Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <1690@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 21:40:52 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1690 Posted: Mon Sep 23 21:40:52 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 03:45:56 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <4500038@ccvaxa> <2504@watcgl.UUCP> <1669@watdcsu.UUCP> <11729@rochester.UUCP> Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Organization: University of Woolamaloo Lines: 26 Summary: In article <11729@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> >> My normal impulse would be to agree with Scott. But, if child porn was >> to be banned, and if the reason given for banning it was that producing >> it necessarily involves committing a crime, I would not be opposed to >> such a ban. If the reason given was that child porn is disgusting, or >> that reading child porn gives people ideas about the sexual willingness >> of children, I would be opposed. >> >How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal? It would have >to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting. If I assume that you understood my article, then why would you want disgust to be used as the grounds for banning child porn? > I would like >to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal. I don't feel strongly about whether child porn is banned, as I do about why it is banned. The fact that it involves committing a crime, ie. sexually exploiting children, seems as good a reason as any, and better than the reasons usually given. -- David Canzi Hmmm, folks must not be heavily into freedom these days. -- Garfield Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com