Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!nike!cit-vax!amdahl!fai!ronc
From: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The latest in Playboy controversies
Message-ID: <413@fai.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 13:49:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: fai.413
Posted: Wed Oct  8 13:49:06 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 02:35:36 EDT
References: <4107@reed.UUCP> <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> <464@cci632.UUCP>
Reply-To: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 33

In article <464@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>Got two problems here.  Those who displayed the porn seem to be saying
>"It's not OK to not like porn"
>The feminist/moralist/... is saying "It's not OK to like porn".
>
>Neither is right.  If one group likes porn, they should be able to
>read it, not put it on display for those who don't.

I agree, with reservations.

>If one group does not like porn, they should be able to go into the
>public portions of a building without being confronted by it.

I agree again, but a small quibble; she (the not-like-porn group) didn't
live there, and they (the like-porn group) did.  Posting the centerfolds
was rude, but one could argue that they had the right.  Also, I think the
accusation was based on sexist porn, not porn in general.  (Although, maybe
she considered all porn to be sexist.  How can we know?)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that one can sue someone because they
have a picture of a naked (whomever) hanging in the public part of a
building.  If you take this to extremes, she could as easily sued an
art gallery.


				Ron
-- 
--
		Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
		seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc  -or-   ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc

Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
	"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."