From caf-talk Caf May 25 01:37:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Harvard Law School uproar update
Message-ID: <9205250535.AA23475@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 19:35:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 25 01:37:46 1992
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Harvard Law School uproar update
Message-ID: <1992May24.234819.24195@panix.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 23:48:19 GMT
In <1992May24.124726.3824@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
[Re Harvard Law School Update on Mary Joe Frug parody uproar]
>This is not necessarily the end of the issue, by the way. The dean
>of the law school, Robert Clark, is currently out of the country; he
>might take some action on his own when he returns (probably next
>week).
Don't hold your breath. Clark is arguably the most conservative
member of the law school faculty, and there is no love lost between
him, and any of the group of 15. Besides, he's ideologically hostile
to the discipline they propose.
--
larry kolodney:(lkk%panix.com@nyu.edu)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner
From caf-talk Caf May 25 12:46:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
Message-ID: <9205251643.AA25497@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 06:43:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 25 12:46:05 1992
From: cayman@maths.tcd.ie (Roger Healy)
Subject: NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
Message-ID: <1992May25.154845.21524@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 15:48:45 GMT
Hi,
This is the rest of the censorship post i sent earlier it got truncated in transmission. Apoligies.
I do not follow this news group normally, but I would like to know what people think of the censorship in Ireland.
Let me explain for those of you that may be un familar with what has been happening here.
The Guardian newspaper (published in London) recently ran an advertisement for a chain of clinics in the United Kingdom which provied abortion services abortion services, among other medical services.
It was known in advance that this add was to appear in The Guardian and someone decided that it was not suitable for the Irish public to read it.
The only copies that arrived in Ireland were brought in by private citizens from the North of Ireland.
Let me also point out that the Guardian is a very well respected and serious newspaper like the Times and the Independent (although this is hardly relevent to the treatment it received.)
Yours, etc.
Roger Healy
e-mial rohealy@unix1.tcd.ie
cayman@maths.tcd.ie
The views expressed are my own and may or may not be the views of others. I claim my right to disseminate them from article 10 of the UN charter of human rights
From caf-talk Caf May 25 13:27:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.21
Message-ID: <1992May25.172501.11890@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 17:25:01 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n21".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n21
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending May 10th, 1992
[The May 3rd issue is in production. - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 4 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
1. "ISU has once again overstepped its bounds... ISU is subject to the
5th amendment, which guarantees due process. ISU cannot use its
'executive powers' to decide what students have the right to use the
equipment without exercising due process."
<1992May6.021706.7137@news.iastate.edu>
2. "When Iowa State University restricted alt.sex it violated the
principles of academic freedom. When it punished a student for
exercising his Constitutional right to free expression in a University
forum and imposed that punishment summarily in violation of that
student's Constitutional right to due process, it violated the law."
<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
3. "I am surprised and saddened that it is a university that is
crossing this complicated line *toward* censorship and *more*
restrictions when even the federal and most state legal statutes
contradict such actions."
<9205071603.AA26232@antaire.com>
4. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 5 and 6 concern issues of relevance to the situation at ISU. The
first offers a critique of an article in the Winnipeg Free Press which
"exposed" the alt.sex.* Usenet hierarchy's availability at the
University of Manitoba. The second discusses the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln's decision to stop supplying the entire alt.
hierarchy.
5. "Usenet is *most positively* an invaluable resource. If anything
represents the free flow of information and expression of ideas that
our institutions of higher learning purport to value, this is it."
<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
6. UNL has said that had they continued to supply the "pornographic"
alt. hierarchy and someone had complained to the federal government,
UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria
of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, or risk losing
NSFNET access. This is based on a misunderstanding of the NSFNET's
powers and of their policies.
<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
In Note 7 Carl Kadie offers his critique of the Middle East Technical
University's policy relating to computer and network use.
7. "The METU policy provides no due process protection and bans much
speech."
<1992May4.223243.28741@eff.org>
Note 8 describes the Potomac Telephone Company's examination of the
feasibility of creating an "electronic village" in Blacksburg,
Virginia.
8. "If such an undertaking proves feasible, all homes, businesses,
and schools in the town will be connected on a high speed electronic
network....Those on the network will be able to use electronic mail,
join online discussion groups, and take advantage of a wide range of
business, educational, financial, and general communications services.
They may also use the Internet..."
- Elizabeth]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 25 14:16:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Full text searches of the CAF archive via WAIS
Message-ID: <1992May25.181443.12468@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 18:14:43 GMT
If you already know what WAIS is, here is the comp-acad-freedom.src
record:
(:source
:version 3
:ip-address "192.88.144.4"
:ip-name "wais.eff.org"
:tcp-port 210
:database-name "comp-acad-freedom"
:cost 0.00
:cost-unit :free
:maintainer "wais@eff.org"
:description "Files relating to the Computers & Academic Freedom lists.
Includes computer usage policies, bibliographies, archives of old
discussion, and much more.
"
)
If you don't know what WAIS is, it is kind of the next step up from
anonymous ftp. It allows you to do fuzzy searches on the full text of
items. WAIS stands for wide area information servers. If you can
telnet and ftp, you can probably WAIS.
Some popular wais programs (clients) include "swais" and "xwais".
Your site may already have these installed. If not, you can
access a client at Thinking Machines via telnet. Just telnet
to quake.think.com. Login as "wais".
In addition to the "comp-academic-freedom" server, there are servers
for recent Supreme Court decisions, for FAQ's, for EFF, for the bible,
etc, etc.
Here is some additional information from alt.wais.
- Carl
=====================================
>From: brewster@quake.think.com (Brewster Kahle)
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
>Subject: Re: WAIS FAQ part 0 of n: getting started
>Message-ID:
>Date: 8 May 92 23:04:35 GMT
In article <1992May6.140734.20789@klaava.Helsinki.FI> tolvanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Martti Tolvanen) writes:
Path: think.com!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!tolvanen
From: tolvanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Martti Tolvanen)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
Date: 6 May 92 14:07:34 GMT
References: <1992May5.205022.262@msen.com> <1992May6.105809.9153@rdg.dec.com>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 6
Xref: think.com comp.infosystems.wais:4 alt.wais:731
Where does one find the WAIS client that runs under UNIX (related to GNU
Emacs?)
--
Martti Tolvanen, Dept. Biochem., Univ. Helsinki, Finland
tolvanen@cc.helsinki.fi
it is in the unix release:
New Unix Internet Release (Beta 3 Release) Available
September 16, 1991
Thank you for the interest in WAIS. The servers on Quake (including the
directory of servers) has 70k requests from over 1100 different hosts all
over the world (18 countries) in a couple of months. There are now 70
servers including one in Norway, one in Australia, poetry, recipies,
comp.sources, as well as a Connection Machine serving all sorts of things.
There are are a few mailing lists on this subject that you might want to be
on:
wais-interest: only announcements like this (1 a month or so)
wais-discussion: moderated mailings every 1 or 2 weeks. Good
stuff including all on wais-interest.
wais-talk: unmoderated for implementors and interactive discussions.
Requests to wais--request@think.com. Archives available from
wais server: wais-discussion or anonymous ftp from quake.think.com.
A bibliography of available written materials and resources is available
from /pub/wais/wais-discussion/bibliography.txt@quake.think.com (ftp) or
WAIS server wais-discussion-archive.src, or on request from Barbara@think.com.
Jonathan Goldman pulled the most recent release together (with help from
developers all over the world, see below):
Highlights of modifications (see the release for the full report)
Overall: make it more portable, and small enhancements
Thank you to all that have contributed bug reports and suggestions. There
are no concrete plans for the next release.
Overview of components:
In this release is source code for:
* Server code: There is code to index text and picture files.
* Protocol code: based on Z39.50-1988 using the internet.
* Clients code: User interfaces for contacting servers
* GNU emacs interface
* simple shell interface
* Mac interface (in separate WAIStation file)
* tool kit for making your own interfaces
* X interface
* Directory of servers: This is be a network service that lists
existing servers and how to contact them.
* A Connection Machine server with some patent information, the CIA
factbook, and some Biomedical abstracts, info-mac, risks, etc
to serve as example servers.
Other components available elsewhere:
NeXT release: /wais/WAIStation-NeXT-1.0.tar.Z@think.com
Telnet access: telnet quake.think.com login wais
DOS: /pub/wais/UNC/wais-dos*@samba.oit.unc.edu
Motif: /public/wais/motif-a1.tar.Z@think.com
IBM RS6000: /pub/misc/wais-8-b3-dist.tar.Z@ftp.ans.net
SunView: /pub/wais/sunsearch.src.*.tar.Z@samba.oit.unc.edu
VMS: pub/wais/UNC/vms-client
The public servers that are currently advertized are:
Biology:
biology-journal-contents.src
biosci.src Molecular-biology.src
Usenet and internet archives:
comp.graphics.src comp.admin.src
comp.db.src comp.emacs.src
comp.multi.src comp.archives.src
rec.pets.src comp.sources.src
usenet-science.src
user-contrib-cookbook.src usenet-cookbook.src
homebrew.src
info-mac.src sun-spots.src
Frequently Asked Questions:
NeXT.FAQ.src unix.FAQ.src
ibm.pc.FAQ.src mac.FAQ.src
Connection Machine info:
CM-applications.src
CM-tech-summary.src
CM-fortran-manual.src CM-paris-manual.src
CM-star-lisp-docs.src CMFS-documentation.src
Books:
jargon.src
bible.src koran.src
sample-books.src
MIT-algorithms-bug.src MIT-algorithms-exercise.src
MIT-algorithms-suggest.src
Libraries:
online-libraries.src
tmc-library.src
Misc:
open_systems_calendar.src matrix_news.src
astro-images-gif.src astro-images-fits.src
nsf-bulletins.src
midi.src
unimelb-research.src (Australia!)
supreme-ct.src
NIH-Guide.src
UNTComputerDoc.src
US-Gov-Programs.src
UiO_Publications.src (Norway!)
cosmic-abstracts.src cosmic-programs.src
directory-of-servers.src
eff-documents.src eff-talk.src
empire.src empire20.src
internet-documents.src internet-drafts.src
internet-resource-guide.src internet-rfcs.src
patent-sampler.src
poetry.src
risks-digest.src
sample-pictures.src
unix-manual.src
wais-discussion-archives.src wais-docs.src
wall-street-journal-sample.src
weather.src
world-factbook.src
The first "Digital Librarians", I think it would be safe to say are the
maintainers of these servers:
Geir.Pedersen@use.uio.no
abc@banjo.concert.net
ang@theory.lcs.mit.edu
art@think.com
billy@unt.edu
biosci@genbank.bio.net
brewster@think.com
chris@cosmic1.cosmic.uga.edu
fullton@lambada.oit.unc.edu
ephraim@think.com
gordon@think.com
jcurran@nnsc.nsf.net
jonathan@think.com
jsq@tic.com
root@next2.oit.unc.edu
rvc@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU
uriw@microworld.media.mit.edu
wais@eff.org
wais@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU
waisp@quake.think.com
weather-server@quake.think.com
The release is available from Think.com via anonymous FTP in
/public/wais/wais-8-b3.tar.Z and WAIStation-0-62.sit.hqx.
Bugs to bug-wais@think.com or to me.
For the bug fixes, thanks to:
Garrett A. Wollman
Simon E Spero
kent@parc.xerox.com,
Michael Haberler (mah@parrot.prv.univie.ac.at) and to
gcardwel@uci.edu for bug fixes to the last release.
-brewster and the wais crew
"Paper and flesh are fleeting media for the treasures that are ideas."
Brewster Kahle Thinking Machines Corporation
Brewster@Think.com 1010 El Camino Real
Project Leader Menlo Park, CA 94025
Wide Area Information Servers 415-329-9300x228
--
Brewster Kahle Thinking Machines Corporation
Brewster@Think.com 245 First Street
Project Leader Cambridge MA 02142
Wide Area Information Servers 617-234-2874 (or -1000)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 25 17:43:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] high school students disciplined for underground newspaper
Message-ID: <9205252141.AA26657@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 11:41:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 25 17:43:40 1992
From: Eli.Mantel@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel)
Subject: high school students disciplined for underground newspaper
Message-ID: <1992May25.212258.19666@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 21:22:58 GMT
In North Carolina, several public high school students have been disciplined
for producing an underground newspaper that was distributed on their high
school campus.
The newspaper contained articles on slogans for promoting condom week,
and a series of "Senior Superlatives", listing the fattest kids, and those
most likely to have sex during graduation with everybody looking.
An assistant superintendent stated that he found the paper "quite offensive"
and "tasteless." He also claimed it was "defaming."
What are the rights of the students in a situation like this? Can the
school officials effectively stop publication or distribution based on
their claim that it is defaming?
Eli Mantel (eli.mantelbbs.oit.unc.edu)
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From caf-talk Caf May 25 20:59:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: edwards@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
Subject: RE: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.21 (Digest)
Message-ID: <0095B1ED.C1D64BA0.19027@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 23:57:04 GMT
PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME FROM YOUR LIST
From caf-talk Caf May 26 09:43:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: AXUPLDH@UICVMC.bitnet (, Lewis D. Hopkins, Head)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.21 (Digest)
Message-ID: <199205261340.AA20141@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 13:39:58 GMT
Please remove my name from distribution list.
Lew
(217) 244-5404
From caf-talk Caf May 26 10:29:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
Message-ID: <1992May26.142738.20619@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 14:27:38 GMT
>Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>From: cayman@maths.tcd.ie (Roger Healy)
>Subject: NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
[...]
> The Guardian newspaper (published in London) recently ran an
> advertisement for a chain of clinics in the United Kingdom which
> provied abortion services abortion services, among other medical
> services. It was known in advance that this add was to appear
> in The Guardian and someone decided that it was not suitable for the
> Irish public to read it.
[...]
>Roger Healy
[...]
>The views expressed are my own and may or may not be the views of
> others. I claim my right to disseminate them from article 10 of the UN
> charter of human rights
It is terrible that a poster from an academic site has to depend on
the UN Charter of Human Rights (a document little or no enforcement
power).
At least when academic sites in Ireland say they are required by law
to ban talk.abortion they may be right. Contrast this with Iowa State
University in the U.S.:
TOPICS BANNED --
Ireland: abortion (talk.abortion)
Iowa S.: sex (alt.sex, rec.arts.erotica)
BAN VIOLATES WHICH GUARANTEES --
Ireland: UN Charter 10 (?), ?
Iowa S.: University Code (?), State Constitution (?), US First Amendment,
UN Charter 10 (?)
BAN IS BASED ON WHIM OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS RATHER THAN A LAW? --
Ireland: no, the referenced law also bans newspapers
Iowa S.: yes, the refereneced law explicted exempts universities; no
other organizations have found a similar ban necessary.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 26 11:42:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
Message-ID: <9205261539.AA00251@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 05:39:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 26 11:42:02 1992
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
Message-ID: <1992May26.133127.13390@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 13:31:27 GMT
cayman@maths.tcd.ie (Roger Healy) writes:
[The English newspaper _The Guardian_ stopped from being distributed in
Ireland. The reason used is that an advert for the Marie Stokes clinics, who
provide abortion services, appeared in it]
Just to clarify Roger's article that the paper wasn't banned per se; the
distributor just refused to carry the paper in case they were held liable
for providing abortion information.
BUT...
An interesting addendum to the affair is the fact that a woman bringing
twenty copies of the paper from England was stopped by customs and asked to
hand them over. The Revenue Commissioners claimed that they had confiscated
them as twenty copies of a newspaper was deemed to be an import of commerical
value, and thus subject to some form of tax, but the woman claimed that she
was first of all asked the contents of the newspapers, and besides which,
the papers were already a day old, and hence not of commercial value.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From caf-talk Caf May 26 15:07:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [sci.crypt] Zipcrack 2.00 available, over 20x faster
Message-ID: <9205261904.AA01614@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 09:04:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 26 15:07:18 1992
From: kocherp@leland.Stanford.EDU (Paul Carl Kocher)
Subject: Zipcrack 2.00 available, over 20x faster
Message-ID: <1992May25.231301.29235@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 23:13:01 GMT
I finally found some more time to work on zipcrack, and I've improved
the program considerably since the initial release a month or two ago.
It now checks over 100,000 (!) passwords per second on my 33mhz 80386,
20-25 times faster than before. It also has a decent user interface and
no longer marks occasional incorrect passwords as valid.
If anyone wants, I'll post the program's docs to sci.crypt. The file
discusses the new zipcrack as well as some (to my knowledge) previously
undocumented problems with PKZIP encryption.
To get a uuencoded copy of zipcrack (about 23K, for MSDOS 80386 and
above only), send me the following:
Please send me a UUENCODED copy of zipcrack version 2.0.
I am in the USA and will not export the program. I will
erase the program before running it if I don't agree to the
conditions listed at the beginning of the documentation.
As before, I'm only releasing a crippled version of the program without
sources to the public. (Only passwords beginning with lowercase 'z' can
be checked.) I don't think zip encryption is adequate, and I've written
zipcrack to demonstrate why, not to produce a crackers' tool.
-- Paul Kocher
________________________________________________________________________
kocherp@leland.stanford.edu, Box 13554/Stanford CA 94309, 415/497-6438
I'm an undergrad at Stanford and, to help pay my tuition, am looking for
contract/summer work writing, programming, etc. Send email for a resume!
From caf-talk Caf May 26 15:07:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [sci.crypt] Re: Zipcrack 2.00 available, over 20x faster
Message-ID: <9205261905.AA01626@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 09:05:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 26 15:07:24 1992
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Zipcrack 2.00 available, over 20x faster
Message-ID:
Date: 26 May 92 16:45:02 GMT
In <2614@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) writes:
>In <1992May25.231301.29235@leland.Stanford.EDU> kocherp@leland.Stanford.EDU (Paul Carl Kocher) writes:
>>To get a uuencoded copy of zipcrack (about 23K, for MSDOS 80386 and
>>above only), send me the following:
>> Please send me a UUENCODED copy of zipcrack version 2.0.
>> I am in the USA and will not export the program. I will
>> erase the program before running it if I don't agree to the
>> conditions listed at the beginning of the documentation.
>Why can non USA residents not use it? The program can not encrypt or
>decrypt data and therefor should be allowed to export.
The NSA has very strict guidelines about the export of anything
related to encryption technology. I suspect that Paul is simply
trying to save his own keister "just in case".
>"I can prove you did read this line!"
Not if someone read it to me. :)
Jeff
--
signature file is on strike.
From caf-talk Caf May 27 09:45:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] NEWSPAPER BANNED IN IRELAND (complete post)
Message-ID: <1992May27.134343.7579@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 13:43:43 GMT
As was pointed out to me in email, I spoke too stridently. Here is a
slightly toned down (and hopefully more correct) version:
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>At least when academic sites in Ireland say they are required by law
>to ban talk.abortion they may be right. Contrast this with Iowa State
^xxx(Replace with "might")
>University in the U.S.:
>TOPICS BANNED --
> Ireland: abortion (talk.abortion)
> Iowa S.: sex (alt.sex, rec.arts.erotica)
>BAN VIOLATES WHICH GUARANTEES --
^XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(REPLACE with
"IF THE REFERENCED LAW *REALLY* BANNED WHAT THE ADMINISTRATORS SAY
IT BANS, THE LAW WOULD, IN MY OPINION, VIOLATE THESE GUARANTEES:")
> Ireland: UN Charter 10 (?), ?
> Iowa S.: University Code (?), State Constitution (?), US First Amendment,
> UN Charter 10 (?)
>BAN IS BASED ON WHIM OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS RATHER THAN A LAW? --
> Ireland: no, the referenced law also bans newspapers
^(ADD: "some people think "
> Iowa S.: yes, the refereneced law explicted exempts universities; no
> other organizations have found a similar ban necessary.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 27 11:16:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Usenet (?) censored at U. Manitoba
Message-ID: <9205271514.AA06194@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 05:14:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 27 11:16:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Usenet (?) censored at U. Manitoba
Message-ID: <1992May27.141309.189@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
Date: 27 May 92 14:13:09 GMT
Did anybody else hear this story on CBC Radio this morning (8 a.m.
national news)?
They headlined it as something like "Computer Pornography Hits Canadian
Universities." UseNet was not mentioned by name, but the bingo-caller
kept referring to 'the academic computer system,' an 'electronic library'
which connects universities around the world.
A cop from the Winnipeg vice squad said that there was "everything:
bestiality, torture" and something about a "manual on how to torture
women and children." There was an overt threat that any university
caught with 'obscene' material on its systems could be charged with
a crime.
The University of Manitoba has apparently "cleaned up" their system. The
head of computing services said that the material did not pertain to the
university's mission of "teaching and research," and so was removed.
Can anybody from U of M fill us in on what was removed, where this alleged
"torture manual" was posted, etc.?
I was a bit peeved with the story; the only opinion we heard was that of the
cop!
Regards,
Rob Macfarlane
From caf-talk Caf May 27 11:55:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Subject: university of manitoba
Message-ID: <9205271550.AA19963@unix4>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 15:50:52 GMT
i caught a little bit of the news on cbc this morning
about the university of manitoba. seems that there
is a problem with carrying alt.sex (i think).
has anyone heard anything more about this?
i would appreciate any info on the subject.
thanks
ruby
rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
From caf-talk Caf May 27 15:56:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Usenet (?) censored at U. Manitoba
Message-ID: <9205271954.AA07972@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 09:54:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 27 15:56:17 1992
From: blunden@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Usenet (?) censored at U. Manitoba
Message-ID: <1992May27.180445.6624@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 18:04:45 GMT
In article <1992May27.141309.189@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> rob@nabob.cc.mcgill.ca (Robert Macfarlane) writes:
>Did anybody else hear this story on CBC Radio this morning (8 a.m.
>national news)?
>
>They headlined it as something like "Computer Pornography Hits Canadian
>Universities." UseNet was not mentioned by name, but the bingo-caller
>kept referring to 'the academic computer system,' an 'electronic library'
>which connects universities around the world.
>
>A cop from the Winnipeg vice squad said that there was "everything:
>bestiality, torture" and something about a "manual on how to torture
>women and children." There was an overt threat that any university
>caught with 'obscene' material on its systems could be charged with
>a crime.
>
>The University of Manitoba has apparently "cleaned up" their system. The
>head of computing services said that the material did not pertain to the
>university's mission of "teaching and research," and so was removed.
>
>Can anybody from U of M fill us in on what was removed, where this alleged
>"torture manual" was posted, etc.?
>
>I was a bit peeved with the story; the only opinion we heard was that of the
>cop!
>
>Regards,
>Rob Macfarlane
About two weeks ago the Winnipeg Free Press ran a front page story which,
among other things, claimed that students at the University of Manitoba
were playing pornographic video games depicting bondage, and that these
"games" were obtained from the internet system in the sex.bondage file.
Someone from the vice squad was quoted, as was someone from the Attorney
General's office and the University administration. The "facts" in the
story were completely butchered, and unfortunately a local TV station
repeated them pretty much verbatim. It now appears that the CBC National
News has simply regurgitated all the incorrect facts in the original
newspaper article.
The net result of all this was that the University administration ordered
computer services to sever all links to the alt.sex and other questionable
newsgroups. I don't know anything about "torture manuals" --- as far as
I know there was nothing available here that wasn't available everywhere
else that gets the above mentioned newsgroups.
Ironically, some of the newsgroups that were deleted were
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery and alt.sexy.bald.captains
From caf-talk Caf May 28 09:31:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205281329.AA10845@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 03:29:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 09:31:54 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 01:00:57 GMT
I heard the CBC report referred to on the radio this
morning, and I also believe that the shit is about to hit the
fan about the sex newsgroups, nationally in Canada and in the
States as well. (Yes, the States too -- don't think it's just
a Canadian thing.)
In article <1992May27.231014.17907@cc.umontreal.ca> coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:
> Apparently, much of what is shown on
>this group [alt.sex.bondage] is illegal here in Canada...
I'm sure that's what they think. Fortunately, that is
wrong. Unfortunately, they can't tell.
When (not if, *when*) this story breaks across the national
media, *at every university*:
- the press and feminist groups will put pressure on the
president
- the president will put pressure on the dean
- the dean will put pressure on the CS department head
- the CS department head will put pressure on the news
admins
- some of the news admins will put pressure on others
...and in the face of that tremendous pressure, the alt.sex.*
groups will be blocked forever, at all universities. Doesn't
matter that *most* of the material is about consensual sex, or
that there is valuable material here about AIDS, sexual
problems, dangerous sexual practices, etc. It's all gonna go.
The anti-censorship weenies can bleat all they want about
how we *should* be able to show *absolutely anything* on a.s.b.
and alt.sex. But if that attitude, and the continuing stream
of non-consensual sex articles on these newsgroups, is going to
just result in the blockage of alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage to
most institutions, I think we should forget it.
If you seriously think that any anti-censorship interest
group could argue for "Cindy's Torment" in the national media
and the student newspapers, and succeed... well then, I have a
bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex. That
way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
(alt.sex.nonconsensual), and the rest of us (the vast majority
that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
From caf-talk Caf May 28 09:38:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.archives] [soc.motss] INFO: COLORADO and OREGON
Message-ID: <9205281335.AA10916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 03:35:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 09:38:12 1992
Newsgroups: comp.archives
Subject: [soc.motss] INFO: COLORADO and OREGON
Message-ID: <101cciINN7ro@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 28 May 92 01:18:10 GMT
Archive-name: auto/soc.motss/INFO-COLORADO-and-OREGON
In Colorado, there is a ballot initiative to prevent any future
non-discrimination clauses any where in the state. This is being organised by
Colorado for Family Values [CFV]. They already have enough signatures, so that
the measure will be on the ballot in November. The group fighting them is
A group in Colorado which is fighting the fundie initiative/referendum
is EPC (Equal Protection Campaign) at Box 300476, Denver CO 80203 or
phone 303-839-5540. They need money.
In Oregon, the Oregon Citizens Alliance [OCA] has enough signatures to put a
amendment of the Oregon constitution to prevent any state, regional or local
monies to be used to ``promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality,
pedophilia, sadism or masochism''. Also, on Tuesday, the city of Springfield,OR
passed an initiative similar to the proposed statewide constitutional amendment
to amend its city charter by 241 votes [52%-48%]. In Corvallis, OR the ballot
initiative was defeated by 2 to 1. The group fighting against OCA is
Campaign for a Hate Free Oregon, P.O. Box 3343, Portland, Oregon 97208
(503) 232-4501.
This info is available by anonymous ftp at nifty.andrew.cmu.edu in the
/pub/QRD/qrd/rights directory.
--
RON BUCKMIRE, 54 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8919 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"Dick--my bottom hurts just thinking about it!" - MADONNA, _Dick Tracy_ sndtrck
From caf-talk Caf May 28 10:11:42 1992
Newsgroups: wpg.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: alt.sex* ban at U. of Manitoba (was Re: FP Article ...)
Message-ID: <1992May28.140932.27074@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 14:09:32 GMT
Enclosed is the Canadian Library Association's Statement on
Intellectual Freedom. It is followed by a (more US centered)
FAQ on newsgroup selection.
- Carl Kadie
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.can ===
From news.admin Mon Dec 10 20:51:22 1990
Path: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!davecb
From: davecb@yunexus.YorkU.CA (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: liability of allowing news reading
Message-ID: <18842@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 10 Dec 90 20:51:55 GMT
References: <1990Dec10.175530.23753@cs.wayne.edu> <1990Dec10.193339.5349@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: York U. Computing Services
Lines: 49
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>However, being a university, you probably also have firm policy commitments
>to freedom of speech, which may limit the effects of the rules you mention.
>It can be argued that discrimination and harassment are acts against people,
>and words are not acts unless they are targeted at specific people. Of
>course, there are people who see "sexual harassment" in almost anything...
Most universities already have an agreed policy, usually set up by
their library. The CLA (Canadian Library Association) policy is:
Canadian Library Association
Statement on Intellectual Freedom
All persons in canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the
nation's Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to
have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual
activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to
intellectual freedom, under the law, is essential to the health and
development of Canadian society.
Libraries have a basic responsibility for the development and
maintenance of intellectual freedom.
It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access
to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those
which some some elements of society may consider to be unconventional,
unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make
available the widest variety of materials.
It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee the right of free
expression by making available all the library's public facilities and
services to all individuals and groups which need them.
Libraries should resist all efforts to limit the exercise of these
responsibilities while recognizing the right of criticism by individuals and
groups.
Both employees and employers in libraries have a duty, in addition to
their institutional responsibilities, to uphold these principles.
Adopted 1974, amended 1983 and 1985.
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or
72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave or just
Willowdale, Ontario, | postmaster@{nexus.}yorku.ca
CANADA. 416-223-8968 | work phone (416) 736-5257 x 22075
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Association, these
documents and others are available on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Statement on Diversity talks about the
importance of "materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues." The ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. It also tells
exactly how to respond to challenges to controversial material.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/library
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom stanford.statements
send acad-freedom jmcabstract
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwm.edu
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library selection-workbook.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
send acad-freedom/library README
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 28 16:46:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205282044.AA01717@euripides.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 10:44:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 16:46:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <15423@autodesk.COM>
Date: 28 May 92 16:27:24 GMT
In article <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>...and in the face of that tremendous pressure, the alt.sex.*
>groups will be blocked forever, at all universities. Doesn't
>matter that *most* of the material is about consensual sex, or
>that there is valuable material here about AIDS, sexual
>problems, dangerous sexual practices, etc. It's all gonna go.
Imminent death of the net predicted. News at ten.
This has happened before, y'all. Many many many many times. Every
time it seems to some like the alt.sex hierarchy is doomed. Every
time the anti-censorship folks get together and muster the volumes of
reasoning about how net access is like library access, etc. Every
time the flap blows over very quickly.
Those who get really pissed about this stuff will fight it. Those
who don't, won't. And most university administrators have either
dealt with this issue before--and decided in favor of net access--or
have better things to worry about.
--
Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer
Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
From caf-talk Caf May 28 17:01:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205282059.AA01773@euripides.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 10:59:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 17:01:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <8130@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>
Date: 28 May 92 11:34:29 GMT
coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:
>Hi All,
> I just logged into this group and read a backlog of messages, to
>see what was going on. You see, the CBC news had a story about the
>University of Manitoba and censorship of 'gasp' pornography. A.s.b. was
Yesterday, (5/27), I was telephoned by these people and interviewed about
wizvax. Then, of course, in came the ASB questions. Surprise! Sneaky people,
these. "Do you think this is obscene?" "No." The "how-to" manual etc was
brought up. Told him the truth - In the two years or so I have been involved
with this group, I have read no such article. He asked about "Saint
Stephanie"... (Thanks, gang... 8-)...)
After I got off the phone, It dawned on me how easy it would be to forge
a psuedo-posting, that never hit the net, and present it as a genuine article.
It would be simple to show it to a non-computer-literate person and have them
take it as fact, especially if they were a gung-ho crusader... Sigh...
Steph, for whom notoriety has caught up with...
--
Stephanie P. Gilgut, President 104 Railroad Street
Gilgut Enterprises, Inc. Methuen, Mass. 01844 (508) 975-7520
stephie@wizvax.methuen.ma.us / ...!ulowell!wizvax!stephie
"Unix should be a household word" S. P. Gilgut
From caf-talk Caf May 28 20:03:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205290000.AA12974@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 14:00:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 20:03:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <13573@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 28 May 92 22:07:49 GMT
[.signature virus protection]
In article <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
> When (not if, *when*) this story breaks across the national
>media, *at every university*:
[... trickle-down of s**t explained ...]
>groups will be blocked forever, at all universities. Doesn't
>matter that *most* of the material is about consensual sex, or
>that there is valuable material here about AIDS, sexual
>problems, dangerous sexual practices, etc. It's all gonna go.
I'm not convinced that this is going to happen suddenly everywhere.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm not. But if it happens anywhere I'll
be both sad and annoyed. And I do expect it.
But here's a quick question -- last year some sites lost alt.sex.*
access because of media exposure concerning the fact that they
received such groups. Are those sites still not receiving alt.sex.*
or did they quietly start getting it again once the storm had passed?
> The anti-censorship weenies can bleat all they want about
>how we *should* be able to show *absolutely anything* on a.s.b.
>and alt.sex. But if that attitude, and the continuing stream
>of non-consensual sex articles on these newsgroups, is going to
>just result in the blockage of alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage to
>most institutions, I think we should forget it.
(*ahem*) I'm not at all convinced that removing all fiction dealing
with nonconsensual activities would gain us one whit of safety in
this matter. You're assuming that the folks who would shut us down
can tell the difference. C'mon, they see something about techniques
for tying someone down, which implements hurt most, how to hit someone
without leaving marks, and unless they're already aware of the ways
we deal with these things, and accepting of the idea that folks could
be into these things for fun and still be sane, they're going to
react the same way as they will to those stories.
Or have I just gone from naive to cynical?
We can -mutter- about how we _should_ be able to post anything we
want, then turn around and knuckle under to this threat, but for
anyone who _believes_ we _should_ be able to post non-PC fantasies
I ask this:
Are you going to roll over and let the opressors slit your belly,
or are you going to stand up and fight like a Human?
Personally, I have problems with giving in.
> If you seriously think that any anti-censorship interest
>group could argue for "Cindy's Torment" in the national media
>and the student newspapers, and succeed... well then, I have a
>bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
Want to see me try? 'Cause whether or not it's doomed to failure,
_somebody_ has to try.
Damn. Maybe it's time I _did_ run for political office. Make a
downright amusing campaign when the first of my opponents tried
to embarrass me with things that I don't keep secret.
> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>whoever wants to block it block it,
Fine, if you want.
>and *cancel* all articles
>in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex.
Excuse me, but _that_ *is* _censorship_. It's also the _wrong_
way to go about it. If you want a moderated a.s.b, feel free
to start a moderated newsgroup and invite people to post to it.
If it winds up being more popular than a.s.b, more power to you.
But the circumstances under which a forged cancel message might
be considered justified are few and limited.
Please do me and others a favour and think through what you're
saying -- try to look a good ways past the words on the screen
and see where your thoughts lead.
>That
>way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
>(alt.sex.nonconsensual),
Do you really think the whole point of nonconsensual fantasies
is to prove a philosophical point about censorship? Because
you've made a brilliant (and _classic_) move toward painting the
issue that way in the mind of your readers. It's as bad as the
Pro-Choice folks labelling Pro-Lifers "Anti-Choice" (implying that
the abortion issue is about nothing but personal freedom and ignoring
what the issue is for the Pro-Life crowd) and the Pro-Life people
labelling the Pro-Choice folks "Pro-Abortion" (and trying to
make a connection to "Pro-Death" by contrast to the name they
chose for themselves -- and implying that the issue is only about
murder and that the mother doesn't matter).
I'm a little offended (but not surprised) that you've attempted
to recast the entire issue in a light that makes me look like I'm
arguing from a different position than I am.
>and the rest of us (the vast majority
>that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
>articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
>correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
(*ahem*) The "Moral Majority" is convinced that it too is (or
represents) a majority. That does not make it one, and even if
it does represent a majority, that does not make it _right_.
Does the Moral Majority represent _your_ views, for example?
Many people who don't care enough to think about the evils of
censorship do want to read nonconsensual fantasies about things
they'd never want to do in real life. They, like me (who wants
to read such stories (if well written) and _do_ care about the
moral and ethical ramifications of censorship), will be denied
access to stories for no better reason than the hope that if
we throw a sacrifice to those who would censor us then they'll
leave us alone.
Bah. Humbug. Is that a sacrifice, or is it an appetizer?
I wasn't in a bad mood when I started this.
D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
(From the "So You Think You're a Man" workshop at Starwood, 1991)
You can send me mail anonymously at wi.2743@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (was wi.79)
From caf-talk Caf May 28 20:12:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.activism.progressive] Anti-Homosexual Ordinance in Springfield, Oregon
Message-ID: <9205290010.AA13043@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 14:10:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 20:12:36 1992
From: gracep%ucs.orst.edu@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (Patrick Grace)
Subject: Anti-Homosexual Ordinance in Springfield, Oregon
Message-ID: <1992May28.211556.4076@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 21:15:56 GMT
There has been one posting on this list already, but here is some more
information:
In Oregon a group called the Oregon Citizens Alliance has been campaigning
against homosexual rights, among other things, for at least four years. They
initiated a successful state-wide referendum in 1988, which overturned the
Goernor's executive order banning discrimination against homosexuals by the
state. For the past year they have been gathering signatures for a state
constitutional amendment which would declare homosexuality to be "abnormal,
wrong, unnatural, and perverse," and would mandate state agencies and schools
to set standards recognizing such status. If they gather enough signatures,
this referendum will be on the ballot in November.
