 'checks out' a Playboy, he has to report on at least
	one of the articles in it.  No student is required to read these
	magazines, but if 'Miss July' will get you to read, it's better
	than 'See Spot Run' for the rest of your life.

	(Opinions are mine, but you can share them)