Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Just a couple of thoughts on Pornography
Message-ID: <32373@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 11:58:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.32373
Posted: Thu Oct 24 11:58:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 06:48:12 EDT
References: <732@utai.UUCP> <909@utcs.uucp> <504@scirtp.UUCP> <12506@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 29

>> 
>It's in the dictionary, look it up.  If porn was not defined, then it wouldn't
>be in the dictionary, in fact, it wouldn't be a word.  All this talk of porn
>being in the bible and if you censored porn most of the bible would be censored
>as well is pure unintelligible garbage.  Porn is porn is porn period.  As you
>can see, I don't feel like playing semantics today.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

	pornography	n.  Written, graphic or other forms of
	communication intended to excite lascivious feelings.

By whose lascivious feelings shall we judge?  What if your favorite
book or movie excites lascivious feelings in me?  Shall we ban it?

I don't feel like "playing semantics" either but the problem that you
and many others seem eager to ignore is that this is *just* such a
semantic[1] problem.  *Whose* meaning do we accept?  This (or any
other) definition just doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.  It is
certainly not an adequate criterion for banning a book, photograph,
painting, motion picture, sculpture ...
----------
[1]  "It's in the dictionary, look it up."
-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa