Xref: utzoo misc.kids:9265 news.misc:3077 misc.misc:6373 talk.politics.misc:27077 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!tank!stel From: stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) Newsgroups: misc.kids,news.misc,misc.misc,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: alt.sex to become illegal in New Jersey? Message-ID: <3506@tank.uchicago.edu> Date: 30 May 89 15:16:43 GMT References: <3246@looking.UUCP> <3425@tank.uchicago.edu> <5525@bnrmtv.UUCP> Reply-To: stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 31 In article <5525@bnrmtv.UUCP> shea@bnrmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes: >In article <3425@tank.uchicago.edu>, stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >> Look, let's quit this discussion about what the constitution really says or >> means. We should talk about what WE WANT it to say. If we disagree with >> it we'll ammend it. So everybody talk about what WE think. Should NJ be >> allowed to censor alt.sex or not? I say NO CENSORING! > > >But if the Constitution as it currently stands is being ignored, what >good will amendments do? Those will be ignored as well. We need to >start demanding the rights we are already entitled to, before we start >coming up with more. > > This is not a matter of whether or not the constitution is being ignored. This is a matter of clarity. Whether this censorship is allowed is not clear. In addition, even if it were clear, and we don't agree with it, we still should decide what is legal and rewrite the law. On this censorship thing in particular, I think the law is unclear. Since this is the first such event, we should make it clear that, should the courts find this censorship legal, we then want to CHANGE it so that it very clearly OUTLAWS CENSORSHIP! We should not overlook this since it may set a very dangerous precedent. stel -- Bitnet: stel%tank.uchicago.edu@uchimvs1.bitnet | look for me again again Internet: stel@tank.uchicago.edu | in the dreary night uucp: ...!uunet!mimsy!oddjob!tank!stel | look for me again in paradise