Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site fear.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!weitek!fear!robert
From: robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <268@fear.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 14:00:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: fear.268
Posted: Sun Sep 22 14:00:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 10:30:14 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <4500038@ccvaxa> <2504@watcgl.UUCP> <11729@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Weitek Corp. Sunnyvale Ca.
Lines: 18
Summary: You don't need to ban something that's already illegal!

> > 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.
> > 
Ray Frank writes:
> 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.  I would like
> to see your reasons for why child porn should be made illegal.

If it's already illegal, you don't HAVE to ban it -- it's ALREADY
BANNED! (Why isn't this obvious?)
-- 

		Robert Plamondon
		{turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com