Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Preventive Medicine on Porn and Censorship:re to Averack
Message-ID: <446@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 16:12:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.446
Posted: Thu Oct  2 16:12:16 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 08:36:36 EDT
References: <5221@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1183@bunker.UUCP> <1253@whuxl.UUCP> <1190@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:504 net.legal:5251
Summary: A few corrections.

In article <1190@bunker.UUCP> rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) writes:
>In article <1253@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP writes:
>>Meese sent out a letter to thousands of stores requesting they cease
>>selling erotic materials.  This would be the equivalent of MADD going
>>around trying to close down liquor stores.  I don't recall that MADD
>>ever did that, do you?  At one time we had Prohibition but it didn't
>>work very well at all, now did it?

First, Meese did nothing but organize the commission.  Second, the
commission only sent letters reporting that the stores involved had
been named in a commission report on pornography.  The fact that
they were named by a witness who simply cited every retailer of
Playboy or Penthouse magazine was not included in the letter.

MADD has not advocated closing of liquor stores.  However they have
advocated penalties for selling alcohol to minors and intoxicated persons
which include revocation or suspension of liquor licences, seisure of
inventory, and or imprisonment of the licence owner.  The results are
not always the results intended.  In New York, if a person does not
have proof of age when stopped by the police, but has liquor with
the name of the retailer marked on the reciept, the retailer is
subject to penalties, whether the person in question was of age or not.

>Tim, I said in my response to Brian that I am not totally resolved as to
>the Meese Commission, although I am in agreement as to their findings of
>a relationship between pornography and violence.

The Meese commission found that there *may* be correlations between
certain types of pornography and certain types of violent crime, yet
found that there *was not* a correlation between violent entertainment
and any types of violent crime.  A little inconsistant if you ask me.
Considering the material used as a basis for the conclusion was heavily
loaded with violence and only mildly sexual in content, it is almost
abuse of their power.

>The reason for my lack
>of resolution is, as you have pointed out, their technique in handling
>this most sensitive issue.
>
>>did he criticize the glorification of violence?  Reagan and his regime
>>glory in violence.
>>Frankly I find that kind of hypocrisy disgusting.
>>                      tim sevener  whuxn!orb
>
>I am in complete agreement with you here, Tim.  I find the Ronbo Regime
>completely repulsive.  We're really not that far apart.  I'm only
>offering that we need to be especially cautious with the fine line
>between *Freedom of Expression* and *Clear and Present Danger*.

You are correct, here.  Unless there is a situation of *Clear and Present
Danger*, Freedom of Expression should always be given preference.

> !             (Robert H. Averack @ Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, Ct.)          !