sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/22/84)
Evelyn,
Bravo for bringing this topic up for wider discussion. This so-called
"anti-porn" ordinance is downright frightening in its perversion of the
heretofore well-defined interpretation of "civil rights" and its
willingness to circumscribe individual liberties in its pursuit of a
muddleheaded, right-thinking neo-Puritanism. The ludicrous image of
Phyllis Schafly, Andrea Dworkin, Jerry Falwell and Catherine MacKinnon (the
lawyer behind the Minneapolis ordinance) all in bed together still lingers.
This controversy has been prominent lately in the gay community, especially
since the establishment of several lesbian "sex publications", including
"On Our Backs" and "Bad Attitude", which have themselves been the objects
of censorship attempts by doctrinaire women's book stores.
In some sense, I can think of nothing better that to see ordinances of
this type enacted so that they can be immediately judged unconstitutional.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA