Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <1159@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 10:15:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1159
Posted: Fri Sep 13 10:15:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:29:18 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> <691@rduxb.UUCP> <24@unc.unc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.women:7406 net.motss:2050 net.flame:11925

--
> 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

Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem.  The fact is
that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does
"defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize
their oppression.  What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify
the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make
pornographers responsible for their actions.  I claim that, although
you have--and ought to have--the right to stand on a soap-box and
exhort all who will listen to beat me up, that I ought to have some
legal redress (such as civil suit) against you for your responsibility
(admittedly small) in that action should I come to any harm from said
mob.  Do you have any responsibility in such an instance?  Let a jury
decide.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  13 Sep 85 [27 Fructidor An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***