Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <393@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 17:51:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: scirtp.393
Posted: Wed Sep  4 17:51:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:43:28 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 58


> Just to balance things out, I disagree.  We must ban pornography.  

What is pornography? I'm not trying to be facetious, but it is
a term without a strict, objective definition.

> Before porn the free press was just that free, 

Was just *HOW* free? Pornography has always existed in some
form or another.

> When porn is banned the free press will be just that free.

Just *HOW* free? How can something be free if it's banned?

>  Try if you can not to have such GLOBAL thinking
> processes, i.e. if this happens then all that will happen.  

What?

> We as intelligent rational beings can surely make guidelines differenciating
> between watching people take a shit in a porn movie 
> and the more wholesome freee
> media enlightening us to local and world events.

Have intelligent people ever agreed on subjectively defining something?
I've never seen it done, just look at the variety of opinions on the net.

> 
> There is an organization in Boston who advocates legalizing 
> sex with children offany age, but in particular with 
> their own children whom they claim are theirs too
> do with as they sexually please and should not be governed 
> by outside sex laws..

So you have unearthed a bunch of perverts. BFD.

> Your irrational 'global thinking' would say we must not interfer with these
> people in Boston, for if the government prevents their freedom of sexual ex-
> pression then we will surely be next.  

To grant press freedom to pornographers *DOES NOT* give them license
to perpetrate crimes against children, or unconsenting adults.
Child Pornography necessitates the corruption of minors, which
clearly should continue to be illegal.

> I say bullshit.  
> We are more intelligent than that, at least most of us are.

I take exception with your last comment. Your reasoning has
been sketchy, at best. I look forward to your response.

   |||||||
   ||   ||
   [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
    \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
    | ~ |
    |___|        SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.