Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!mit-eddie!lkk
From: lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography and Civil Rights
Message-ID: <1555@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 18:32:25 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1555
Posted: Thu Apr  5 18:32:25 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 03:19:20 EST
References: <304@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

Mike Kelly made a comparison between banning porno and banning child
pornography, citing limitations to first amendment freedoms.

I think the comparison is flawed since the rationales behind the banning
are entirely different.  Child Pornography is banned because it
(presumably) hurts the children involved.  Regular porno is banned
because of the suppossed deliterious effects on the viewer and on
society, which is a matter of adults making up their minds.  Do you
believe that adults should be shielded from such movies?  Who is going
to decide what to sheild them from?  WIll the person screening the films
(the censor) be hurt by their content?  I want all the access that the
censor does.
-- 
Larry Kolodney
(The Devil's Advocate)

(USE)    ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk  
(ARPA)	lkk@mit-mc