Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Message-ID: <1580@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Sep-86 03:56:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1580
Posted: Sat Sep 27 03:56:35 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 03:03:37 EDT
References: <897@usl.UUCP> <1518@mtx5a.UUCP> <5137@dartvax.UUCP> <394@cci632.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 25
Xref: linus net.legal:4864 soc.singles:254

> One concern is the possibility that the commission will attempt to
> create guidelines similar to those used in the film industry for
> printed matter, using existing precedents as assurances of
> "first amendment protection".  Unfortunately, if "Soft Porn" is
> only available where "Hard Porn" is sold, most soft porn, and their
> legitimate contributions will dissappear.

The Commission voted (by the slimmest of majorities, it is true) to
recommend the removal of *all* restrictions on non-pedophelic ``written
word'' material.  This does not include magazines whose main interest is
photographic, of course.

It's more likely that any such guidlines will come from the industry under
citizen pressure, just as the Motion Picture industry established its own
guidlines.  But since existing large-circulation magazines already have their
positions well-staked out, it seems unnecessary.  As far as the polarization
question: please see my reply to Phil.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
					(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
						mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
					(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.