Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <2504@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 10:47:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2504
Posted: Thu Sep 12 10:47:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 03:17:04 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <4500038@ccvaxa>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51

> 
> > [quotes from Kenn Barry]
> > I take censorship personally.  If I hear of a book being banned, I take
> > it as someone telling *me*, *personally*, what I may and may not read.
> ----------
> Absolutely correct.  Most of the people who would censor things are
> taking the position that the rest of the world is incapable of making
> an informed decision on what to read.  That's blatantly paternalistic.

  It's also true of a very large segment of the population.  If you
  doubt that large segments of the "adult" population I can only
  suggest watching the behaviour of drivers (speeding, illegal/unsafe
  passing, discourteous behaviour, DWI, etc.) and people in a variety
  of locations such as bars, and perhaps court cases.

> If there are people who will have an antisocial response to some
> particular kind of material, fix them, they're broken.
  
  Preferable but not likely to happen in our lifetime (besides if
  you aren't willing to decide what reading material is appropriate
  how are you going to take responsibility for "fixing" them?).
  Controlling the access of emotionally unstable or immature people
  to "inflammatory" reading (or viewing) material may well be a
  necessary part of "fixing" them (to stretch an analogy, you don't
  give uncontrolled access to drugs to someone who is trying to kick
  the habit).

> ----------
> > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for
> > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without
> > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status
> > of simulated violence and sadism.
> ----------
> Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should
> not be illegal to sell or possess them.
  To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust
  by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and
  possess it?

> ----------
> 
> -- 
> scott preece
> ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
-- 

	John Chapman
	...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman

	Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me
		     and they may not even be mine.