Xref: utzoo news.admin:3621 misc.legal:5965
Path: utzoo!mnetor!cxsea!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!cornell!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!pacbell!ditka!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex about to be legislated away?
Summary: How serious is the bill???
Message-ID: <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 4 Oct 88 03:54:06 GMT
References: <9644@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Dallas TX
Lines: 29

In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes:
>Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to
>kiss alt.sex goodbye.
>
>>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS
>>
>>   The Senate this week unanimously passed a bill that would bar computer
>>distribution of child pornography and outlaw dial-a-porn telephone services.
>
>Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the
>first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is 
>not a partisan issue.

First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense.  It is nonsense.  Pornography
is not protected under the First Amendment.  Your complaining about the bill
is covered.  So you may continue to complain. ;-)

My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed
at things such as alt.sex?  I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if
it is - and at the same time I am somewhat concerned considering I feed
alt.sex into Michigan.  [ thus, so my thinking goes, making this an
interstate matter and more liking to fall under federal jurisdiction ]

So, the question is, do I dump alt.sex?  Or just ignore it?
-- 
John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US)                   HASA, "S" Division

      "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same
                   entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias