Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <24@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 10:06:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.24
Posted: Wed Sep  4 10:06:54 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:42:02 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> <691@rduxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 13
Xref: watmath net.women:7321 net.motss:2026 net.flame:11826
Summary: 

In article <691@rduxb.UUCP> sja@rduxb.UUCP (Sam J. Anastasio) writes:
>> > > Subject: DON'T TRY TO BAN PORNOGRAPHY!! IT WON'T WORK!!
>> > I whole-heartedly AGREE!!  
>> Just to balance things out, I disagree. 
>NOT JUST TO UNBALANCE THINGS:  I   A G R E E  (no ban man!!!)   

Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the
definition of the word, "pornography".  Pornography is any literature
or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement
i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest.  Oppression and
defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue.

	Frank Silbermann