I find the idea that "expressions that tend to maintain or further the unequal positions of another group . . . are questionable in light of the Fourteenth Amendment" "utterly horrifying. Talk about dictatorship! And who ever supposed all groups would be equal? And what does "another" mean in that phrase? As the recent stories about Canadian censorship make clear, this is the totalitarianism to which MacKinnon/Dworkin would take us. Is no one willing to make a case *for* pornography? As the expression and advocacy of sexual possibilities. It is well to remember that without Freud, D. H. Lawrence, and other admittedly sexist writers we might still be thinking of women's sexuality as the Victorians did. The real error was in the U.S. Supreme Court's ever introducing the idea that there was a genre called "obscene" that could be banned. That opened the door to the kinds of banning we are now seeing all over. As for using the "equal protection" clause to ban speech against equal protection--hey, bring in the thought police! +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Norman N. Holland Marston-Milbauer Professor of English | | University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611 Tel: (904) 377-0096 | | BITNET: nnh@nervm INTERNET: [log in to unmask] | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+