Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!west
From: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Kiddie Porn
Message-ID: <731@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 16:49:12 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.731
Posted: Sun Feb  3 16:49:12 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 17:42:02 EST
References: <4608@cbscc.UUCP> <20459@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 16
Summary: 


  But I thought all sorts of people were claiming that pornography isn't
harmful.  Now certain classes of people have to be 'protected' against it.
(or more particularily, being involved in the making of it.)  Isn't this
a slight reversal of position?

  Perhaps what is meant is that pornography *is* harmful, but adults are
generally able to suppress the harmful effects (except in certain rather
tragic cases). 

  To those who claim that pornography is harmless:  Do you have any objections
to children purchasing pornography?  Or is the harm for minors merely in the
making?

   Tom West
 { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west