In the May election, the cities of Corvallis and Springfield had
anti-homosexual city charter amendments on their ballots. It was defeated in
Corvallis, and passed in Springfield. The next day in Springfield, a city
councilman asked for and received from the director of the public library, a
list of book purchases. Such list is a public record. An OCA representative
was quoted in the news as saying they would be looking for books on homosexual
lifestyle, such as "Heather Has Two Mommies," and "Daddy's Roommate." Both of
these books have been challenged in other communities around the country.
The OCA has maintained that their campaign is against "special rights" for
homosexuals, not that they intend to discriminate. Their activities
immediately following the election returns should give Oregon voters a better
understanding of their motives.
The Oregon ACLU is prepared to challenge appliations of the new ordinance in
Springfield. The Oregon Library Association has already passed a resolution
condemning the proposed statewide amendment.
What to do? If you live in Oregon, work against the OCA. No matter where you
live, go to your public library and ask if they have the two books noted
above, if they don't then demand they acquire them.
Thanks for your time.
From caf-talk Caf May 28 20:27:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: [comp.archives] [soc.motss] INFO: COLORADO and OREGON
Message-ID: <1992May28.155026.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 23:50:26 GMT
In article <9205281335.AA10916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> From: buckmr@vccsouth22.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
> Subject: [soc.motss] INFO: COLORADO and OREGON
> Message-ID: <101cciINN7ro@agate.berkeley.edu>
> Date: 28 May 92 01:18:10 GMT
>
> Archive-name: auto/soc.motss/INFO-COLORADO-and-OREGON
I'm not worried about the ballot initiative, in Oregon because it
wouldn't stand the Supreme Court test. Go find something a little
more insidious to fight that might pass the Supreme Court test.
=== Al Sparks
From caf-talk Caf May 28 20:55:20 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: U. of Manitoba bans alt.sex*
Message-ID: <1992May29.002750.27228@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 May 92 00:27:50 GMT
[A short newspaper item from the Thursday May 28 Toronto Globe & Mail
from news.misc. - Carl]
PORN CLEANED OUT OF COMPUTER
Winnipeg -- The University of Manitoba has cleaned pornography from
its computer system after having received complaints about the
material, obtained through an international computer network and said
to exist on other campuses in Canada as well.
The material, distributed on the Internet computer network, included
descriptions of bondage and violence against women and children.
Inspector Ray Johns of the Winnipeg Police Department said anyone who
distributes such material could be prosecuted, but it is difficult to
tell where data in a computer system originate.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 28 23:18:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205290316.AA13417@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 17:16:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 28 23:18:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 29 May 92 00:21:35 GMT
Jamie Andrews@cs.sfu.ca snivels
>
> The anti-censorship weenies can bleat all they want about
>how we *should* be able to show *absolutely anything* on a.s.b.
>and alt.sex. But if that attitude, and the continuing stream
>of non-consensual sex articles on these newsgroups, is going to
>just result in the blockage of alt.sex
>
> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
>in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex. That
>way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
>(alt.sex.nonconsensual), and the rest of us (the vast majority
>that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
>articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
>correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
Congratulations to *you* you whining, sniveling child. That's right,
kid. Show us just how much spine you've got. Cave right in at the mere
*hint* of pressure.
I marvel at your abject stupidity. Your pathetic inability to
realize how the real world really works.
I'm going to draw you an analogy. While I talk about control of
territory, I want you to think about control of information and ideas,
and speech and thought.
Once upon a time, there was a man. And he controlled a country, and
that country was referred to as "Germany".
Now, this man thought he had a right to control lots of territory,
and tell people what to do, because he was convinced he was right, and
had the right to impose his notions of propriety on other people.
Lots of people didn't like that idea, and didn't want to let this
man control them.
Now, if they'd all had some balls, and gotten together and told this
man to fuck off, they could have succeeded, but many of them were
thoroughly lacking in balls. Among them was a man who ran a country
called "Britain". This man was too weak and lazy to stand up, so he
said, to the other man, who ran the country called "Germany", that he
was *welcome* to some few pieces of territory no-one really wanted, such
as the Sudentenland, if he would just please leave the rest of us alone.
The man who ran Germany said "Thanks very much, and *of course* I
won't bother you folks in Britain, or anywhere else."
Not very long after, the Luftwaffe was pounding London into rubble.
The reason history repeats is because the world is full of morons
like you who refuse to think that history does, in fact repeat, and who
have no grasp on the way power works in the real world. If you think
that everybody is going to roll over and accept the arbitrary cancelling
of net articles based on some faceless censor's determination that they
pass or fail a "non-consensuality test" you're an idiot. If you think
"non-consent" is the sole criterion by which the legality of explicit
material is determined, you're wrong. If you think the censorship crowd
will stop at nuking alt.sex.nonconsensual you're completely beyond hope
of redemption.
Mind you, I will admit that I like your clever manuver of making
censorship more palatable by pretending it's in-house, not imposed upon
us. If Helms was bright enough to sell sugarcoating like that he'd be
even more dangerous. It's elegant. Repulsive, of course, and I'll fight
you tooth and nail, but it's elegant.
No here's my suggestion for a little self censorship - why don't you
stick your authoritarian little nose somewhere else, you sniveling toady.
From caf-talk Caf May 29 09:20:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291317.AA14093@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 03:17:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 09:20:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May28.211907.19985@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: 28 May 92 21:19:07 GMT
In article <15423@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>This has happened before, y'all. Many many many many times. Every
>time it seems to some like the alt.sex hierarchy is doomed. Every
>time the anti-censorship folks get together and muster the volumes of
>reasoning about how net access is like library access, etc. Every
>time the flap blows over very quickly.
I don't know about you, but this is the first time that
I have heard an RCMP (national police force) officer, on the
national news, throwing around words like "alt.sex.bondage" and
"unsubscribe", and making the connection that Usenet is
distributed to *every* major university in Canada. And yes, I
have been following a.s.b and the censorship debates for several
years.
This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
international network (ie. everything).
I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
From caf-talk Caf May 29 09:20:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291318.AA14102@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 03:18:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 09:20:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <67840@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 29 May 92 02:59:22 GMT
In article mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Ray
mond Feely) writes:
> Jamie Andrews@cs.sfu.ca snivels
>>
>> The anti-censorship weenies can bleat all they want about
>>how we *should* be able to show *absolutely anything* on a.s.b.
>>and alt.sex. But if that attitude, and the continuing stream
>>of non-consensual sex articles on these newsgroups, is going to
>>just result in the blockage of alt.sex
>>
>> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>>whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
>>in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex. That
>>way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
>>(alt.sex.nonconsensual), and the rest of us (the vast majority
>>that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
>>articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
>>correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
[Mr. Feely's righteous anger deleted]
Besides which, it doesn't work. You can call the damn groups
alt.sex.slimey.horrible.things.you.can.pull.the.plug.if.you.want and
alt.sex.wonderful.romantic.things.between.married.people.in.love.who.
have.the.papers.to.prove.it, for all I care, and if someone complains,
it's out of the sys file for everything in the alt.sex.* hierarchy,
with alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, soc.motss, soc.bi, and
rec.arts.erotica thrown in for good measure.
It has happened before. It will happen again. Us "bleating"
anticensorshippers who you complain about are the only thing that keeps
it from happening more often. You can thank us later.
Self-censorship is the worst kind. Just say no.
--
-- Christophe
"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
From caf-talk Caf May 29 09:59:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291357.AA15309@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 03:57:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 09:59:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <8139@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>
Date: 28 May 92 21:02:39 GMT
In article 15338:
> A.s.b. was specifically mentioned in the report; it claimed that
> there are some fictional stories that serve as how-to manuals for
> anyone planning on committing B/D, rape and murder.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What could be further from the truth? This isn't what a.s.b. is about at all.
This really pisses me off that they can say stuff like this and get away with
it. I shouldn't be surprised though I suppose it happens all the time. It
just doesn't happen to me everyday. I'm not an avid everyday poster. I only
write when I have something to say that I think someone else might be interested
in. But I still feel I'm a part of this group even if I spend most of the
time "lurking".
> Apparently, much of what is shown on this group is illegal here in Canada,
Well that's just fine with me. I'll put Canada on my list of places I'd rather
not be.
No, it isn't fine with me. What about our poor Canadian friends who have to
live with this shit? Ah, come on down here. We'll find room for yah.
Best regards,
Woody wi.2678@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ As always, Have fun and don't hurt. +++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
Please *don't* post tests or personals here. To use this service, send EMAIL to:
Anonymous posting: wi-post@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
Anonymous reply: @wizvax.methuen.ma.us
Test path/get alias: wi-ping@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
ACS administrator: wi-admin@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:00:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291357.AA15323@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 03:57:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:00:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May29.015543.27994@Veritas.COM>
Date: 29 May 92 01:55:43 GMT
coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:
>fictional stories that serve as how-to manuals for anyone planning on
>committing B/D, rape and murder.
The Bible can be used for the same purpose, plus as a "How To" guide to
masturbation, incest, sodomy, idolatry, false-witnessing, rioting,
usurpation, insurrection, genocide and a nuclear war. I am not too certain
on the latter, but I am sure some creative soul will find a way to
do that.
How does one "commit B/D" anyway? Is that like "committing sex"?
>Apparently, much of what is shown on
>this group is illegal here in Canada,
So we better ban a.s.b lest Canadians get upset.
--
"... i heard the droning / in the shrine
of the sea-monkey / palace of the brine ..." -- Pixies.
Oleg Kiselev oleg@veritas.com
VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:00:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291358.AA15351@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 03:58:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:00:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <8143@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>
Date: 29 May 92 02:07:38 GMT
In article 18609@cs.sfu.ca, jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
>in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex. That
>way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
>(alt.sex.nonconsensual), and the rest of us (the vast majority
>that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
>articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
>correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
>
Look, if the censors want to censor asb they're gonna do it. They're gonna do
it regardless of what's posted. If they read asb, they will determine that asb
is essentially subversive to the mainstream culture. I mean, we're talking about
things like consensual sex, responsible sex, playful sex, enjoyable sex. Play
that's not sex at all. Adults playing with each others bodies (horrors) outside
of the context of a monogamous marriage. People who read asb might figure out
that they've been lied to. That there is more to sex than male/female missionary
style. That there is a lot to be gained by playing with other people's bodies and
letting other people play with their bodies, very, very dangerous ideas. The next
thing might be that people begin to figure out they have power over their bodies,
over their reproduction, over their lives. Good gawd in heavens, man, these
kinds of ideas are enough to shake the very foundations of this society and
should be obliterated, post haste.
Don't kid yourself, if asb is censored, it won't be because of stories like "Cindy's
Torment" or "Farmer Bob" (damn, somehow I missed that one and I get the feeling
it had horses in it. I just hope there wasn't any animal abuse).
Rosie Chiques
--
Please *don't* post tests or personals here. To use this service, send EMAIL to:
Anonymous posting: wi-post@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
Anonymous reply: @wizvax.methuen.ma.us
Test path/get alias: wi-ping@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
ACS administrator: wi-admin@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:00:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291358.AA15366@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 03:58:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:00:41 1992
From: ken@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Primer)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 05:52:21 GMT
coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:
>Hi All,
> I just logged into this group and read a backlog of messages, to
>see what was going on. You see, the CBC news had a story about the
>University of Manitoba and censorship of 'gasp' pornography. A.s.b. was
>specifically mentioned in the report; it claimed that there are some
>fictional stories that serve as how-to manuals for anyone planning on
>committing B/D, rape and murder. Apparently, much of what is shown on
>this group is illegal here in Canada, but the perpetrators cannot be
>tracked down through the network.
> I'm not passing judgement here; B/D -S/M doesn't do much for me
>and I'll probably log off the group forthwith, but I thought you might
>be interested to hear of your new-found fame.
Well it's good to see that the U.S.A hasn't cornered the market on
idiots and fools....What do you mean by Illegal? The mere discussion
of S&M or the just the activity itself? Hey folks please help me on this,
is Canada more liberal or conservative in it's sex laws?
--
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad|ken primer(aka thingfish)
The dreams in which I die are the best I |ken@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
ever had. |member of Illini Japanese
***********See Y'all at Anime Expo '92!****|Animation Club.
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:11:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] Usenet and Obscenity in Canada
Message-ID: <9205291408.AA15796@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 04:08:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 10:11:18 1992
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Usenet and Obscenity in Canada
Message-ID:
[The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC Radio's
news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored on 9755
KHz at 2300 UTC All spelling and punctuation has been added, and may
be incorrect.]
Computer Porn.
Canadian police can't seem to control it. A wave of obscene material
is being transmitted to universities through a computer network. Much
of the pornographic writing comes from the US, where laws against
obscenity are more relaxed. Police here say the material is clearly
obscene and they say they'd be willing to prosecute if they could just
figure out who's responsible. David McLaughlan has more ...
A recent Supreme Court ruling holds that depicting sex involving
violence or children is obscene and it is a criminal offence to
publish or distribute it in Canada. But that's the type of material
that has been appearing on computer terminals across the country, the
equivalent of about a magazine per day, generated by something called
'newsgroups.'
Much of the material comes from subscribers to wizvax [sp?], a
computer timesharing company in the United States. "...that's because
our machine does provide a service to the community, through the
alt.sex.bondage newsgroup." Stephanie Gillgut [sp?] operates her
business from Massachusetts. What she calls a 'service' is basically
a how-to manual on sex with partners getting strangled, or with
children or animals. Gillgut says the written material comes
anonymously from any of her subscribers; computers do the rest. "I
have no direct link with Canada, so I'm really pass[ing] it on to
another machine, which in turn passes it on to other machines, and so
on and so forth." And it end up on the computer terminals at most
Canadian universities.
University spokespeople downplay it, but most make it freely available
to professors and students. The University of Manitoba recently began
censoring the material. Professor Brian Fortinski objects. He says
it's as offensive to comb through the computer and remove obscene
materials, as it would be to raid private office files. "I don't
think most people in any institution would like the idea that you
could have someone that could go from office to office, open up every
drawer and file cabinet, rifle through and see what was there."
Police say the material is obscene, but they can't arrest a computer,
so who do they put the cuffs on? Good question, according to Roland
Penner; he's dean of law at the University of Manitoba. "Even if the
computer services director was merely passive in the sense that he
knew about it, might have done something to stop it but doesn't, he
hasn't committed a crime." Penner says law enforcement officials are
having a hard time unravelling the problem because computer
pornography is so new. Police want to shut it off, but they're
limited so far in what they can do. Do the violent pronography
continues to flow along with academic papers and the latest scientific
information.
David Mclaughlan, CBC News, Winnipeg
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:20:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,wpg.general,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,can.general,man.general,news.misc
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Articles on U. of Manitoba's alt.sex* ban
Message-ID: <1992May29.151826.17593@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:18:26 GMT
This article tells where to find other articles about the U. of
Manitoba's ban. Follow up has been set to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,
news.misc, alt.censorship.
The discussion of the U. of Manitoba's alt.sex* ban has been scattered
in at least 10 newsgroups. CAF-Talk tries to be the newsgroup/mailing
list of record for incidents related to computers and academic
freedom. (A CAF-Talk flyer is enclosed)
CAF-Talk is archived. Articles about U. of Manitoba appear in archive
files batch/may_10_1992, batch/may_17_1992, and batch/may_31_1992.
The best articles from each week's CAF-Talk are selected and
abstracted into CAF-News. CAF-News v 02 n 21 (news/cafv02n21) contains
on article about U. of Manitoba. Forthcoming issues will almost certainly
contain more. (Access information is enclosed.)
You can contribute directly to CAF-Talk. Either by (cross)posting
articles to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk or by mailing articles to
caf-talk@eff.org.
- Carl Kadie, co-moderater CAF-News
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/batch/may_10_1992
pub/academic/batch/may_17_1992
pub/academic/batch/may_31_1992
pub/academic/news/cafv02n21
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/batch may_10_1992
send acad-freedom/batch may_17_1992
send acad-freedom/batch may_31_1992
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n21
===================== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf ===========
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.
There are four versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
- about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
caf-requests@eff.org.
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:28:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291526.AA17128@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 05:26:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:28:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 29 May 92 11:09:08 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> If you seriously think that any anti-censorship interest
> group could argue for "Cindy's Torment" in the national media
> and the student newspapers, and succeed... well then, I have a
> bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
>
> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
> whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
> in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex.
Yes, folks, it's time for the new Politically Correct "Cindy's Torment":
Cindy carefully read through the contract her boss handed her.
Paragraph ten said:
"I, the employee, do hearby consent to being tied
up, beaten, and forced to perform all manner of
repulsive sexual acts. I enjoy it, really I do.
I consent to absolutely everything."
"Sounds fine," said Cindy as she signed the contract. "When
do I start work?"
mathew
[ Hey, it's as believable as most of the stories... ]
--
This disclaimer does not represent the views of Mantis Consultants Ltd
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:28:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291526.AA17138@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 05:26:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:28:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May29.115509.25181@panix.com>
Date: 29 May 92 11:55:09 GMT
In article lisahern@clubzen.fidonet.org (Lisa Hernandez) writes:
[ threat of censorship ]
| Hey, I'd be all for a ALT.SEX.NONCONSENSUAL. Why not? Why should it
| be restricted?
|
It won't do any good. It's the "sex" part that gets the
newspapers and the idiots excited. Enjoy it while it lasts,
and start looking around for public access sites.
--
* Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:28:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291526.AA17150@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 05:26:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:28:56 1992
From: shiloh@mit.edu (Shiloh)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May29.144902.7908@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 14:49:02 GMT
> > lisahern@clubzen.fidonet.org (Lisa Hernandez) writes:
> [ threat of censorship ]
>
> | Hey, I'd be all for a ALT.SEX.NONCONSENSUAL. Why not? Why should it
> | be restricted?
