Pornography

Until you can convince me that not one person--child, man or woman--is not in some way victimized by some of those who read and use pornography for their own selfish gratification, I will be unable to accept your premise that the First Amendment guarantees access to pornography by adults (editorial, "Adult Choices," May 8). Lives are ruined because of pornography. Children are shown the pictures and then they think it's right and they can be "grown up" by copying the behavior depicted in the magazine.

After five years of frustrating, disappointing and anguished service as a commissioner of the Los Angeles County anti-pornography commission, I am, with this letter, resigning from that body. I have concluded that Hugh Hefner knows much more about pornography than I ever will, as evidenced by the views in his letter. Perhaps Hugh can be persuaded to take my place on the Los Angeles County Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. His immoral views seem to prevail in today's "First Amendment" society.

I must disagree with "Web Pornography Law" (letter, Dec. 3), which takes the view that "anyone who wants pornography on the Internet needs a credit card already." Aside from the various free ways of getting pornography on the Internet, services can also be paid for using stolen credit cards as well as by charging the service to one's telephone bill. There is no way to guarantee that a child will ask permission before calling the 900 number and making the charge. Tony Reyam Glendale

We're astonished by your editorial ("Pornography and Police Power," Dec. 4) urging the county Board of Supervisors, the Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice not to "make (pornography) a priority" for law enforcement. Your editorial writer seems to be saying our elected officials should neglect their sworn duty to enforce democratically enacted laws--upheld by the courts--against a $9-billion illegal industry dominated by organized crime. Your writer also seems unaware that for years the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld obscenity laws covering precisely the kind of obscenity represented by the 30 videos presented to the supervisors--videos depicting the sexual degradation of women and that are no more constitutionally protected speech than libel, inciting to riot or deceptive advertising.