I disagree with Jeffrey's notion of the sanctity of the home as a place where there should be no invasion of privacy so that couples may be free to enjoy all forms of sexual gratification, including the viewing of pornographic material, as long as they harm no one.

Such an argument while prima facie appears innocent enough, and may be his axiom, is simplistic.

Jeffrey overlooks the fact that pornography itself is harmful. It is a well-documented fact also that organised crime is involved and many pornographic films involve unwilling participants, usually girls and young women forced to perform degrading sexual acts against their will.

There is no doubt that the porn industry is big business, earning billions each year with its own copycat Oscar-award-like ceremonies to honour its own, and even legitimate companies, regrettably one such as Time- Warner, are involved in the production and distribution of hard-core pornography films.

The home is a sanctuary for the family, not a hideout, or safe-haven for illegal activities. The road to educating the public that the use of pirated material is a dishonest and an anti-social practice is a long and hard one. Even in developed countries the use of pirated software persists.

That a man needs to watch a porn movie to spice up his sex life with a spouse, as Jeffrey suggests, is not for me to moralise. But it does reveal a disturbing flaw in the relationship. What sort of marriage can be soundly built on a need for sexual tillation through porn?

Most pornography is aimed at sexual arousal and entertainment and depict women as sexual objects. The result often is an unhealthy craven addiction and even well-respected people are victims. The elucidation of the evils of porn are outside the ambit of this letter but are well-documented elsewhere.

The idea, which Jeffrey propounds as a principle, that if something does not harm another must be okay and can be condoned, has to be seriously examined if it is not to be bandied as a convenient argument to rationalise away an unacceptable behaviour.

If we stretch Jeffrey's argument, it would encompass a huge range of activities, some of which would be illegal, morally reprehensible and give rise to other related, sometimes more serious problems.

Some specific examples? When former US President Bill Clinton declared on television that " I did not have sex with that woman", we know the truth and effect of this on the office of the most powerful man in the world, the American public, and not to mention the chilling effect on his wife, Hillary, who has revealed her husband's betrayal in her recently published book.

I do not doubt Clinton meant harm to no one, least of all his wife. Then again, how many men had paid sex with prostitutes and did not harm anyone until they passed on their sexually-transmitted diseases to their wives? The "leave me alone, let me do what I want, I am not hurting anyone" axiom, is sometimes an excuse for self-indulgence and self-destruction.

My point is every act has intrinsic moral value, whatever the country's law says. The idea that "I'm not harming anyone so it must be okay for me to do it" is subject to a higher principle - the moral duty to honour the law of the country or religion's higher standards.

Humans are after all moral beings, and Jeffrey himself sets his standards by being against rape and public nudity. His dilemma then, is not that he has no morals or does not believe in them but he believes he should retain the right to set them and that the home is the citizen's unassailable, sovereign fortress.

Generally I would agree but not where piracy is concerned. People must see it as a serious crime. The police reserves the right to invade a home if they suspect the commitment of a criminal act. Surely, if the sale of illicit discs is a felony, then its mere possession should also be a culpable act.

Enforcement is a separate issue. The current police raids should be welcome by all and attempts to stem piracy is not only the moral thing to do but a just thing.

It gives local creators also some hope of a decent return for their creative efforts. The police should establish a hotline for people to dob in traders and the major companies affected by piracy should provide rewards for convictions.

The long-term solution is to make those items, in particular education software, within the reach of ordinary consumers. Third-world countries should have special licensing agreements where they can produce discs and sell them at lower prices.

Developing software and making films or records are risky and expensive affairs but the profits made by the companies (eg. How much did they say Microsoft magnate Bill Gates earns per day?) may justify price reductions at some stage.

As for the brouhaha caused by the case of the unfortunate young couple prosecuted for holding hands in a public place, it is a reminder that one man's morals may be another's downfall.

It is obvious someone has crossed the limit, and it wasn't the couple charged. What constitutes public decency is not hard to determine, even if one uses the law of averages or simple common sense. I would prefer to see innocent acts of affection in public than acts of violence.

In this case, I support Jeffrey's criticism of the prosecutors who have obviously made an unfortunate error of judgment.