> |
How about alt.sex.rape?
It's shorter and easier to type.
If people want to post rape (oops, sorry, I mean nonconsensual) stories,
that's their business. I just think "nonconsensual" is a little too
euphemistic. Call it what it is. Creating a separate newsgroup is kind of
silly, there really aren't that many stories involving rape. It would
be nice if they could be tagged, so people could avoid them.
S.
story before I get half way through it
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:45:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <9205291543.AA17372@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 05:43:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 11:45:53 1992
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <199205291523.AA17754@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 06:35:11 GMT
Date: 5/29/92 10:06 AM
Subj: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
When I first got my account on the WELL about a year ago, I started
fishing around in UseNet; my first direct exposure to it. And I
downloaded, oh, I don't know, maybe a dozen images from alt.sex.pictures.
For the most part, I liked what I saw. But I am quite aware that
existing U.S. Postal regulations forbid sending some of this stuff
through the mail.
(Didn't you ever wonder why even the hard-core adult magazines in the
U.S. are so coy about portraying actual intercourse? It's illegal to
send photographs through the mail if they show actual contact between the
mouth, anus, or genitals of one person with the genitals of another.
Obscenity statutes don't even come into the question, it's an entirely
different set of regulations.)
But then, if the postal inspectors wanted to make an arrest, who would
they bust? The stuff that doesn't come in anonymously from wizvax and
elsewhere comes in from out of the country, where it's legal. Heck, it
could get less tame than it is: if a Danish site digitizes and posts
something that is recognizably, obviously kiddie porn and drops it into
alt.sex.pictures, whose laws are being violated? And more importantly,
by whom? Could the postal inspectors really seize the entire
multi-billion-dollar infrastructure of the Internet for this?
Now we find out that Canadian law is even funkier than U.S. law. Eris'
name, people, we're talking about WORDS here, not even pictures, let
alone film. I don't recall the last time written text got found obscene
in the U.S.; it must have been {Ulysses} or {Tropic of Capricorn}. In
any case, it was before my lifetime.
But again, whose law is being violated? And by whom? Can Canada attempt
to extradite the operators of wizvax?
Where cyberspace crosses national borders, there are bound to be ugly
issues like this. It doesn't even restrict itself to sex. In Australia,
voting is mandatory and it's a federal crime to advocate not voting.
Back three years ago or so, when I was still on the board of the
International FidoNet Association, we had a case where we had to figure
out what to do when Australian boards were receiving messages and files
from U.S. anarchists advocating that they not vote in the next election.
Again, whose laws were being violated? And by whom?
----------
J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com
X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does
not
contain official MasterCard statements or policies.
From caf-talk Caf May 29 12:58:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291655.AA18634@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 06:55:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 12:58:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 29 May 92 15:27:45 GMT
In article <8130@wizvax.methuen.ma.us> stephie@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (Stephanie P. Gilgut) writes:
> The "how-to" manual etc was
> brought up. Told him the truth - In the two years or so I have been involved
> with this group, I have read no such article.
I do, sorta. I remember a thread about how a woman could overcome the
standard physical disadvantages and rape a man. I remember countless
articles on tying knots. Articles on which wax to use, which canes/whips
make the least noise (so the kids and neighbors don't hear), how to tie
someone up while they're asleep (without waking them up), where to go for
male and female forced chastity devices that work for months, etc.
I'm not saying any of this is bad, quite the opposite. I've been on the
receiving end of untold wisdom, safety and etiquette tips and general
enlightenment. I couldn't begin to express my appreciation for this
group and the people who have made it what it is.
But there are obviously people who don't see it that way. They think if
someone reads about it (and whatever "it" is, it's bad), they'll do it.
Never mind that those people are unstable to begin with, or that rape is
a crime of violence, not sex, or that men have been raping women long
before computers, long before TV, long before radio, long before print.
If we wipe out the current medium, utopia is sure to follow.
Remember people, the answer to this is reason and education. It's
worked, or is working, more or less, for blacks, gays, women, hispanics,
asians, disabled......
-Andy (a free speech extremist)
--
"The most valuable commodity I know of, is information. Wouldn't you agree?"
-Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:36:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291834.AA22669@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 08:34:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:36:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <15456@autodesk.COM>
Date: 29 May 92 16:34:38 GMT
I just received this in my mailbox and am doing as requested.
From colin@eecg.toronto.edu Thu May 28 23:09:06 1992
To: robertj@autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Organization: University of Toronto
(Could you post the following for me? My stupid news server doesn't
get a.s.b and won't allow cross-postings to groups it doesn't understand.)
I just spoke to Inspector Ray Johns of the Winnipeg police, vice
department. I got the name from the Canadian Press wire story
reprinted in the Globe and Mail on the subject. He wasn't very
forthcoming with details, but when I said "alt.sex.bondage" he said
that was it. He said he hasn't had time to go through the stack of
stuff on his desk , but (verbatim quote) "It's a textbook on how to
torture women for sexual pleasure. It's obscene." I suggested he read
the Lesbian S/M Safety Manual (now, *that*'s a textbook, and there's
the textbook for the seminar I attended), but he was in a hurry to get
to another meeting and I don't think he heard. I specifically asked
if it was the Frequently Asked Questions file, but got the above
response about not having read the stuff yet. (You're in the states,
Rob, so you're safe. I won't mention anyone in, or coming to, Canada
even if it *is* contempt of court - damn straight, I'm contemptuous!)
(He didn't mention the bits about torturing men for sexual pleasure.)
It's the obscenity section of the criminal code, 163. I'll get the
text and post it. He said that if it's distributed to the public
(pressing him on the point, this seemed to include close friends or
generally anyone), the distributor can be charged, as can the
originator. Well, I've written stuff. It involved me flogging a
woman. I wonder what'll happen.
I said I'd been reading the material for several years now and found
some of it tasteless (the great C's T war), but hardly obscene. He
asked how I had access to it. I said via several computer systems. He
asked me what program it was. I said "rn". He asked what the modem
numbers were. I said I didn't remember off the top of my head; my
computer keeps track of that. (And it's getting encrypted RIGHT NOW.
I'm not making trouble for anyone else. For those of you who know of
other ways of tracking these things down, please respect my attempts at
security through obscurity.)
I left him my name and phone number for more details, so we'll see what
happens. I've often said that I'll go out of my way to waste the effort
of enforcers of dumb laws as a form of protest. Maybe this Is It?
In the meantime, let's do the paranoia thing.
*Shit* this makes me mad... In the meantime, can someone in the States
cobble together an a.s.b-only promiscuous NNTP server? It might be needed.
If necessary, I'll work on crypto stuff.
--
-Colin (colin@eecg.toronto.edu)
--
Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer
Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:37:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291834.AA22696@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 08:34:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:37:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <13594@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 29 May 92 17:11:27 GMT
Congratulations! I've made the evening news.
Last night on IRC someone told me about all this UManitoba stuff. The
whole #bondage channel was full of "What will happen to us" and "I could
lose this" and "I'm risking that."
Someone asked me what I would have done in Steph's place when she was
called for an interview, implying that granting the interview was not
the thing she should have done. I replied that I would have granted the
interview too. The person who asked me didn't believe my answer. Why
the fuck did sie ask me then?
Someone said "I could lose my entire future over this situation." Well,
I can sympathize with that, even if it's unlikely. But when I said "I
wouldn't worry about it, it's unlikely," sie said, "You're not in
my position."
I said I could SYMPATHIZE. My position is not the SAME because my life
is not the same. But it's very goddamn fucking similar, thank you very
much.
If the media and then the government went crazy and starting arresting
people for what they post to a.s.b. -- IF -- or even if things heated
up just a little short of that point, Person A might very well be cut
off by hir parents. Person B might lose hir job. Person C might be
ostracized from hir community. Person D could lose hir children. Or
all these things and more could happen to one person.
I got very angry as the folx on #bondage speculated wildly about what
COULD happen. Finally, I said that I believed that one should live
one's life in such a way that one cannot be blackmailed. If one has
a weak spot, such as children or job, one should cover one's ass. One
should make contingency plans. It's not that hard.
Or, to put it another way -- what the hell are you doing here if you
haven't counted the cost?
If you read/post to a.s.b., and you (exempli gratia) hold a high political
office, and you get found out, you can lose your whole career. Yes, well,
so? You could lose it for some OTHER reason, too.
If you have children, and you read/post to a.s.b., and maybe, say, hold
play parties in your house, and your neighbors decide to get nosy, you
can lose your children. Yes, well, so? There are about a million other
reasons the government can use to take your children away from you,
folks. If you don't believe me -- all power to you. Have fun in Wonderland,
Alice.
No matter who you are, or what you do, you can lose it all for any number
of reasons at any time. Wake up and smell the stench of burning circuits
in your brains, folks. LIFE IS A RISK. The only thing you can really do
is cover your ass as best you can -- and then have all the fun possible
while it lasts.
So, during all the psychobabble on #bondage last night, I flirted with
one of the most gorgeous women alive. And slept like a baby last night.
Having done all I can to keep what I have safe and secure, I'm prepared
to fight if need be, but I'm not going to waste precious time and energy
worrying about what COULD happen. The reality of each day is enough, thank
you.
--Lothie, still feeling sticky from the virtual strawberries and cream
of last night
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:37:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291835.AA22720@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 08:35:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:37:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: 29 May 92 17:48:26 GMT
In article <1992May28.211907.19985@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
>
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
>but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
>stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
>
Fine. Let the folk in suits kill the net because of the
ever-present icky stuff. Great idea. Now, ignoring for the sake of
ease the scientists and programmers and other "real" users, what
you're going to get are mailing lists. Lots of them. Carrying
something damn near the content of the old icky newsgroups. And,
'cause it's e-mail, it's got (in the US, at least) legal protection,
and can't be fucked with, regardless of the density of ickiness.
The rub, of course, is that every user's going to have the
equivalent of a newsfeed in their mail spool. What a collossal
redundance of disk space, dontcha think? That's why usenet exists
rather than a bunch o' mailing lists. efficiency.
-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi: Di.sigsgvirusuise Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo oooo o oo ooo oo oo oo o o oooo ooo o o oooooooo
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:38:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205291835.AA22740@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 08:35:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 29 14:38:11 1992
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:53:24 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>distributed to *every* major university in Canada. And yes, I
>have been following a.s.b and the censorship debates for several
>years.
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
So Canadian netters are finally going to get the full benefit of their
beloved censorship. About time. God knows what could happen if
enough Canadians read Cindy's torment. Probably they'd all go out and
torture and rape people. I could be genetic. Luckily you have a
government willing to protect you from ourselves.
Then again, if I was posting from an .edu or .gov site here I'd
probably be throwing stones in glass houses.
Hmmm... have you considered censoring Usenet postings based on
Canadian content, to prevent American posting imperialism from making
you lose all sense of self-worth?
--
"Yes, I'm a nobody, but the secrets of the universe don't mind. They
will reveal themselves to anyone."
From caf-talk Caf May 29 15:07:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: allan@luau.kean.edu
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9205291956.AA10975@bart>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 19:55:00 GMT
Please add me to the list.
allan@luau.kean.edu
From caf-talk Caf May 29 15:26:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.women
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Canadian obscenity law (was Re: Congratulations!)
Message-ID: <1992May29.191336.1843@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 19:13:36 GMT
The current issue of _Ms._ magazine (p. 14, May/June 1991) has details
of Canada's new definition of obscenity.
In a decision given in Feburary, Justice John Sopinka of the Canadian
Supreme Court wrote: "If true equality between male and female persons
is to be achived we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting
from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent and degrading
material."
The article says:
[...] 'The case provided the court with the opportunity to claify the
weak and muddled obscenity law, which was based on "undue exploitation
of sex", which was based on "undue exploitation of sex" violating
undefined "community standards." The court's more precise defintions
of these therms no longer include morality and taste,. But violence
and degradation will invariable push pornography over the line into
illegal obscenity: "The portrayal of sex coupled with violence will
almost always consitute the undue exploitation of sex," said the court
in its rulling. "Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may
be undue if the risk of harm is substantial."
[...]
'[T]he guidelines are now clear: degradation, bondage, child
pornography, and violence are out; adult erotica, no matter how
explicit, will not be considered obscene.'
According to the _Ms._ article: "The ruling has the support of most
women's groups in Canada, where the free-speech tradition is not a
dominant as it is in the U.S.; as a result, feminist debate on
pornorgaphy is less intense." Also: "'This is of world historic
importance,' proclaimed Catherine A. MacKinnon, the University of
Michigan law professor whose analysis of pornography and the law,
co-authored with writer Andrea Dworkin, helped form the basis of
LEAF's [Woman's Legal Education and Acuation Fund] argument.
This is article is followed by one critizing Ireland's paternalistic
abortion law. On p. 74 the is an article critizing arts censorship in
the U.S.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 30 00:07:58 1992
Newsgroups: wpg.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: buhr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: alt.sex* ban at U. of Manitoba (was Re: FP Article ...)
Message-ID: <1992May30.033323.23965@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 03:33:23 GMT
[ I am cross-posting this reply to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, because it
belongs there, too. This concerns the censoring of the alt.sex.* hierarchy
by the University of Manitoba in Canada. ]
In <1992May29.140612.1773@brandonu.ca> swayzed@brandonu.ca writes:
> The Supreme Court has defined as obscene anything which is degrading,
>violent and involves sex with children.
As far as I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled, in essence, that sex
between consenting adults, no matter how explicit, could not be considered
pornography. It is not necessarily true that everything degrading or violent
is obscene. If this were true, the (why, I'll never know) "hit" movie _Basic
Instinct_ would have been banned, and every goofy made-for-T.V. movie about
rape would be off the air.
In the vast majority of the "alt.sex.bondage" fictional stories I have read,
the "consensuality" of the people involved is beyond question. The part that
is so difficult for many people to understand is that the "victims" are
consenting to be tied up and oftentimes hurt.
>My understanding of the issue as I heard it on the CBC and read it in the
>Winnipeg Free Press...
Let me stop you right there for a quick minute. If you have ever used Usenet,
you know that the Free Press article was wildly inaccurate. When I see such
a botched attempt at basic research, I begin to suspect that people and the
larger issues have probably been misrepresented.
I happen to know that the opinions of at least one person were misrepresented
in the article. I also know, because I have two eyes and grey matter between
my ears, that Alexandra Paul, our intrepid reporter, knows nothing of the
Internet or Usenet but what she has gleaned from a blurry print-out of half a
dozen articles collected by an anonymous student over a period of several
months.
No attempt was made to describe the Usenet or even distinguish it from the
Internet. No mention was made of the countless other times a similar situation
has occurred. No mention was made of the University's (as distinct from our
Vice President of Administration, Mr. Terry Falconer's) policy on this medium
or any other medium of information exchange. No mention was made of the actual
number of students who regularly access these groups or how many articles with
arguably pornographic content appear on the group.
It was never explained that this is not a video game or a database but a
public forum where only the authors can take responsibility for the articles.
The universities do not distribute pornography, they "distribute" public
information unconditionally. In a similar case, an American Supreme court
likened Compuserve to a bookstore owner: its function was one of providing
a large body of information to its customers, and it did not have a
responsibility to ensure that each and every "book" in its "store" contravened
no legal laws. This case concerned defamation rather than pornography, yet
the principle is universal and, in my opinion, essential to understanding the
Internet, and Usenet in particular, in a legal context.
While the list of self-important pundits referenced in the article grew and
grew with every sentence I read, the University Ombudsperson, who might
actually have had something to say about freedom of speech on campus, was
never consulted. Or, wait a minute, was our Ombudsperson written out of the
budget last year? That's funny, there seems to be a city-wide shortage of
Ombusdpeople. [ For those of you in a.c.a-f.t land, the Winnipeg Free Press
recently fired its Ombudsman, allegedly for bad-mouthing the paper. I feel
confident in saying that it is now, in every sense, a rag. One can get a
better handle on current issues by looking for Waldo on the back of Life
cereal boxes. ]
> ...is that there were certain legal concerns as to whether or
>not the alt.sex newsgroups contravened any criminal laws.
>I guess my point is that if you wish to have the alt.sex groups re-instated you
>first have to prove that it is not obscene as defined by the Supreme Court.
In general, this is not true. The Crown must prove that the alt.sex.* groups
*are* obscene. There is no onus on the University to prove anything. Of
course you and I, should we choose to pursue the issue, must prove to the
university administration--if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that they
would listen--that the groups are not obscene.
> If they are in fact obscene, as
>defined by the Canadian Supreme Court, then they should, legally speaking, be
>banned.
Yet what, precisely, should be banned? What form should this banning take?
When a half dozen, supposedly pornographic, articles appeared on "alt.sex.
bondage", we lost "alt.sex.bondage", "alt.sex", "alt.sex.motss", "alt.sex.
movies", "alt.sex.stories", "alt.sex.wizards", and, until somebody spoke up,
"alt.sexy.bald.captains" and "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery". Why does the whole
hierarchy get censored? When did "alt.sex.bondage" become pornographic?
After the first message was posted? After the second? Would "alt.politics.
homosexuality" become pornographic if *I* posted a pornographic story on
it? How about "comp.windows.x"?
Even if some or many of the messages on "alt.sex.bondage" are pornographic,
the issue is far from cut and dried.
> I think the Supreme Court's defintion, although far from perfect and
>precise, is at least reasonable and requires further challenge in order that it
>be made more explicit.
Yes, at great personal expense, evidently, since our administration (or at
least one of our administrators) is on a crusade for a clean, wholesome world
at the possible expense of our university's integrity in netland.
Kevin Buhr
---
Angst is a wonderful thing to share.
From caf-talk Caf May 30 13:36:41 1992
From: elgaard@diku.dk (Niels Elgaard Larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <1992May30.164649.18941@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 30 May 92 16:46:49 GMT
Graham.Shaw@newcastle.ac.uk (G.D.Shaw) writes:
>It was claimed in a recent post that encryption would not protect you
>from the state, because a court (in this case a Grand Jury in the US)
>could order you to decrypt the files.
>Such legal powers are clearly quite far-reaching, but if you are
>prepared to go to enough trouble they are not too difficult to defeat.
Another idea. You could hide your coded data in huge not well-defined
data. Eg. you take a picture of the sea or something. The picture should be
a little unfocused with low contrast. You scan the picture and burn the
original. The scanned picture is M bit. You encode your data and get N bits.
Using a simple random generator (don't have to be secret) you select N bits
from the M bit picture and store you encoded data in these bits.
You use the modified picture as you background on you X terminal and delete
the original. If N<
From: smbailey@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 31 May 92 16:46:20 CST
Is there anyway one computer can dial up to another without having to
go through a mainframe. Is there some ecial kind of software needed?
As I don't read the news group please E-Mail responses.
Thanks
Steve
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:31:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312328.AA17506@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:28:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:31:04 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:15:02 -0400
From: Michael Raymond Feely
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes...
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
(Imminent death of the net. Film at eleven. And *this time* we aren't
kidding.)
You make it sound like a bad thing, this eventual discovery that what's
legal has little to do with what's acceptable or with what's there. Does
it occur to you that life could go the other way? Perhaps the masses
could be roused to defeat some of the foolish censorship laws which
people are once again trying to point at the net. I suppose that idea
just might not have occurred to you though. Pessimism, or cowardice?
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
>but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
>stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
Sounds like cowardice still.
Come on, man. How can you put forth such a sheeplike acceptace of some
random individual's telling you what to read and what not to?
Though you are getting a clue of some small degree. You at least
managed to begin to realize that cutting out the "non-consensaul stuff"
(a category still undefined, BTW) isn't necessary going to appease. Now,
we'll just have to give you enough clue to realize that appeasement
sucks in the first place, and you'll be all set.
=======------======------======------
Michael - rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
Maybe I could tie you up with dental floss / I'll make you wear a harness
/ And I'll show you who's the boss... - Weird Al
CMU did make me this way, but they'll never admit it.
Michael Feely, PO Box 4602, 5115 Margaret Morrison, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
* mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu ** Anonymous mail - wi.2613@wizvax.methuen.ma.us *
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:31:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312329.AA17516@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:29:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:31:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May29.181446@sic.epfl.ch>
Date: 29 May 92 16:14:46 GMT
In article <13573@umd5.umd.edu>, glenn@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes:
|>
|> But here's a quick question -- last year some sites lost alt.sex.*
|> access because of media exposure concerning the fact that they
|> received such groups. Are those sites still not receiving alt.sex.*
|> or did they quietly start getting it again once the storm had passed?
|>
All of Switzerland lost access to alt.sex.* for a while, now the
situation is clearer and our University has all the newsgroups back
but one: alt.binary.pictures.erotica as it is believed by my boss
that some of the pictures are illegal in Switzerland.
--
Alain Brossard, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne,
SIC/SII, EL-Ecublens, CH-1015 Lausanne, Suisse, +41 21 693-2211
brossard@sic.epfl.ch
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:31:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312329.AA17545@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:29:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:31:59 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:49:45 GMT
In article mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Raymond Feely) writes:
> Congratulations to *you* you whining, sniveling child....
Michael's message, also sent to me personally, has to
qualify as among the top 5 most gratuitously abusive e-mail
messages I have received in lo these 6 1/2 years of Usenet
access. Congratulations to *you* Michael.
>... Once upon a time, there was a man. And he controlled a country, and
>that country was referred to as "Germany". ...
As I said in my response to Michael, please spare me the
Dreaded Nazi Analogy. I've heard it all before.
Some think that getting rid of some abusive Usenet postings
is a Slippery Slope to total censorship. They should realize
that there's a Slippery Slope on the other side of the hill:
namely, that more and more things be considered "censorship"
and avoided. It happens all the time on Usenet. I was
proposing that we restrict non-consensual posts to
alt.sex.nonconsensual, and let the community of news
administrators and users decide whether they want it. If this
is "censorship" then the Pope is Buddhist.
Every university Usenet community is going to face this
battle over the next few years, maybe several times. If you
insist on allowing *anything* on alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage,
you are basically saying to each of those communities: "Either
argue for Absolute Freedom of Speech, or don't get alt.sex.*."
(And Michael might add, "you snivelling toadies".)
I am not about to argue for Absolute Freedom of Speech
because I don't believe in it. I have another principle, that I
have no problem accepting, that is *just* as virtuous and *just*
as well-thought-out as yours: Consensuality. I will argue for
that principle, in either direction, against all the Nazi
Evangelist Hordes that you say are going to want to ban
alt.sex.*. I suspect that a lot of people would do the same.
But pressuring me to argue for something I don't believe
in is the worst kind of coercion. Most of the jurisdictions in
North America don't allow rape pornography and child
pornography. I agree with that. If *you* want *your* computer
to be in the vanguard of some movement to legalize rape
pornograpy, then go right ahead. I will fight to the death for
your right to do so. But don't force *my* computer to be in
that vanguard.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:32:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312330.AA17561@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:30:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:32:48 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May29.204552.21403@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 20:45:52 GMT
In article rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>So Canadian netters are finally going to get the full benefit of their
>beloved censorship. About time.
Yes Ron, and next the Socialist/Fascist Canuck Hordes are
going to sweep down and force you to live in peaceful cities
with public health insurance. Beware!
>Hmmm... have you considered censoring Usenet postings based on
>Canadian content, to prevent American posting imperialism from making
>you lose all sense of self-worth?
Nah, we'll just make you an honourary Canadian, Ron.
You post more than all the Canadians on the net combined.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:33:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312330.AA17570@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:30:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:33:01 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 02:43:20 -0400
From: Thomas Omar Smith
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
> You make it sound like a bad thing, this eventual discovery that what's
>legal has little to do with what's acceptable or with what's there. Does
>it occur to you that life could go the other way? Perhaps the masses
>could be roused to defeat some of the foolish censorship laws which
>people are once again trying to point at the net. I suppose that idea
>just might not have occurred to you though. Pessimism, or cowardice?
Mike, I'm afraid you are vastly overestimating the intelligence of the
people. All it takes are a few people railing publically about
pornography and bang, your system loses funding. People would rather be
safe in the knowledge that they voted down some vague social evil than
think about issues and devote the time to intelligent policy. If you
don't believe me, look at how they've voted in the past.
Thomas Jefferson was right. Put too much power in the hands of the
people, and tyranny results.
Tom the non hacker
Kemp in 96!
Ross Perot may indeed turn this
country around. However, his next act
will probably be to bend it over.
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:34:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312332.AA17592@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:32:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:34:45 1992
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May30.003241.6523@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 30 May 92 04:32:42 GMT
For everyone's information, here's the evening news, and 11 factual errors
I found in it. I find the quote in the last paragraph *very* reassuring,
though. It takes me right back down from panic stations. The transcript
is from ftp.eff.org.
> [The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC Radio's
> news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored on 9755
> KHz at 2300 UTC. All spelling and punctuation has been added, and may
> be incorrect.]
> Computer Porn.
> Canadian police can't seem to control it. A wave of obscene material
> is being transmitted to universities through a computer network. Much
> of the pornographic writing comes from the US, where laws against
> obscenity are more relaxed. Police here say the material is clearly
> obscene and they say they'd be willing to prosecute if they could just
> figure out who's responsible. David McLaughlan has more ...
> A recent Supreme Court ruling holds that depicting sex involving
> violence or children is obscene and it is a criminal offence to
> publish or distribute it in Canada. But that's the type of material
> that has been appearing on computer terminals across the country, the
> equivalent of about a magazine per day, generated by something called
> 'newsgroups.'
1. The material is generated by people. As much as new newsgroup
proposers would like it to be the case, newsgroups don't
generate traffic by themselves.
2. While all of a.s.b. is roughly equivalent to a magazine per day,
the amount that depicts sex in any way is considerably less.
> Much of the material comes from subscribers to wizvax, a
> computer timesharing company in the United States.
3. Wizvax is not the name of the company, it is the name of the computer.
4. Users of wizvax subscribe to neither the company nor the computer;
they subscribe to the anonymous contact service hosted there.
5. As of last I heard, wizvax is physically secure and does not
provide computer timesharing services commercially.
> "...that's because
> our machine does provide a service to the community, through the
> alt.sex.bondage newsgroup." Stephanie Gilgut operates her
> business from Massachusetts.
6. Contrary to the implication, the anonymous contact service is not
related to Stephanie's business; it is a free service that she runs
on the side.
> What she calls a 'service' is basically
> a how-to manual on sex with partners getting strangled, or with
> children or animals.
7. Her service is an anonymous contact service. It forwards other
people's messages for them. It "is" not any text, much less a
how-to manual. In particular, wizvax is not an archive site.
8. Netnews articles sent through wizvax's anonymous contact service do
not constitute a manual. How-to articles are in the minority,
wizvax postings on how to perform strangulation are extremely rate
(less than one in a thousand; breath control isn't that popular),
and the instructions that are posted are typically responses to
prior questions. They are not sufficiently organized to even
approximate a manual.
(The closest thing, the FAQ list, is not sent through wizvax.)
9. I have never seen instructions on how to perform sex with children
or animals on a.s.b., via wizvax or not. I've seen fiction about
it often enough, though. And lots of flames about the difference.
> Gilgut says the written material comes
> anonymously from any of her subscribers; computers do the rest. "I
> have no direct link with Canada, so I'm really pass[ing] it on to
> another machine, which in turn passes it on to other machines, and so
> on and so forth." And it end up on the computer terminals at most
> Canadian universities.
10. The "computers do the rest" automatic parts of the process end before
it ends up on computer terminals; a user has to request to see it.
> University spokespeople downplay it, but most make it freely available
> to professors and students. The University of Manitoba recently began
> censoring the material. Professor Brian Fortinski objects. He says
> it's as offensive to comb through the computer and remove obscene
> materials, as it would be to raid private office files. "I don't
> think most people in any institution would like the idea that you
> could have someone that could go from office to office, open up every
> drawer and file cabinet, rifle through and see what was there."
11. The University of Manitoba does not censor the material; that word
denotes reading and review, as does the use of the progressive tone
denoting ongoing activity. It discontinued alt.sex* in toto.
(webster censor, relevant parts only:
1. censor 2a: an official who examines publications for objectionable matter
2b: an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material
2. censor \'sen(t)s-(*-)rin\ vt or cen.sor.ing : to subject to censorship
cen.sor.ship 1: the institution, system, or practice of censoring or censors)
> Police say the material is obscene, but they can't arrest a computer,
> so who do they put the cuffs on? Good question, according to Roland
> Penner; he's dean of law at the University of Manitoba. "Even if the
> computer services director was merely passive in the sense that he
> knew about it, might have done something to stop it but doesn't, he
> hasn't committed a crime." Penner says law enforcement officials are
> having a hard time unravelling the problem because computer
> pornography is so new. Police want to shut it off, but they're
> limited so far in what they can do. So the violent pornography
> continues to flow along with academic papers and the latest scientific
> information.
Well, that, at least, is good news. Sysadmins are safe. The chill just
lightened a lot.
> David Mclaughlan, CBC News, Winnipeg
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:36:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312333.AA17605@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:33:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:36:01 1992
From: joeg@gagme (joe grosch)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May30.081942.5303@serveme.chi.il.us>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 08:19:42 GMT
mf2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Raymond Feely) writes:
:
: Jamie Andrews@cs.sfu.ca snivels
: >
: > The anti-censorship weenies can bleat all they want about
: >how we *should* be able to show *absolutely anything* on a.s.b.
: >and alt.sex. But if that attitude, and the continuing stream
: >of non-consensual sex articles on these newsgroups, is going to
: >just result in the blockage of alt.sex
: >
[...Deleted to save bandwidth...]
:
: Congratulations to *you* you whining, sniveling child. That's right,
: kid. Show us just how much spine you've got. Cave right in at the mere
: *hint* of pressure.
: I marvel at your abject stupidity. Your pathetic inability to
: realize how the real world really works.
: I'm going to draw you an analogy. While I talk about control of
: territory, I want you to think about control of information and ideas,
: and speech and thought.
:
[...deleted nice parable phrasing of history of Hitler and Chamberland...]
: Mind you, I will admit that I like your clever manuver of making
: censorship more palatable by pretending it's in-house, not imposed upon
: us. If Helms was bright enough to sell sugarcoating like that he'd be
: even more dangerous. It's elegant. Repulsive, of course, and I'll fight
: you tooth and nail, but it's elegant.
:
: No here's my suggestion for a little self censorship - why don't you
: stick your authoritarian little nose somewhere else, you sniveling toady.
Michael, I think you were a bit harsh with Jamie, but basicly you're right.
We can't allow people like Helms and the Moral Majority to take away our
rights. If I chose to read stories or view videos of consulting adults
having sex, in the privacy of my own home, it's my business.
Helm, et al. may be able to pressure some universitys and other Internet
sites to drop alt.sex (what do you think they will say about alt.flame
or alt.consispary :-) ) but there are thousnads of sites receiving
alt.sex. I currently am reading this and posting this from a BBS that has an
internet feed. This BBS, Gagme, is a public access UNIX site here in
Chicago, there is at least 2 other public access Internet sites in Chicago.
The cost of putting up an Internet site has been dropping very fast in the
last few years. One could probly do the whole job for about $5,000.00. I
know that is a shit load of money but 10 people pooling their resources
could do it.
The 2 best things about Technology is 1) Helms et. al. have know idea what
is going on and because they are ignorant about the technology they don't
know how to really stop it. and 2) Technology assists the free flow of
information to the point of being subversive (YAH!!). Think about Tenneman
Square. If you were on the Net during that period there was a lot of
infromation coming out that the Party knew nothing about.
So, basicly, fuck Helms (NO, Thank You!). I refuse to roll over and if push
come to shove I'll put up my own Internet site.
--
| Sure sign it's time to get divorced :
Josef Grosch | Your wife looks up from breakfast and says
joeg@gagme.chi.il.us | " Who the fuck are you ? "
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:36:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312334.AA17615@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:34:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:36:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May30.135242.13075@thelema.uucp>
Date: 30 May 92 13:52:42 GMT
Followups to alt.sex, alt.config, alt.censorship.
In article <1992May29.144902.7908@athena.mit.edu> shiloh@mit.edu (Shiloh) writes:
>> > lisahern@clubzen.fidonet.org (Lisa Hernandez) writes:
>> [ threat of censorship ]
>>
>> | Hey, I'd be all for a ALT.SEX.NONCONSENSUAL. Why not? Why should it
>> | be restricted?
>How about alt.sex.rape?
No need. That stuff's just fine in alt.sex.bondage, and when I write
about rape, I'll do it here in asb. Cope.
You can persuade someone to newgroup alt.sex.rape if you like. I
won't be posting there, unless I'm redirecting a cascade, and I won't
be taking MY concept of what asb can include TO any other place. I
was posting much the same sort of thing about rape in net.singles,
long ago.
>If people want to post rape (oops, sorry, I mean nonconsensual) stories,
>that's their business. I just think "nonconsensual" is a little too
>euphemistic. Call it what it is. Creating a separate newsgroup is kind of
>silly, there really aren't that many stories involving rape. It would
>be nice if they could be tagged, so people could avoid them.
No. If I write a murder mystery, I don't start it off saying "this
story includes the non-consensual killing of one person by another".
Why is rape different?
As before, there's a flap about the evil stuff in asb. This time it's
the Mounties. Ooooh, I'se scared. Been there, done that, got a
system in my own house. I don't need the Canadian government's
approval, any more than I need an NEA grant to fund my posting.
STella@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:36:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312334.AA17626@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:34:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:36:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May30.153832.13143@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: 30 May 92 15:38:32 GMT
Lothie writes:
>No matter who you are, or what you do, you can lose it all for any number
>of reasons at any time. Wake up and smell the stench of burning circuits
>in your brains, folks. LIFE IS A RISK. The only thing you can really do
>is cover your ass as best you can -- and then have all the fun possible
>while it lasts.
>
>So, during all the psychobabble on #bondage last night, I flirted with
>one of the most gorgeous women alive. And slept like a baby last night.
>Having done all I can to keep what I have safe and secure, I'm prepared
>to fight if need be, but I'm not going to waste precious time and energy
>worrying about what COULD happen. The reality of each day is enough, thank
>you.
*cheer* Thanks Lothie.. I couldn't have said it better.. If you spend all
of your time worrying about what MIGHT/COULD happen.. you spend your entire
life being miserable.. then when you get older, you say to yourself "What
if?"
Its kind of like, not doing something only because you may get hurt, in all
reality, you could get hurt walking across the street, buying milk in a
convencience store, or even sleeping in your own bed.. So hell, take
precautions, but don't quit altogether.. you'll spend the rest of your life
wishing you had taken a few chances..
>--Lothie, still feeling sticky from the virtual strawberries and cream
>of last night
Strawberries and cream?? Without me? *pout*
-- Pixie, taking a few chances and loving every minute of it..
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:37:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312334.AA17636@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:34:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:37:10 1992
From: fred@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Fred Whiteside)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May30.171933.20354@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 17:19:33 GMT
(i had to remove alt.sex.bondage from the cross-post as the
local inews won't allow posting to it, and i'm far too
polite to abuse my news provider by the act of forcing
it to. he has people that he must answer to also)
i've been wondering about the more wide-reaching ramifications
of a censorship of alt.sex.* consider:
govt-type notes that they want to stop that nasty pornographic
material from being distributed. so things like alt.sex.beastiality
and alt.sex.bondage are clearly right out. better get rid of all
that alt.sex stuff, just in case. now what's that rec.arts.erotica?
it sounds suspicious, and someone found a bondage story there.
this govt-type has two neurons that can both fire and asks the
obvious question, "how is material forced into a particular group?
how is it organised? by whom? how is material inappropriate to a
group kept out?" and the unfortunate answers "by the author, by
CONVENTION, by the author and it isn't" are returned. the govt-type
notes that there is nothing other than convention preventing bondage
anecdotes being injected into comp.protocols.tcpip.eniac, and decides
the whole damned thing had best be done in.
comments? note that, as a canadian, i have little faith in the intelligence
of the government here, or in the ability of the masses of people to get
anything done (viz. legalised sunday shopping needs almost armed insurrection
to have the "problem" get noticed by the govt).
-fred whiteside
(opinions mine, not necessarily those of my employer or posting facility)
--
Fred Whiteside Beame & Whiteside Software Ltd., Caledonia, Ontario
fred@bws.com fred@maccs.DCSS.McMaster.CA ...!uunet!utai!utgpu!maccs!fred
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:38:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312335.AA17652@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:35:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:38:08 1992
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 17:20:26 GMT
In article <1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>I was
>proposing that we restrict non-consensual posts to
>alt.sex.nonconsensual, and let the community of news
>administrators and users decide whether they want it. If this
>is "censorship" then the Pope is Buddhist.
>
This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but not for the reasons
you raise it.
Rape stories - those dealing with legitimate rape and violence
or with the abuse of children - are patently offensive to many people, and
extremely trumatic for some who may have been through those experiences.
Since many such stories are NOT so labeled when posted (and given the
unmoderated nature of the alt.sex newsgroups, there is no way to enforce a
standard of labeling them), readers of those groups are exposed to the
stories whether they choose to be or not - with their only option being to
cease reading ANY stories at all.
Thus, the primary consideration is not to avoid censorship, it is
to consider the (reasonable) desires of the majority of the participants on
those newsgroups. Creation of a new newsgroup such as you suggest would
provide an alternative for those who DO choose to read and post such
material.
Parallel to this argument, however, is one with which you will NOT
agree - an obligation on the part of those who participate in the other
alt.sex newsgroups to defend the right of such a newsgroup to exist and to
argue it's case against the censors. If those who participate in the other
alt.sex newsgroups expect others to support their right to communicate on
sexual subjects, they MUST in turn support the right of others to do the
same.
If such a newsgroup is created it MUST be for the benefit of the
Usenet community, not to pacify the voices of the censorship freaks.
> Every university Usenet community is going to face this
>battle over the next few years, maybe several times. If you
>insist on allowing *anything* on alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage,
>you are basically saying to each of those communities: "Either
>argue for Absolute Freedom of Speech, or don't get alt.sex.*."
>
Freedom of speech, it it exists at all, MUST be absolute.
>
> But pressuring me to argue for something I don't believe
>in is the worst kind of coercion. Most of the jurisdictions in
>North America don't allow rape pornography and child
>pornography. I agree with that. If *you* want *your* computer
>to be in the vanguard of some movement to legalize rape
>pornograpy, then go right ahead. I will fight to the death for
>your right to do so. But don't force *my* computer to be in
>that vanguard.
>
You are confusing the written word with images. Child porn and rape
porn are (justifiably) banned in the US because they necessitate the actual
abuse of human beings (i.e., the children being filmed). There is nowhere in
the US that _stories_ about these topics are illegal!
--
73 de KE8HH * * * Rick Adams * * * (517)563-2531
adamsr@ais.org / rick.adams on GEnie \ adamsr@netcom.com
rick.adams@um.cc.umich.edu | bl472@cleveland.freenet.edu
* * * Living proof that a mind is a terrible thing * * *
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:38:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312336.AA17663@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:36:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:38:27 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <15492@autodesk.COM>
Date: 30 May 92 20:34:42 GMT
In article <1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>I was
>proposing that we restrict non-consensual posts to
>alt.sex.nonconsensual, and let the community of news
>administrators and users decide whether they want it.
...
>I have another principle, that I
>have no problem accepting, that is *just* as virtuous and *just*
>as well-thought-out as yours: Consensuality.
The net _is_ consensual. Already. You don't have to read something
if you don't want to. And nothing you read here is going to kill you,
or make you do anything you don't want to do.
The net _does_ support absolute freedom of speech. Anyone from any
bozo site can forge a posting of "Cindy's Torment" to any unmoderated
newsgroup. (And for those who are curious: don't bother. It's a
story of a woman getting tortured and maimed. Whee.)
What all of these censors really want is a news system that will let
them filter out anything that hasn't been "approved" by some organi-
zation or other. So if the Canadians want to avoid all "non-
consensual" postings (whatever that means), they should be able to set
up a "Board of Net Examiners" who read all the postings and only give
their seal of approval to the "consensual" ones. Then any university
site is entirely within their rights to filter out all postings that
don't have the "consensual" seal of approval. The same goes for all
the fundies who don't want their kids using the school computers to
access info about homosexuality or birth control or anything else that
could denigrate "family values" (whatever those are); they can have a
few people who decree what's worth reading, and then ignore the rest.
All these net censorship, forgery, etc. problems are simply the result
of having communication technologies that are too primitive to cope
with the social results of their use. Better, future versions of the
net will provide ways to address all these problems in ways that leave
everyone happy. Until then... well, just think of it as evolution in
action.
--
Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer
Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:38:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312336.AA17674@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:36:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:38:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May30.211810.19595@access.digex.com>
Date: 30 May 92 21:18:10 GMT
In article <1992May28.211907.19985@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <15423@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>This has happened before, y'all. Many many many many times. Every
>>time it seems to some like the alt.sex hierarchy is doomed. Every
>>time the anti-censorship folks get together and muster the volumes of
>>reasoning about how net access is like library access, etc. Every
>>time the flap blows over very quickly.
>
> I don't know about you, but this is the first time that
>I have heard an RCMP (national police force) officer, on the
>national news, throwing around words like "alt.sex.bondage" and
>"unsubscribe", and making the connection that Usenet is
>distributed to *every* major university in Canada. And yes, I
>have been following a.s.b and the censorship debates for several
>years.
That is the big difference; there is no first
ammendment in Canada. In the US, the flap blows
over because there is really nothing that can be
done about it, because there is a very good
chance that all of this is protected speech under
the constitution. In Canada, it is completely
different. A victory in Canada would give the
people in the US who want it all stopped some ammo,
and we all know that the constitution is subject to
interpretation by the Supreme Court.
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
>
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
>but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
>stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
>
I liked the idea of spinning off a new list
for the non-consensual stuff, so that the censorship
people whill have a new target to shoot at, and might
miss ASB and other groups who are not so easy to
identify.
>--Jamie.
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
>"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
Cherry
cherry@access.digex.com
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:39:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312337.AA17693@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:37:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:39:31 1992
From: mojo@polari.com
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.053639.27215@polari>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 05:36:39 GMT
In article <1992May28.211907.19985@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <15423@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>This has happened before, y'all. Many many many many times. Every
>>time it seems to some like the alt.sex hierarchy is doomed. Every
>>time the anti-censorship folks get together and muster the volumes of
>>reasoning about how net access is like library access, etc. Every
>>time the flap blows over very quickly.
>
> I don't know about you, but this is the first time that
>I have heard an RCMP (national police force) officer, on the
>national news, throwing around words like "alt.sex.bondage" and
>"unsubscribe", and making the connection that Usenet is
>distributed to *every* major university in Canada. And yes, I
>have been following a.s.b and the censorship debates for several
>years.
OK, OK.. imminent death of USENET predicted for Canada.
We in the USA have a slightly different playing field. I know that
Canada is frequently portrayed as being more tolerant than the
USA. But I'll bet that the censorship of the USENET is a real possibility
in Canada. In the USA, no chance.
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
USENET is a bunch of computers passing data via phone links and
direct high speed data links (for the rich sites). If you can control
the data links, you can control USENET. Not possible in the USA
and much of Europe.
>
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
>but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
>stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
Better to ensure that no single entity can control your means
of communication.
>
>--Jamie.
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
>"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
Jim
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:39:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312337.AA17702@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:37:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:39:47 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.054355.25736@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 05:43:55 GMT
In article <1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> I am not about to argue for Absolute Freedom of Speech
>because I don't believe in it. I have another principle, that I
>have no problem accepting, that is *just* as virtuous and *just*
>as well-thought-out as yours: Consensuality. I will argue for
>that principle, in either direction, against all the Nazi
>Evangelist Hordes that you say are going to want to ban
>alt.sex.*. I suspect that a lot of people would do the same.
>
> But pressuring me to argue for something I don't believe
>in is the worst kind of coercion. Most of the jurisdictions in
>North America don't allow rape pornography and child
>pornography. I agree with that. If *you* want *your* computer
>to be in the vanguard of some movement to legalize rape
>pornograpy, then go right ahead. I will fight to the death for
>your right to do so. But don't force *my* computer to be in
>that vanguard.
But you have confused consensuality among REAL PEOPLE with
consensuality among CHARACTERS. The imprisonment of the man in
_The Pit and the Pendulum_ wasn't consensual, nor are the various
murders and such in crime stories. Some are even graphically
depicted.
If by "most of the jurisdictions in North America", you mean those
covering the most land area, you are probably right. But I suspect
that you will not be able to find very many US jurisdictions which
allow the censorship of purely textual material.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:40:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312337.AA17712@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:37:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:40:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.config
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.082244.28131@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 31 May 92 08:22:44 GMT
In article <1992May28.211907.19985@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <15423@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>This has happened before, y'all. Many many many many times. Every
>>time it seems to some like the alt.sex hierarchy is doomed. Every
>>time the anti-censorship folks get together and muster the volumes of
>>reasoning about how net access is like library access, etc. Every
>>time the flap blows over very quickly.
>
> I don't know about you, but this is the first time that
>I have heard an RCMP (national police force) officer, on the
>national news, throwing around words like "alt.sex.bondage" and
>"unsubscribe", and making the connection that Usenet is
>distributed to *every* major university in Canada. And yes, I
>have been following a.s.b and the censorship debates for several
>years.
>
> This issue is just going to grow and grow. More and more
>people will become aware that there's a huge discrepancy between
>what is supposedly illegal in many jurisdictions, and blocked at
>borders around the world, and what is acceptable on this huge
>international network (ie. everything).
>
> I'm sure we'll find a way of dealing with this eventually,
>but it's going to involve cutting loose the non-consensual
>stuff -- at a minimum. Better sooner than later.
>--Jamie.
-------
Their problem, Jamie, is where to draw the line about
nonconsensuality. Television has all sorts of non-consensual things
happen to people. It's called adventure drama, or police drama, or
just drama. To get rid of everything non-consensual in literature
would cripple literature and isolate any culture that tried it. We
would return to other forms of networking to transmit this stuff, and
with computers now the blue noses can't stop us. What you're afraid
they'll target is sex. They've targetted it for years and see what
happens, a.s.b! They can't win. One yo-yo from the rcmp isn't any more
impressive than one kansas state bureau of inverstigation trying to
create his own hoopla that everyone else thinks he's stupid for. Any
nation that blocks alt.sex.* will be boycotted by myself and as many
others as I can inform and as many others who wish technical
communication with the USA. And I think that is a lot of people. Just
remember that the study of history itself is mostly a study of
non-consensual acts done to people by other people. For someone to
write a work of fiction in the same vein is trivial.
-Steve Walz
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:40:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312338.AA17722@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:38:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:40:22 1992
From: joel@moho.sdsu.edu (Joel Wedberg)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.183512.25146@newshub.sdsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 18:35:12 GMT
: nation that blocks alt.sex.* will be boycotted by myself and as many
: others as I can inform and as many others who wish technical
-Steve Walz
:
Wait - you mean to propose that, under [your?] leadership, any "others"
(nations? individuals? corporate entities?) will boycott (buying? selling?
sexual acitivity? eclipses?) ...?
You mean...any "others who wish technical" information with the U.S.
are on board with this? You've already got signatures from Iraq, Britain, IBM,
the Ghost of Elvis, Space Aliens, Spinal Tap, Pemex, and the Chinese Acrobats?
Aww, c'mon - you're having me on, right? But....you're so earnest.
JW
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:40:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312338.AA17732@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:38:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:40:40 1992
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 20:27:18 GMT
Jamie Andrews:
Some think that getting rid of some abusive Usenet postings is
a Slippery Slope to total censorship.
Doubtful. "Some think that getting rid of some abusive Usenet
postings is a Slippery Slope towards more extreme censorship", yes.
You ain't gonna get total censorship by any other means than total
peace: kill everyone off so they can't talk.
They should realize that there's a Slippery Slope on the other side
of the hill: namely, that more and more things be considered
"censorship" and avoided.
Who cares about "things"? I thought the discussion was about usnet
postings?
The point of the discussion is that at least one person [Jamie] thinks
that people who have been offended by posts they haven't read, and
perhaps never existed, should be catered to. The other side
[consisting of at least one person: myself] seems to think that that's
a bit premature.
It happens all the time on Usenet.
Yeah? But apparently not enough that some people don't feel the need
to go to other media to find flames. Personally, I don't subscribe to
any of the television channels -- to much drivel for my tastes.
I was proposing that we restrict non-consensual posts to
alt.sex.nonconsensual, and let the community of news administrators
and users decide whether they want it. If this is "censorship"
then the Pope is Buddhist.
You mean like the "non-consensual" channel they have on TV? I'll bet
you're taking as an example the way consensual acts of sex are
permitted on canadian television while they ban any depiction of rape?
And, to bad the Pope isn't really Buddhist...
Every university Usenet community is going to face this battle
over the next few years, maybe several times.
Promises, promises...
I am not about to argue for Absolute Freedom of Speech because
I don't believe in it.
No kidding.
If *you* want *your* computer to be in the vanguard of some
movement to legalize rape pornograpy, then go right ahead. I will
fight to the death for your right to do so. But don't force *my*
computer to be in that vanguard.
Yeah, leave it for television where it belongs...
--
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
The U.S. government went another thousand million dollars into debt today.
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:41:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9205312339.AA17744@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:39:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:41:33 1992
From: joel@moho.sdsu.edu (Joel Wedberg)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.210023.26483@newshub.sdsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 21:00:23 GMT
Well, one hates to keep blowing holes in the "don't censor me!" arguments,
since their basic position makes a lot of sense; but really, what else can the
objective reader do?
Since so many posters here have had the temerity (and mendacity) to
leap onto the bandwagon of comparisons between rape-porn and television-
movie- real-life- detective-novel- violence, it seems only fair to point out
that in rape porn, the gratification comes from reading about (or seeing, or
whatever) aggressors who assault hapless and unwilling victims, with
socially repugnant results - even in this society. With mainstream violence
(n.b. this argument should not be construed as implicit approval of mainstream
violence), such assailents aren't lionized or envied, they are villified, and
the only violent assailents who are implicitly congratulated are those who
prevent others from creating more vicitims.
In other words, Farmer Bob didn't have vicitimless crime; there were
unwilling vicitms; Dirty Harry shot dead the people making vicitms, restoring
order (if a chillingly Nazi-like order).
Avoid making vicitms out of people and/or animals and/or aliens and/or
Elvis, double jointed sailors, whatever, and you remove a lot of the
objection to the material (and, yes I know it's just a story, a la, it's just
a joke, it's just a post, it's just an argument).
What gets on my tit isn't the story, it's the type of person to whom this
registers as a positive reading experience. Don't censor them, but...wonder.
I mean, whose level of entertainment is this, anyway?
"Hey, I hope Farmer Bob next time works his way up to a grandmother rape!"
(Or did he already? I never did read the damn thing.)
-JW
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:44:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9205312342.AA17769@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:42:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:44:47 1992
From: HALLAM@zeus02.desy.de
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <01GKMINAHRSG8ZF918@vax58b.desy.de>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 16:06:00 GMT
I fished this thread out of alt.config. I have had to multipost since
our newsfeed is not taking outgoing messages.
Newsgroups alt.config, alt.censorship, alt.sex.bondage
In article <1992May30.055412.20866@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim
Mercer) write:
|>In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
|>mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
|>>Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
|>>their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to
|>know
|>>the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do
|>other
|>>news administrators think of anonymous posting?
|>
|>ha!
|>
|>tell them to go stuff themselves, at least until they have some grasp
|>of
|>what they are dealing with.
|>
|>finding the posters of anonymous stuff, is sort of like trying to
|>track down
|>who spray painted grafitti on walls.
|>
|>geez, i hate when people stick their noses into stuff they have no
|>clue about.
|>
|>don't the mounties have a computer crime unit? don't they have some
|>idea
|>what usenet is about?
It never ceases to amaze me that people can consider stories where
people are killed and mutilated normal and acceptable, yet anything
touching on an act which is both natural and performed by almost every
human being is to be subject to strict control.
Isn't it odd that telling children that babies are not discovered under
gooseberry bushes is liable to corrupt them? Yet apparently is does not
corrupt them to tell them that killing people in the service of the
state is a paraiseworthy activity.
It seems to me that there is an imense difference between any censorship
which may be imposed by the net community itself and censorship imposed
by government. For example if we were to decide that the output of Mu
tlu's automatic post generator was unacceptable and that henceforth we
were not prepared to forward his posts I for one would have no qualms.
Even if the censorship were based on content I would not necessarily
object. If for example, a holocaust revisionist decided to post via
wizvax I would not object to Stephie pulling the plug since wizvax was
not set up for that purpose, nor for that matter was alt.sex.bondage.
Censorship by government on the other hand is entirely different.
Subscription to USEnet is voluntary, there is no compulsion to accept
the rules of the net. However one cannot in general chose one's
government as an individual.
The actions of censorship authorities can be most irrational. For
example I have had one piece of work censored by Southampton University
Student's Union on the grounds that it was *NOT* racist. Thank you Aaron
Cahill, Sally Daw and Drew Pratt! The Union had policy opposing the no
platform for racists campaign from NUS, since the article in question
was not racist, the Union decided that it did not fall into the ambit of
the policy.
Turning to the specific request that triggered the piece, I suspect that
the authorities in question were University Authorities. The pretensions
to and arbitrary exercise of power by University authorities are worse
than any other profession. To take another example from Southampton, I
used to sit on the University council as student representative. They
spent over half an hour discussing clauses they could insert into the
contract of employment which would allow them to summarily dismiss
employes without a hearing. I pointed out that since there is an act of
Parliament that specificaly makes this illegal they should abide by the
law of the land. They considered it inconcievable that they should not
be permitted to do such a thing.
I have no doubt that somewhere in the University of Manitoba, there sits
a burnt out Don who has failed in his subject and is looking to replace
the importance he (or very likely she) felt was deserved in their field.
This one has chosen to appoint themselves USEnet cop.
Fortunately USEnet has no need to continue to rely on University
support. There are a large number of resarch institues such as FERMILAB,
SSC, CERN, DESY, SLAC who are forwarding USEnet via their direct
Internet links.
