Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Porn vs. Guns?
Message-ID: <1606@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 20:25:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1606
Posted: Sun Oct 12 20:25:05 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:45:11 EDT
References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:636 net.legal:5370 soc.singles:509

> True, some porn may advocate, or involve criminal behaviour.  Moderated,
> rational regulations would be a more sane approach than an outright ban.
> OSHA, FTC, FDA, and other agencies *could* improve employment, marketing,
> and health practices.  Zoning, ratings, and display regulations have
> kept the most offensive materials out of the hands of minors.  Laws
> covering rape, prostitution, and child molesting have provided some
> protection.
> 
> If you were advocating help for the victim, and awareness, I would
> support you.  Even keeping certain materials out of the hands of
> prior offenders would make some sense.  Protecting the "average person"
> from "possible corruption", I cannot support.

What if some material is *only* of interest to people with a tendency to
use that material to legitimize behaviour which will make them offenders?
Could this be the ``sawed off shotgun'' scenario?
-- 

	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)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.