Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site zinfandel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!zinfandel!berry
From: berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Proposed pornography ordinance
Message-ID: <477@zinfandel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 11:29:53 EST
Article-I.D.: zinfande.477
Posted: Tue Nov 19 11:29:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 05:13:14 EST
References: <39400010@uiucdcs> <336@mb2c.UUCP>
Reply-To: berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval)
Organization: Zehntel Inc., Walnut Creek CA
Lines: 17
Summary: 

In article <336@mb2c.UUCP> mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) writes:
>Typically, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, pornography is
>not a protected area of speech.  This a majority opinion.  

Gee, I guess it's naive of me to think that when the Constitution says
 
	"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
	or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
	speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
	assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

that it means NO LAW, that's it, period.
-- 
"Don't let anyone steal your dream."

Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.	(ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900				(kerch@lll-tis.ARPA)