Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher
From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Mr. Dubuc on pornography
Message-ID: <3334@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 03:12:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.3334
Posted: Sun Jan 20 03:12:12 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 05:36:38 EST
References: <764@ames.UUCP> <4612@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 22
Summary: 

I am unwilling to allow abridgement of free speech on the flimsy evidence
presented so far (which mostly amounts to attempts to prove by vigorous 
assertion) that pornography is harmful.  I think that kiddie porn is not a good 
example, due to the fact that children are widely treated as different from 
adults under the law.  As far as Mr. Dubuc's assertion that art works better 
under constraints, there is some truth in this, but self imposed constraints are
the ones that count.  Had I the talent to be an artist of any sort, I would
refuse to obey any other kind of constraints.  I suspect that this is the 
generally held view among artists.  Would you really like to argue that it
was the Production Code that contributed to the greatness of Hollywood in
the 30s and 40s, that being forbidden to even deal with certain subjects made
for better films?  I would not like to have to defend that position in a 
debate.

I think that the varying positions have been made pretty clear in this
discussion.  Unless someone has something really new to add, why don't
we get back to discussing books?
-- 

        			Peter Reiher
        			reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher