Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!leimkuhl From: leimkuhl@uiucdcsb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.books Subject: Re: Pornography Message-ID: <6000014@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 16:30:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.6000014 Posted: Thu Jan 17 16:30:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 10:32:33 EST Lines: 35 Nf-ID: #N:uiucdcsb:6000014:000:1511 Nf-From: uiucdcsb!leimkuhl Jan 17 15:30:00 1985 I've read with interest most of the responses to "Pornography degrading to women in this group. But I don't think anyone's pointed out a very important reason why pornography should not (and cannot constitutionally) be banned or controlled. The simple fact is that pornography is expression and expression cannot be censored in the US. Regardless of whether or not you think that pornography is degrading to women, pornography is an exercise of the guaranteed right to free speech. It is not important what the content of the message is, but only that it is a message. The intents and ends of those who produce pornography do not bear on their right to do so. The only exceptions to the right of free speech occur when there is defamation or libel, but these are civil matters--furthermore, they are not class grievances. Only individuals or groups of individuals technically can be libeled, not whole classes. If the courts were to censor pornography because it is "degrading to women," they would be likewise required to censor the newspaper of the KKK for being degrading to jews, but also the organ of the moral majority for being degrading to homosexuals. Where does such censorship end? Is the <> not degrading to conservatives? Isn't <> degrading to blacks? Let's stop this foolish censorship nonsense before we completely destroy the diversity that makes our art and culture so unique. -Ben Leimkuhler