The article ```Porno' Violence in Media Targeted,'' Dec. 4, discusses the sex-related violence in pornography and novels. These are symptoms of a terrifying reality orignating in the family - that [a high percentage] of women (and some men) have been sexually abused by the age of 20. Many men are learning about abuse from the dysfunctional families in which they were raised. What is barbaric is the commission of violence against women and children, and it is at this most basic level where individual rights are being violated. If one chooses to read pornography and commit violence, it is the violence that is considered a crime, not the pornography. By getting bogged down in debates about to what extent the First Amendment should be abrogated, the real issue - violation of a person's physical body - is being avoided, and the violent act goes unnamed and unpunished. G. Liggett, New Orleans, La.
As a 21-year-old college student, I am pleased to finally see an article revealing the facts about pornography and its effects on society. The article states that Norma Ramos, general counsel for Women Against Pornography, wonders why women are not ``becoming a major force to be reckoned with on the question of the threat that pornography poses to our safety and status.'' After doing research on the topic, and discovering what I consider to be overwhelming evidence that pornography is detrimental to society as a whole, I wonder the same thing. If people look at the studies that have been done on the issue - and many have been done including those sponsored by the federal government - there would be greater opposition to what seems to be considered just another part of the American way. JoAnn McDaniel, Champaign, Ill.
Arizona and MLK Day The opinion-page column ``No King Holiday, Arizona is Scorned,'' Dec. 3, uses the term ``yahoos'' to describe voters who defeated the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday propositions recently in Arizona - a ludicrous accusation against fellow American citizens exercising their right to vote their conscience.
But Arizonans should also look at their motives regarding this holiday. All I hear in the news refers to the millions of dollars the state will lose because of cancelled sporting events and conventions. Are Afro-Americans being used in the name of Dr. King?
It should be pointed out that Arizona is the only state where voters made a decision about this holiday. In all other states that have a holiday honoring Dr. King, the day was decreed by the governor or the legislature.
Only in Arizona was it put on the ballot for the people to decide. Barbara Marsh, Mesa, Ariz.
The author criticizes Governor Evan Mecham unfairly. He was first told by the attorney general to rescind the paid holidy. Former Governor Bruce Babbitt had issued the holiday by an executive order which was unconstitutional and would subject the governor and the state to personal liability in lawsuits. The people of this state who voted understood both propositions and voted both down. The author says, ``Arizona has not expiated the sin of electing Evan Mecham as governor.'' But the fact is, Arizona is the only state in the country where voters were even given a chance to decide about the holiday. It's not right that the author say these people actually want a paid King holiday. It's not for the author to express my opinion or the opinion of the voters. Eugene W. Hoppe, Sun City West, Ariz.