So should Stephie tell the University of Manitoba what she is up to? In
the tradition of alt.sex.bondage, I suggest she tells them how to get
screwed.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:46:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] My letter to U of Manitoba
Message-ID: <9205312343.AA17784@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:43:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:46:13 1992
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: My letter to U of Manitoba
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 08:09:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
FYI, here is the letter I sent to the admins at the U of Manitoba
University of Manitoba
Dear :
I have been informed that as director of U of M's computer centre, you
are responsible for implementing cuts of USENET newsgroups based on
possible offensiveness or obscenity of their content. I have a lot
of experience in this area and I hope to provide you with some interesting
observations on this matter.
USENET is the world's largest computerized conferencing network. It was
pioneered at the world's leading educational and research institutions.
Today it carries over 35 megabytes of material every day, in thousands of
newsgroups. Most of these newsgroups are entirely open, and anybody may
post anything. Even the few that are moderated have no security, they
are kept orderly through trust and social convention.
As you know, some of USENET's groups discuss sexual matters (and many
other mainstream topics, which should not be surprising considering the
active counterculture one finds among students.) One discusses what
might be called "kinky" sex, and this, "alt.sex.bondage" has been the
subject of your school's recent attention.
My observation of this group shows that 99% of the traffic in it relates
to discussion of sexual games between consenting adults. In addition to
this, a small amount of erotic fiction is posted involving non-consensual
sex. When this is done, it usually causes a flurry of reaction among the
participants. Many object to it, others say, "it's just fiction."
It seems that some people at your school have condemned an entire open forum
because of one or two items which may have been obscene under our country's
laws. This is ridiculous and dangerous. Would they ban the telephone
because obscene phone calls are possible? Hardly. Anybody can post
*anything* to any USENET group, not just the alt.sex.bondage group.
Just as anybody can make any phone call.
Now above I said "hardly" when asking if people would ban the telephone.
That's true today, but when the telephone was new it encountered all
sorts of resistance from those who did not see what it was. The computer
networks and conferencing tools we are building today are the telephone of
the future, and they will be just as important. But it is perhaps
understandable that some people, including police and press, may not see
that yet.
People have tried to ban groups, including the alt.sex groups and my own
newsgroup, a moderated one called rec.humor.funny. The University of
Waterloo banned both. Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The
University of Toronto banned the alt.sex groups on some machines.
There are many other examples.
In every case, the bans were reversed, sometimes quickly, sometimes after
a long fight. This is a valuable piece of history to know. Such
attempts are wasted effort -- they bring more attention to the material
in question than it would ever receive otherwise, and they always fail,
for there are enough people in academia (and elsewhere) with the devotion
to fight them to the end.
After all, we're talking about telling people what they can and cannot read
in an academic environment. Whatever your feelings on this, you know that
there are those who feel very strongly that a University should never tell
its people what they can't read. They will gladly accept a statement
that something is not available because it costs too much. A library can't
stock every book or periodical.
But tell them they can't read something because it is dirty or obscene,
or worse, because it is unfettered and thus *might* contain, at very
rare intervals, something dirty or obscene (and this is what U of M has done)
and they will get justifiably angry.
Computer networks make your problem even worse, for any attempt to ban
such newsgroups has the exact opposite of its intended effect. This must
concern any pragmatist. Because you can never control the E-mail or
internet packets sent by your users, the removal of the efficient
centralized distribution that newsgroups provide will cause scores of
users to simply receive the material via E-mail or Internet connections.
Indeed, when word of U of M's actions circulated, several people worked
immediately to set such things up.
The result is that you are probably causing 20 times as much of your
computer centre's resources to be used processing this material as was
before. Was that the intention? In addition, whenever people talk of
banning such items, there is an immediate flurry of effort around the
world to get ahold of the material which inspired the ban. Everybody
wants to see for themselves what was bad enough to arouse such action.
Many universities (Stanford being the first), when faced with this question,
have ruled that the electronic newsgroups should be treated the way that
library materials are treated. Your librarians have a well thought out
code to deal with exactly this sort of question -- they have dealt with it
many times before, and you would be well advised to follow their wisdom.
They feel that cost and demand should be the only issues which decide if
material belongs in a library. Never content or morals -- particularly
at an academic institution.
If material is truly illegal, then you will be forced to delete that
material (though Universities have a proud tradition of not doing
exactly that -- it is up to you to decide if this is one of those
times.) Killing the messenger -- deleting the entire information channel --
because of 1-2 messages out of 35 daily megabytes is an extreme and
unwarranted reaction.
The fact that the network is international presents an interesting
conundrum. Publishing that text is not illegal in the USA, were the
messages in question originated. Nobody knows yet what to do if an
illegal message crosses the border, but the tradition of free speech says
that prior restraint is not an acceptable solution. And in this case,
we're talking about prior restraint on an entire medium to stop one
type of message.
To give a scary example, there is another group on USENET devoted to the
discussion of history. In this group, there are people who deny the
veracity of reports on the holocaust. They try to debate their claims.
They are usually shouted down. As you are no doubt aware, Ernst Zundel
of Toronto was jailed for publishing such claims under the false news
law.
Is the answer to shut down an open forum on the discussion of history?
A tough question, but how can any academic say yes?
As you know, the problem is made more complex by the anonymous posting
service provided by a system called "wizvax" in the USA. The people
who created this system felt that people would be more open in their
discussion of unusual sexual practices if they could write under
pseudonyms. They are right; people are more open. However this also
opens the door for irresponsibility in addition to honesty. Should
pseudonyms be prohibited? Nobody is forced to read the material from
anonymous people, but there is also a grand history of significant
free speech done under the protection of pseudonyms.
There are software tools that can help you. For example, if you feel
that you must, you can arrange to delete on sight (or stop your system
from receiving) any articles from a particular user -- even a
supposedly anonymous user. If a user posts something that gets judged
illegal, you may delete it, and in most cases stop that user from sending
further postings to your system. If they try to get in deliberately, you
can't stop them, for there is no security, but in most cases this would
work well and would constitute diligence on your part.
However, for now, steps must be taken. The press and police must be
informed that what they have seen is just an insignificant fraction of
the material that flows through USENET and a tiny fraction of what appears
in the sexually oriented areas. They must realize that what they are
condemning is not merely the allegedly obscene (I haven't seen it)
article in question, but the whole concept of an open forum. They must
also realize that there is no way, *no way* to shut off the flow of
information from the USA without shutting U of M off the network
entirely -- relegating it to a backwater status in the vital growing computer
network world.
Then perhaps your tempest in a teapot can blow over.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:50:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: My letter to U of Manitoba
Message-ID: <9205312347.AA17818@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:47:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 19:50:06 1992
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: My letter to U of Manitoba
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 23:44:33 GMT
We should type in ``The 120 Days of Sodom'' by Marquis de Sade, a work
virtually every university library would have, and post it to a few
select groups routinely.
Obviously we'd have to locate an out-of-copyright translations (note
that translations hold their own copyrights.) Although given the venue
of this problem posting the French, also, might not go entirely
unnoticed...
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From caf-talk Caf May 31 20:46:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206010043.AA18223@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 14:43:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 20:46:17 1992
From: li@polari.com
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.225625.8124@polari>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 22:56:25 GMT
In article <13594@umd5.umd.edu> lothie@syrinx.umd.edu (Lothie) writes:
>I got very angry as the folx on #bondage speculated wildly about what
>COULD happen. Finally, I said that I believed that one should live
>one's life in such a way that one cannot be blackmailed. If one has
>a weak spot, such as children or job, one should cover one's ass. One
>should make contingency plans. It's not that hard.
>
>Or, to put it another way -- what the hell are you doing here if you
>haven't counted the cost?
Good question. I'd think that most folks just haven't had it brought
to their attention and need time to think about it, need time to figure
out what they *are* going to do, and what they really feel that they
need to do.
I got lucky. :) Someone from the U of (Michigan? Wisconsin? I remember
mid-West, but they never got back to me on the decision) asked me, last
Christmas if they could not only have direct copies of a story that I
wrote for here, but if they could use my real name as well in the hearings
that they were going to have about keeping the alt.sex.* groups. I said,
wait a minute, I gotta think about this, and went home and talked with the
hubby about it, and then talked about it with most of the friends that I
cared the most about. I came out to a couple of people that I wouldn't
otherwise have bothered to, and basically felt solid enough to give a
positive answer back to the U of Mid-West.
It was a very edifying experience. It was also scary. But it was also
nice to know that I *could* do what I did, and that my friends and family
supported me enough to make it possible. I definitely agree that a good
goal is to live ones life so that one *cannot* be blackmailed. Thing is
that not everyone has that, or the cost can be too high. I guess I can't
get mad at folks who don't; but I'll *always* cheer on the folks who can.
Go, Lothie!! :)
I, for one, do not wish to go completely public. I have a problem where
it is simply eaiser, cleaner, and less gross for me to use my birth name
than it is to use my married name on this group. I'll give it out to
those that I trust and those that have a reason to know. No one can
blackmail me, but I simply prefer to have the one extra layer between me
and *anyone* that reads the Net. So it is.
I'm glad, in a way, that I was made to sit down and count, exactly, what
the cost could be; and even gladder, yet, to find out that I was willing
to pay it.
--
Liralen Li
li%polari@uunet.uu.net
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:04:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.005209.19959@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 00:52:09 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
[...]
> Some think that getting rid of some abusive Usenet postings
>is a Slippery Slope to total censorship.
[...]
"Total censorship"? I'm not afraid of that. I am, however, afraid of
more censorship. I don't think this fear is unfounded.
The _Ms._ article (May/June 1992, p. 14) about Canada's new definition
of obscenity gleefully reports:
[A]dult erotica, no matter how explicit, will not be considered
obscene.
And yet, in one of the first applications of the new definition all
discussions of sex in a university medium were banned. In Canada, the
slide down the slippery slope is not hypothetical; it has happened.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:04:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <9206010102.AA18387@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 15:02:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:04:24 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <7285@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 30 May 92 11:50:55 GMT
I can not speak for the U.S. as a whole but in the State of
California and specifically the city of Los Angeles, I am allowed to
read alt.sex.bondage and to write stories for it without fear of
legal reprisal. I am allowed the right to create fiction depicting
any act I care to think of and I do not have to fear the police
comming after me. The right to create is so fundamental, yet the
people in Canada do not seem to agree. Is it that the people in
Canada are so puritanical that they would never have any contact
with this material or is this another example of a law passed along
time ago that most people had forgotten aboutHow can any people
allow themselves to live in a state where the government can dictate
what they may and may not read and arrest them if they read
something 'inapropriate'? Surely this must be a joke. Surely the
Canadian laws do not say that writting a story involving sex with a
child is a crime, that writting a story about something most people
find distastful is illegal. What sort of insanity could think this
up? Would someone who knows please be so kind as to enlighten the
non-canadian audience as to the true laws dealing with pornography
(and what isn't) in Canada?
Thank you,
The Jester
--
"Only the blind see in color."
"Any union based upon pigment is foolish ignorance designed to
give power to those few who enjoy power's taste above the common
welfare."
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:05:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <9206010102.AA18400@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 15:02:48 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:05:08 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <1992May30.135402.4504@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 30 May 92 13:54:02 GMT
>What sort of insanity could think this
>up? Would someone who knows please be so kind as to enlighten the
>non-canadian audience as to the true laws dealing with pornography
>(and what isn't) in Canada?
I suppose it's the same sort of insanity that criminalizes "obscene"
material on various connections in USA, contrary to the U.S.
Constitution, the same sort of insanity in U.S. FCC rules censoring
certain words contrary to the Constitution, the same sort of insanity
in legislation demanding censorship of films for sexual and some other
contents in various countries, including Finland (though I understand
nowadays it's rarely applied for sex or foreign politics here, more to
violence).
Oh, and the "foreign political" censorship part in Finland is not
insanity but for hysterical raisins, ie. acknowledging geographical
realities ;-)
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:05:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Message-ID: <9206010103.AA18427@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 15:03:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:05:53 1992
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal?
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 08:07:57 GMT
Message-ID: <1992May31.080757.25415@clarinet.com>
Don't fool yourself with the "it couldn't happen here" mentality. It is
less likely to happen here, but any reading of the history of U.S.
censorship law will scare you a bit about what has already transpired.
Canada's laws came about, as all such laws do, due to seeming good
intentions. In this case, we're talking the wave of political
correctness which swept both Canada and the USA.
Everybody pays lip service to free speech, but you can get them to
bend by hitting on the right popular issue. In this case, sexism.
Porn isn't (just) dirty any more, it's degrading to women. And when
you put that argument, the liberals who used to support free speech
(and would be nowhere without it) can be convinced to turn against it.
Canada's three main laws of this sort (not counting bills 101 and 178 in
Quebec!) now have a political correctness background. (Can't say PC,
since the PC [ie. tory] party is the government party in Canada right now.)
a) The obscenity laws we have been talking about.
b) The "hate literature" laws, which ban the wilful incitement of hatred
towards an identifiable group (ie. certain forms of racism)
c) The "false news" law, which prohibits the wilful publication of "facts" you
know to be false for the malicious purpose of causing trouble (in
particular inciting hatred as in b)
The U.S. has a better record -- the famous example is Nazis who marked
at Skoakie, IL -- they could not march and speak in Canada. But they had
to fight pretty hard to get that right, and how close did they come to
losing it.
Don't say it can't happen here. In many U.S. states, various forms of
porn are illegal, after all.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:07:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal? A Canadian perspective
Message-ID: <9206010105.AA18450@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 15:05:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 21:07:32 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex.* illegal? A Canadian perspective
Message-ID: <1992May30.033230.1556@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
Date: 30 May 92 03:32:30 GMT
In article <199205291515.AA17443@eff.org>
. .
> I found the following in this morning's TELECOM Digest, #12.427. My
> comments follow in a seperate message.
. .
> Computer Porn.
>
> Canadian police can't seem to control it. A wave of obscene material
> is being transmitted to universities through a computer network.
. .
This story continues to get airplay in Canada. I didn't see it myself,
but my partner told me that the mid-day CBC news program carried
another, equally sensationalist version of the same story. The CBC
reporters apparently called while I was out for background and were
eventually vectored onto my boss. Well, at least he has started using
a newsreader... :-(
I was told by my boss that the University of Manitoba has
decided (at least for now) to cut off the alt.sex groups until or
unless people ask for it. I was told that they were also a little
surprised at how little protest they received. Of course, this is
a third-hand report, and I hope we hear from someone closer to
the story soon. I also hope that this decision will not stand.
Judging from the interest in this case here in Montreal, this
is a fairly hot topic of conversation up here in Canada. I have already
had discussions with my own administration here at McGill and with my
collegues at other universities in Montreal, to hopefully avoid a
knee-jerk reaction to this sudden spotlight of un-informed interest in
Usenet.
My own view (and the view I am trying to push to prevent a similar
short-fuse reaction at McGill) is that cutting off any newsgroup on the
basis of content is wrong for two reasons. a) it is condoning a
policy of censorship of postings based upon content. Once you do
that you have opened the door for banning all posters who offend
you. I strongly believe that universities should not be in the
business of censorship whatever the motives.
And, of course b) if your aim is to prevent access to or the
use of university resources for erotic/pornographic material, it just
wont work. You will simply make a number of different people copy the
same files from sites outside of Canada, instead of having a central
administration copying the files once and exploding them locally. And
of course, not all of the so-called obscene material appears in that
one set of groups. Unless you adopt a policy of screening all groups
and all postings you simply wont get them all.
Now, if the material _is_ illegal, then difficulty in stopping it
is not really an excuse for allowing it, but given the very real
concern I have that we don't start attacking the principals of free
speech, I would (and am!) arguing that we should not simply say "cut
it off unless you can prove it legal". I would rather
that we argue that as universities we have no business getting involved
in what people are saying and adopt a policy of "unless I have probable
cause to believe that something _is_ illegal_, I should not be
involved in censorship".
The way I see it, if we grant someone access to a communications
medium, then we should allow that person to take full responsibility
for what they say. If illegal material is posted, the poster should
take responsibility for them. Of course, this begs the question of
whether any particular posting should be illegal, but I would hope that
we err on the side of free speech whenever possible.
It has been obvious to me for some time that we need to start
educating policy makers in the ways of our technology and our culture.
I know of quite a number of senior administrators in Canada who have
never used Usenet, anonymous FTP, etc and are unaware of how the basic
issues of privacy, free speech, etc are involved in the widespread
deployment of this new technology.
I happen to believe that this is only the start of a much larger
discussion of these issues here in Canada. For that reason I suggested
to the organizers of the upcoming Canadian networking conference
(which takes place next week in St. John, Newfoundland)
that they organize a panel discussion on some of the management
issues involved in providing the Internet services (including
but not limited to bulletin board feeds).
For Canadian readers, the panel discussion will be held
on Thursday of next week. I have been asked to present a brief (~10
minute) summary of some of the issues involved in managing and
providing services on the Internet, including the questions of
censorship of email, Usenet, etc, the rights and responsibilties of
systems administrators to their users, the responsibility of Internet
service providers (such as, in our case, archie) to guard confidential
information about, for example, what material people are searching
for and which users are doing the searching.
Once I have presented my intro to the issues, a number of Computing
Centre directors will respond with the policies and concerns of their
institutions. There will then be a period of questions from the floor.
Of course, one hour of discussion wont solve all of the problems
outlined above, but it's hight time we start educating people,
especially senior management, in the issues involved. I urge anyone who
can make it to come along and participate.
From my experience there is a tremendous educational task ahead of us.
Yes, there is material posted to Usenet every day that is in
questionable taste, that is offensive to some, that may even be illegal
in some jurisdictions. Given the nature of the technology, we need to
define a response to this that addresses the real concerns of
administrators, politicians and tax-payers (the people paying the
bills). We need, I believe, to convince people that just as we don't
monitor phone calls, nor open mail, nor in most places open office
desks, we should not be monitoring Usenet mail messages.
