From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Continued Decline of Western Civilization -- Canadian Style
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:23:12 GMT

The following is reprinted from _Winnipeg Free Press_, Thursday, Sept.
10, 1992, "Letters to the Editor" section, without permission:


	_Proliferation_

		Adult video stores are proliferating again in
	Winnipeg, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling which seemed to
	"go against" them.  I've recently been canvassing homes with a
	petition advocating zoning restrictions for such stores.  Many
	households are quick to support the idea of requiring a
	community committee public hearing.  Those who aren't often
	hesitate out of a concern for violating the freedom of
	citizens to watch what they like.

		Your recent news story, /Jelinek eyes law to block
	serial killer game/, crystallized the issue for me.  ("The
	game comes with a bag of 25 babies and four serial killer
	figures.")  Citizens are indeed free to read and view
	whatever, even if they are harming themselves.  But they are
	not free to harm others, as indeed the Revenue Minister fears
	would happen if the serial killers board game is made
	available.
	
		I would argue that there is a parallel here with the
	distribution, including in adult video stores, of pornographic
	materials.  There is hard evidence to show that users are more
	likely to harm others.  Let's limit their availability in
	every way possible.
	
						Rev. DONALD JAMES
							 Winnipeg
	
			*	*	*

Questions for the student:

1.  If the majority of "households" are quick to support the idea of
    "community committee public hearings", which could reasonably be
    considered devices to halt the proliferation of video stores, and
    every one else merely hesitates on the basis of a weak concern for
    some ill-defined right of others, how is it that adult video
    stores are proliferating?

    Could commonly employed macroeconomic principles be so wrong about
    the relationship between consumer and supplier behaviour?  Could
    the fault lie in Rev. James restriction of his survey group to
    "households"?  How do you think Rev. James defines households?  Do
    you think the people who openly purchase pornographic movies in
    neighborhood video stores represent their "households" when Rev.
    James comes to the door?  If your Reverend came to your door,
    would you tell him that you were a regular user of pornographic
    materials and didn't feel they were necessary to censor?

2.  What do you think the bag of 25 babies has to do with the good
    Reverend's argument?  Might it be a red herring?  Suppose it is
    not.  Presumably, then, this quotation must serve to establish
    that this game is offensive because it portrays 25 dead babies.
    Could the Rev. James be suggesting, by analogy, that pornographic
    video stores, like this game, are offensive and are therefore
    portraying 25 dead babies?

3.  The Reverend makes two statements.  He places them close together,
    but they are very far apart.  The first claims that "citizens",
    presumably as distinct from households (?), are free to read and
    view whatever they want even to the extent that they harm
    themselves.  The second states that they are not free to read or
    view whatever they want whenever the Revenue Minister fears they
    would harm others in doing it.  Can you reconcile these two
    statements?  If, under a certain set of axioms, they were
    reconciled, would the Revenue Minister be distinguishable from
    God?  Should the Revenue Minister be indistinguishable from God?
    What affect would this have on Rev. James's job?

4.  The Reverend claims that there is hard evidence that users of
    pornographic materials are more likely to harm others.  He has
    proven this by telling you that the Revenue Minister fears this is
    true.  Well, Citizen, how does that make you feel?

Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk