From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 00:00:40 1992
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Canadian Keystone Cops Condemn _Cop Killer_
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Jul 92 04:10:02 GMT
Well, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk!
Those zany, rabble-rousing Boys in Blue are at it again.
When they aren't shooting natives, they're releasing impotent press
statements reassuring us scared citizens that they are *On Top of
Things*. That'll be a relief to every anal-retentive Canadian who
ever, out of a sense of duty to his or her country, subjected
themselves to hours of dirty Ice T lyrics to nip the spread of filth
and bad taste in the bud.
FYI, the following is excerpted from the _Winnipeg Free Press_,
Friday, July 17, 1992:
The album [Ice T's _Body Count_] contains the song
Cop Killer, which has been internationally condemned
by the police forces. Winnipeg police [hee hee!
That's us!] may join a suit by the Toronto force to
ban the song in Canada under the country's anti-hate
laws [though I'm sure they'll "hate" to have to do
that. Ha ha ha ha!].
The real news, of course, is that "Actor Charlton Heston [all in
capitals] stunned Time Warner Inc. shareholders yesterday by reading
the lyrics of a company-distributed record on which singer Ice-T
describes sodomizing the nieces of Tipper Gore."
Thank God that Charlton Heston (and the Winnipeg Police) are on the
case. I understand our university Vice President of Administration
has been detained while battling the evil forces of academic
corruption.
But seriously folks... A number of things here worry me. Let me
enumerate them in a handy list, as I'm sure many of you are busy.
I hope you'll enjoy my "value-added" approach to recounting the
collapse of Canadian society.
1. The first time I heard someone wonder aloud why famous actors
were attributed with more intelligence, philosophical depth,
and moral force than the rest of us, I grinned and nodded in
abstract agreement.
It bothers me that Charlton Heston, who in my humble opinion
couldn't have acted his way out of a paper bag even before he
shared his opinion on Time Warner's directors, is shown in
quarter profile, his eyes upcast (as if looking towards Heaven,
one might imagine) as the print hails his dramatic performance
before the duped shareholders of the evil corporate giant.
It bothers me that I, and many others I'm sure, have trouble
separating the Charlton Heston of countless biblical epics
and Charlton Heston, Time Warner shareholder. As I say this,
I am ducking me head at every sound, fearful that at any moment
I might look up and see a thunderbolt careening towards me.
It bothers me that Charlton Heston's opinion is afforded more
media time than that of we mere mortals.
2. It bothers me that the Winnipeg police, when *they* condemn
something, also feel it necessary and are becoming more and
more apt to criminalize it. When you or I condemn a new soft
drink or a bad haircut, we rarely have the opportunity (or the
desire) to criminalize it.
I can't help but feel that the Winnipeg police, who as we are
all well aware are smack right on top of everything you or I
could think of (perhaps this is a Bona Fide Occupational
Qualification, or something), are betraying the trust we have
placed in them.
I mean, I condemn that swagger the police adopt when they are
strolling up to give you a speeding ticket. Why can't *I*
criminalize it?
On a related note, it bothers me that Ice T has so much more
credibility than our police. It doesn't bother because I
don't respect Ice T's message or sincerity. It bothers me
because I am not, by nature, a violent anarchist, and yet I
now have a desire to go out and "roast a pig" or punch out a
member of the moral majority. Does anyone else feel like
this, or should I be in therapy?
3. It bothers me that I don't recognize my country anymore. Does
this bother anyone else? Are these high and mighty Americans
right? Is their country really that much better?
Being shot on an L. A. freeway seems like a smaller price to
pay now, and (though you might doubt it) I'm not being
sarcastic.
Best wishes...
Kevin Buhr
Disclaimer: I used to quip that I'd only speak for the University of
Manitoba if they paid me for it. Now I wouldn't do it
even if they did.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 04:45:20 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: harrasment of women on the Internet
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Jul 92 08:10:23 GMT
In article leonard@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Patt Leonard) writes:
The men were posting messages which said "why do women object when we
whistle at them on the street?" A woman replied that she felt such
catcalls reflected a hostility to women. The moderator of the group
deleted her posting, but left the men's.