Finally, I include below a backgrounder piece I sent out
to my fellow panalists to prep them for next week. I invite comments
and I invite you to take this (or something like it) to _your_
senior management. A _lot_ of people who can influence the future
of the net are not yet aware of the issues. If we are to avoid
un-informed, sensationalist stories such as are playing out
on Canadian radio and television right now we need to start
doing a better job of educating people.
- peterd
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: An overview of issues for next week's panel
hi all,
As promised (and as usual, running a little behind
schedule) here is a capsule summary of some of the issues
I believe we should address in the panel discussion next
week.
I've also included as background reading at the end of
this letter, a posting from Usenet that touches upon some
of the issues involved. For those looking for more
information on the issues addressed here I recommend the
Usenet newsgroups "comp.org.eff.talk" and "alt.privacy".
First, here is an edited summary of the topics I think we
could address. This is drawn from what I originally
submitted as an outline for the panel discussion, although
I've edited and expanded it a bit. Don't be too alarmed by
its length. It's written this way to give you as panelists
some background reading before next week. I plan to
summarize this onto a couple of slides and just do a quick
once-over of the material, with a few illustrating
anecdotes drawn from my own experiences before turning the
floor over to the moderator.
----------------------------------------
"Management Issues in Internet services"
The idea for this panel discussion arose from my own
experience as a systems manager working to bring a variety
of Internet services to users over the past few years.
Since 1986 I have been involved in bringing the first
Internet link to Montreal (to the School of Computer
Science at McGill University), bringing up one of the first
Usenet news feeds in Quebec and now helping to develop and
promoting the archie service. Along the way, I have had to
confront a number of important non-technical issues that
arise when we set out to make Internet tools available to
our users.
For example:
1) How much protection to their perceived rights to
privacy and free speech are users entitled to assume
carries over to their electronic environment? Although
it appears that in Canada systems managers can legally
read email or examine user files on machines on our
campus, is it appropriate to do so in an academic
environment? If so, what are the guidelines and
restrictions that should be in place to protect the
privacy of our users?
2) We should also deal with such issues as email
etiquette. At McGill, we've had cases of
life-threatening messages being sent from one user to
another, of systems staff intercepting and reading user
mail without authorization and of users who attempt to
spoof the mail handling programs to hide the sender or
other details. What should be the university's response
in such cases?
2) Should we be monitoring or even censoring Usenet
bulletin board postings and newsgroups? The University
of Nebraska at Lincoln recently cut off a number of
newsgroups without consulting with the user
community, causing a storm of protest over the
perceived threat to free speech that this entails. Is
cutting off newsgroups without consultation appropriate
behaviour in a university environment? Should there in
fact be mechanisms in place to judge the acceptability
of the contents of certain newsgroups? Does the
university have the right, or even the obligation, to
monitor and police what people are posting if it is
perceived to violate the law?
As background on this, questionable postings I've seen
in the past include but are not limited to racist or
anti-semitic postings, postings that deny the holocaust
occurred, postings of proprietary information, clear
instructions on how to mix and deploy explosives,
pictures that depict graphic sex, pictures that depict
bondage, and so on...
In the United States, two recent court cases concerning
public access bulletin boards illustrate the two ends
of the spectrum on this issue. One company (I believe
it was Prodigy Online, but I don't have my notes handy)
had adopted the policy that is is not responsible for
the contents of its users' postings. When sued over
anti-Semitic postings it was exonerated on the grounds
that because it was acting, in effect as a common
carrier, it was not responsible for the content of
messages it delivered.
Another company (their name escapes me for now, I will
dig it out before next week) installed filtering software
and was censoring "offensive" postings. When one
posting got through the screening and resulted in a
lawsuit, they were found responsible. The act of
attempting to control the material posted made them
responsible for the offensive material that leaks
through the screen.
So, are we better off to not attempt _any_ screening,
or is Canadian law sufficiently different that we could
contemplate such screening? Even if we could perform
such screening without raising our liability as was
done in the U.S., _should_ we be interfering in our
users' right to say what they please and be responsible
for the consequences themselves?
3) What about the information on our users that we can now
gather in services such as archie? In the case of
archie, we have a pretty good idea of what people are
asking for and in some cases this information could be
potentially embarrassing if released to the world. More
generally, what are the obligations of such unpaid
service providers to their users? Are we _legally_ (as
opposed to morally) obliged to keep such information
confidential? As more and more universities bring up
archie servers, Gopher servers and more, such questions
should be asked.
4) Also, to what legal risks do volunteer service
providers expose their parent institutions, in the
event that problems arise in the operation of the
service? Again, using examples from our experience
with archie, we now have several documented cases of
archie being used to locate private files that people
were attempting to share with friends via anonymous FTP.
In one case, an internal working document covering the
planning and operation of one of the U.S. midlevel
service providers was spotted by someone looking for
files with "interesting" names. The file was copied and
widely circulated, causing some consternation, as the
document contained several controversial
recommendations. In another case, an unreleased portion
of the GNU project leaked out while being shared among
its developers.
In both of these cases, it appears that the problems
arose because users were not aware that the archive was
being monitored by archie, thus increasing the
possibility that others would see the private document
when it was freely available for copying. Even if systems
administrators knew, they had not informed their users.
So, what are the responsibilities of service providers
(and providers of the FTP archives themselves) to inform
their users that they are being watched?
In summary, there is a vague grey collection of issues
growing, somewhere between morality and legality,
concerning such matters as the storing and sharing of
sexually explicit material on publicly funded machines,
the circulating of instructions on how to mix explosives
through Usenet bulletin boards, or even on the obligation
of service providers (such as archie) to preserve and
protect information about its users from prying eyes.
In this session we should touch upon the users' rights and
obligations, the service providers' rights and
obligations, and the need for a "User Code of Conduct" that
each site should have ready, documented and widely
circulated, to help head off potential problems.
There are no concrete solutions to most of the problems
that have already been identified, but there are people
working on defining the problems in appropriate terms and
we should be sharing our work with others.
At the heart of the matter appears to be the basic
issues of a users' perceived twin rights to privacy and
freedom of speech, and the systems administrators'
responsibility to ensure that resources are used for the
purposes for which they were funded and that no user
consumes more than his or her share of those resources.
I would suggest that balancing these two sets of needs is
going to be a tricky job.
At McGill University we are currently examining our
existing policies in the light of the deployment of the
Internet on campus and the issues it has already raised.
I would be happy to share what information and insights
I've already gathered.
In particular, the work of such groups as the Electronic
Frontiers Foundation in defining the issues in the United
States should be watched. Also, as one possible source of
information, the University of New Mexico has created an
anonymous FTP archive of University Codes Of Conduct and
other writings on the ethics of computing. Finally, for a
number of years the ACM has published a "Statement of
Ethics" for computer users. Such documents can be used as
a source of ideas when preparing your own such statement.
I think this will form the basis for a valuable panel
discussion. It is timely, in that a growing number of
users on the Internet are coming from "non-traditional"
communities of of users outside of Computer Science and
Engineering and the issues involved are only know finding
their way to the public consciousness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a capsule summary of some of the issues involved.
I've written them up as the User Code of Conduct, the
Network Services Code of Conduct and the Systems
Administrators' Code of Conduct.
A User Code of Conduct:
I believe that each site should have a written code of
conduct. If yours was written a while ago it should be
reviewed in light of the deployment of the Internet, the
spread of user services and the increase in connectivity
that puts more people in contact with others.
Any such code, as a minimum, should include:
- Users should not attempt to access services or data that
you are not authorized to access.
- Users should not attempt to consume computing resources
that you are not authorized to consume.
- Users should not attempt to alter or destroy data that does
belong to you.
This covers the basics now addressed by Canadian law (see
the reading below). It should also address:
- "services etiquette", specifying that the user
shall not abuse email, Usenet, or other services
such as FTP archives, archie, Gopher or others.
A lot more can be said on this. As mentioned above, the
University of New Mexico has started an archive of
University Computing Codes of Conduct. These are available
via anonymous FTP from "unma.unm.edu". ftp to the machine,
login as user "anonymous" and look in the "ethics"
subdirectory. If you already have such a document, you
should consider submitting it to the archive. See the file
"00.read.me" for more details.
Network Services Code of Conduct
- Is access to network services such as Usenet a
right or a privilege? If we say it is a
privilege, what about the issue of freedom of
speech?
- Does the university have the right or the
obligation to monitor what is being posted?
What about sexually explicit material? What
about instructions on how to make explosive
devices?
- There is a fairly well documented "Usenet Code
of Conduct" that has arisen over the years.
Thus, failing to respond to replies discussing
your postings, cross-posting to multiple or
inappropriate newsgroups, posting large amounts
of scanned material, posting copyright material,
harassing individual posters via email, are all
considered "inappropriate behaviour". What
should the university do when confronted with
such "anti-social" behaviour?
- What are the rights and responsibilities of
service providers such as archie. Should logs of
user requests be considered confidential? Should
users be informed when their site is being
tracked? If such information leaks, who is
responsible?
An Administrators' Code of Conduct
- Should systems administrators be able to
access user files (included email)?
Some possible answers:
- Yes, because the university owns the
resources and are legally entitled to
examine them.
- No, it is a violation of academic
freedom of speech.
- Maybe, but only in clearly identified
situations (perhaps concerning suspected
violations of the User Code of Conduct).
Here's a personal interjection. I now believe that there
should be a mechanism through which systems administrators
should be required to apply for permission from a
committee representing the university community as a whole
prior to monitoring mail or reading user files. Such
monitoring should _not_ be allowed unless this permission
is granted and it should be an offense for employees to
violate their trust by performing such monitoring without
authorization.
Note, this is not McGill's policy, only my own view after
being responsible for the operation of computers in an
Internet environment for a number of years. Am I worrying
too much here? What about the users - has anyone asked
them how they feel about it?
That's it for now. I hope this has provided you with a
little food for thought. I would be happy to answer
questions before next week. Otherwise, I'll see you all
next week...
- peterd
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND READING
---------------------
the following message was posted to Usenet a while ago and
a copy now lives on the UNew Mexico archive. It is written
by a Canadian law student who attempts to summarize the
current Canadian legal situation concerning unauthorized
access or use of a computer...
----------------------------------------
From: Henry_Waldock@mtsg.ubc.ca
Message-Id: <1516894@mtsg.ubc.ca>
I am a Canadian law student with a BSc in Computer Science. I'm
doing a paper on computer viruses and the Criminal Law.
When the Canadian Parliament considered computer mis-use, viruses
were not a problem, but the legislation they produced isn't bad. (I
will attach a copy at the end of this message.) They created a kind
of "trespass to information" which they called "unauthorized access
to a computer system", and a kind of "vandalism to information",
which they called "unauthorized alteration or destruction of
computerized data". My major criticism is that they didn't
explicitly criminalize the unauthorized consumption of computer
resources. While the language they chose may not suit your purposes
exactly, the three concepts of
1) unauthorized access to services (and data),
2) unauthorized consumption of services, and
3) unauthorized alteration/destruction of data
should cover most forms of computer abuse.
If you define the purposes for which a user is _authorized_ to use
his or her own account/equipment, you can limit even private
commercial usage.
See also the California Penal Code s.502, and the Pennsylvania 18
PA Cons. Stat. Amm s. 3933.
(Note that these are the old section numbers. The Canadian Criminal
Code was re-numbered on Jan 1, 1989.)
The Canadian Criminal Code
301.2?(1) Every one who fraudulently and without color of right
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other
device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or
indirectly, any function of a computer system, or
(c) causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system
with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an
offence under section 387 in relation to data or a computer system
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.
(2) In this section,
"computer program" means data representing instructions or
statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the
computer system to perform a function;
"computer service" includes data processing and the storage or
retrieval of data;
"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected
or related devices one or more of which,
(a) contains computer programs or other data, and
(b) pursuant to computer programs,
(i) performs logic and control, and
(ii) may perform any other function;
"data" means representations of information or of concepts that are
being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a
computer system;
"electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" means any
device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to
intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a
hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not
better than normal hearing;
"function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage
and retrieval and communication or telecommunication to, from or
within a computer system;
"intercept" includes listen to or record a function of a computer
system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof.
387. ... (1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of
data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the
lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is
entitled to access thereto.
(8) In this section, "data" has the same meaning as in section
301.2.
From caf-talk Caf May 31 22:07:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206010204.AA19051@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 16:04:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 22:07:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <67882@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 29 May 92 21:04:41 GMT
In article <1992May29.015543.27994@Veritas.COM> oleg@veritas.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>The Bible can be used for the same purpose, plus as a "How To" guide to
>masturbation, incest, sodomy, idolatry, false-witnessing, rioting,
>usurpation, insurrection, genocide and a nuclear war. I am not too certain
>on the latter, but I am sure some creative soul will find a way to
>do that.
Check out Revelation, the world's best-documented and most-believed
psychotic delusion.
--
-- Christophe
"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
From caf-talk Caf May 31 22:07:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206010205.AA19069@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 16:05:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 22:07:50 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <8185@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>
Date: 30 May 92 14:02:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config
In-Reply-To: <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
References: <1992May27.104413@is.morgan.com> <1992May27.231014.17907@cc.umontreal.ca>
I got back into town after attending a brilliant concert nearby to find
this:
In article <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca> you write:
>
> I heard the CBC report referred to on the radio this
>morning, and I also believe that the shit is about to hit the
>fan about the sex newsgroups, nationally in Canada and in the
>States as well. (Yes, the States too -- don't think it's just
>a Canadian thing.)
>
>In article <1992May27.231014.17907@cc.umontreal.ca> coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:
>> Apparently, much of what is shown on
>>this group [alt.sex.bondage] is illegal here in Canada...
>
>- some of the news admins will put pressure on others
>...and in the face of that tremendous pressure, the alt.sex.*
>groups will be blocked forever, at all universities.
And it chilled me to the bone.
> If you seriously think that any anti-censorship interest
>group could argue for "Cindy's Torment" in the national media
>and the student newspapers, and succeed... well then, I have a
>bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
>
> Come on folks. Let's create alt.sex.nonconsensual, let
>whoever wants to block it block it, and *cancel* all articles
>in the other newsgroups that involve nonconsensual sex. That
>way, the anti-censorshippers have a focus for their discontent
>(alt.sex.nonconsensual), and the rest of us (the vast majority
>that don't care jack about the supposed evils of censoring
>articles celebrating the joys of rape and sex with children) can
>correctly say that we're distributing nothing illegal.
This is a good suggestion. We are involved in a political debate here,
and my grasp of real politics tells me that we have gotta create a
target for your local censorship weenie to shoot at.
So, let's do it. Create the group, and then start a regular posting of
the 'evil stuff' (as they would call it) to them. If we do, then make
sure it's NOT called alt.sex.anything but simply alt.nonconsensual or
something like that. Keep any reference to ASB out of it.
However, my political savvy also tells me that once these guys get
started on alt.noncon, then they may get the big ego boost of "Look, we
brave fighters of the public right to not be offended by things we don't
have to look at anyway have once again found the baby of non-conformist
thinking and crushed it's head." They might then be emboldened by their
precident, and begin a massive purge campaign to rid the net of ALL
newsgroups that even allude to anything other than straight conformist
thinking. Alt.sex.bestiality would be next to go, followed by .bondage,
then .sex, and probably a lot of the .soc groups too.
and what happens to the people that LIKE non-concensual sex, at least,
when it is in the realm of fantasy?
But, don't worry. UseNet is an Anarchy. If they close us down, then we
will just create another newsgroup. Let's decide on a name now. Let's
call it "Alt.safeword" If ASB gets shut down, anywhere, then we will
just create and move to another newsgroup. It may take the admin a few
weeks to realise, and then we just have to move again.
If they try to close us down, then we will just go underground.
We will not have to loose members either. Just cross-post a message to
every other newsgroup explaining what has happened and saying where we
have gone. The word will spread, and we may even gain the respectability
of being the opressed minority, eh?
Let's tell these biggoted assholes that they can't supress us. We are
bigger then them and their petty policy decisions. There were 90,000
readers of ASB at last count, and we have a hell of a lot of power.
If no-one is brave enough in the USA or Canada, then we will go
overseas. The french will take us, or the spanish. They won't mind in
New Zealand (especially if the circumstances are explained) or even in
Japan. It's funny, isn't it. The USA prides itself on 'free speech'.
- Still Waters
Carve the world
>--Jamie.
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
>"The village may be changed, but the well cannot be changed."
--
Please *don't* post tests or personals here. To use this service, send EMAIL to:
Anonymous posting: wi-post@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
Anonymous reply: @wizvax.methuen.ma.us
Test path/get alias: wi-ping@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
ACS administrator: wi-admin@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (yes, a dash)
From caf-talk Caf May 31 22:08:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <9206010206.AA19080@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 16:06:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 31 22:08:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992May31.091127.28622@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 31 May 92 09:11:27 GMT
In article <73129@ut-emx.uucp> jrobi@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim Robinson) writes:
>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr., The Human Vibrator, glenn@bessel.umd.edu
>
>says:
>
>> Many people who don't care enough to think about the evils of
>> censorship do want to read nonconsensual fantasies about things
>> they'd never want to do in real life. They, like me (who wants
>> to read such stories (if well written) and _do_ care about the
>> moral and ethical ramifications of censorship), will be denied
>> access to stories for no better reason than the hope that if
>> we throw a sacrifice to those who would censor us then they'll
>> leave us alone.
>>
>> Bah. Humbug. Is that a sacrifice, or is it an appetizer?
>
>Haven't said it better lately, so I had Glenn say it again (after
>the predicted Death of the Net there'll be plenty of bandwidth, so
>I'm using what I can now.)
>Jim Robinson jrobi@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>Trust me, I'm a lawyer (but nothing written here is legal advice.)
-----
A lawyer, just what we need. Aren't phone conversations private and
protected? And aren't most stories received over the phone, thus
making them as protected as the speech of a deaf person on his TDD?
And if the net is comprised of these nodes of phone users, isn't there
simply nothing that can be done about it here, except a lot of
corporate and university broo-haha that will likely come to nothing if
people start calling all sorts of literature non-consensual, like the
taming of the shrew, or the rape of the lock, (I couldn't resist). And
in fact isn't almost all fiction made of non-consensual acts like
murder, etcetera, including soap operas!!!!! Now get the soap crowd
interested and you have a voting block!!!!!!!
- Steve Walz
