Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site persci.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
From: bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: pornography ordinance (reality vs. legality)
Message-ID: <455@persci.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 14:54:59 EST
Article-I.D.: persci.455
Posted: Fri Nov 22 14:54:59 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 04:44:26 EST
References: <39400010@uiucdcs> <336@mb2c.UUCP> <477@zinfandel.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan)
Lines: 15
Summary: 

In article <477@zinfandel.UUCP> berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) 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 [...]
>that it means NO LAW, that's it, period.

Berry,

You are naive only in thinking that the Constitution has anything to do with
the practice of law in this country.


-- 
William Swan  {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill