Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2g!scott
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <637@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 08:57:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.637
Posted: Wed Sep 18 08:57:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:35:20 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <-1988585@sysvis>, <11617@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: The Finish Line
Lines: 60


>What makes YOOOUUUU the spokes person for what people want and don't want.
>Who asked you to determine what is good or bad for us.  


Hey, FRANK, what gives YOU the right to put words in peoples' mouths? 
Quote me the passage from this guy that states he's deciding what
people want and don't want.  The only place he said anything of the
kind is when he indicated people want the right to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.
If that's what you're referring to, then he can speak for me anytime.


>                                 What you read and watch in the media is
>already being manipulated by a handful of people.  They ARE determining what
>is good for us.  Wake up for crying out loud and look about you.  There is
>more of a lack of freedom in the media now than ever before, especially on
>the boob tube.  Strange isn't it that Little House On The Prairie type 
>programming is virtually gone 

Not at all! It sucked! 

>                               and replaced by what would be banned some years
>ago as decadent.  Did you have a choice in this, hell no, you and your 
>defend freedom of the Hefner press types were lead around by the nose like
>a silly bull waiting to see where you were going and didn't know where you
>were when you got there.  You have been subtley feed on a diet consisting
>of the unpalatable tastes of a handful of media controlling society hustlers 
>who systematically gained control of your morals and replaced them with 
>their own value system.  Again the very sad thing about this is you think 
>you have control of what you watch and read, but you don't.  They do.  

Huh?  Any media "hustlers" (sic) who don't present what the majority of
the people want don't last long.  Can you say "ratings"?  I knew you could.
Now can you understand it?  The accuracy of the Nielson system may be
questionable, but the media executive's reliance on it is not.

Everybody has control over what they watch and read (except maybe your
children, Frank, and anyone else you can manage to CONTROL).  If they don't
like it, they just turn it off.  There's a big difference between having
lots of programming you want to see and being forced to watch things you don't
like.


>By the way, it is easy to remain subjective on porn.  But would it be just
>as easy to remain subjective if you saw your daughter or son or any other close
>relative or loved one being used in a porn movie for the financial 
>gratification of those handfuls of people who care nothing at all about 
>the public's desires concerning values or morals.  
 
If that's what they wanted to do, and it was done freely and as a result
of concious choice, then yes.  I have no right to dictate their morals.
But of course you do?

By the way, Frank, I *think* you meant OBjective, above.  Maybe it's so
easy for YOU to remain SUBjective, because you can't seem to be OBjective.


			Scott J. Berry


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com