Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Posting re. Andrea Dworkin
Message-ID: <658778710@grad17.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 90 22:08:22 GMT
References: <272090CA.26470@ics.uci.edu> <1741@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)
Lines: 16
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: liege.ics.uci.edu

In article <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes:
>"The law itself is civil, not criminal. It allows people who have been
>hurt by pornography to sue for sex discrimination.  Under this law, it
>is sex discrimination to coerce, intimidate, or fraudulently induce
>anyone into pornography;

Under the Minneapolis law a woman who feel degraded because of
all-men gay porno will be able to sue and collect damages.

The idea is to return to the old Puritan standards -
if *any* women does not like something sexual then it should not
be presented and/or discussed.

I think that *willingness* of the feminist movement to cut (others...)
freedom of speech to achieve a "good" goals tells us about how little
they care about other people's freedom...