Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
Freedom of choice
This week, our “Letters to the editor” column on the facing page is filled with responses to the viewTs expressed by two county residents at a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to regulate cable television.
We agree with the views expressed by those writers — that the proper place to address concerns about what children and adults watch on television is within each home'— not by an outside boardx>f censors, be they members of the community or not.
Lest our opinion be misconstrued, let the obvious be stated at the outset: We’re not in favor of pornography, and we’re sure that the vast majority of county residents share our feelings.
But the subjects addressed at the hearing, such as the Playboy Channel and MTV, are not the sexually explicit materials usually sold or rented as “X-rated” videos. Those are prohibited by federal laws from being broadcast by cable television companies.
The materials discussed at the public hearing fall into a gray area — programming wrhich might, in some circumstances, be considered adult due to its sexual or violent content, but wrhich does not fall under the legal definition of obscenity. It might be considered by most to be tacky, disgusting or in poor taste, but not obscene by the legal definition.
94.7%