Keep in mind that there are many reasons for a moderator not to include a
message. Since you don't tell us which newsgroup this was and what its
charter is, we don't know whether to take this particular complaint
seriously. Please fill in the details. (Also, keep in mind that your
audience here is mainly male, and men generally don't take individual
anecdotes seriously at all, but instead prefer wide-ranging evidence.)
The moderator may have felt that the conversation was already becoming
irrelevant to the purpose of the group and may have cut it off for that
reason. Also, the moderator may have been annoyed by the lack of logic in
the woman's message.
On a local women's group (uiuc.women), a woman posted a message
in which she wrote "womyn," and a man replied that she
should spell it "womyne," so that it would look more archaic.
This kind of obnoxious message is fairly normal male behavior toward other
men as well. Women shouldn't think they're being singled out for special
treatment.
His message was totally irrelevant, and the effect was a hostile
male voice, interjected in the conversation, saying, "I'm
listening in on you, and I'll interrupt when I feel like it."
I think the problem that what women perceive as serious hostility is
simply standard interpersonal behavior for many men. It is ritual combat
and is not intended as part of a fight, but rather part of "sizing each
other up". The recipient of the message is expected to respond in kind;
the quality/intensity of the response is then measured. American women
are raised in a culture where they don't "size each other up" this way (or
very much at all).
By the way, it's impossible to "interrupt" in a USENET conversation.
That's one of its nicest features.
On the LISTSERV group for the American Library Association's
Feminist Task Force (FEMINIST), a man posted a note solicting our
involvment in some stupid singles match-up. Again, it was totally
irrelevant to the topic of the discussion group, and it implied
this man thought we women should have no forum for serious
discussion.
I believe this is simply standard USENET obnoxiousness. People often send
messages to forums where they think they might have an audience even
though the messages are irrelevant to the forums' charters. This, of
course, is the exact reason why moderated newsgroups were first started.
In article leonard@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Patt Leonard) writes:
Violence against women is so prevalent in this society, women are
not able to act and speak with the dignity and freedom that all
persons deserve.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Violence against men is even
more prevalent, but men generally feel they are free to express
themselves.
-- we've all seen the slasher movies, and read the real-life accounts
of slasher incidents, so we can imagine the worst possible scenario.
It sounds like this media exposure is a large source of the problem
(women's fear).
I'm not saying we have to delete the alt.sex groups from the
Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how I feel when I am
attending a lecture by a visiting computer scientist, and he throws in
a gratuitous references alt.sex.pictures, and the men in the room
chuckle. I think of the vulgar, hateful pictures of women in the worst
pornography, I think of the fact that I can`t walk outside after dark
without being afraid of rapists, and I feel profoundly alienated from
the men in that room, because they are so insensitive and unaware of
what their chortles say to me.
The men are laughing because they know that there is still a powerful
anti-sex influence in this country, and they are defying it. It seems you
are receiving a message that is not being sent.
In article schneide@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Karen Schneider) writes:
2. the majority of posters on subjects pertaining to women's issues are men
The latter observation concerns me the most. I have already lost
interest in one area that persists in posting highly offensive messages
comparing women to Nazis.
Why don't you refute the comparisons? Why don't you counter them by
comparing them to Nazis/something-else? Use logic and reason and you will
win.
Before we go any further, I suggest the following book as required reading:
Author: Tannen, Deborah.
Title: You just don't understand : women and men in conversation
Publication: 1st ed. New York : Morrow, c1990.
L/C Number: HQ734 .T24 1990
ISBN: 068807822-2
--
Enjoy,
Joe Wells
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 13:32:34 1992
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul20.171720.9639@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:17:20 GMT
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu >(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>|> You're making the grave
>|>mistake of assigning action based on social status, not upon individual
>|>choices. If a slave enjoyed copulating with his or her master, was it
>|>still rape? I say it wasn't, but you seem to say it was because the
>|>former party was enslaved to the latter. I say this is simplistic.
>
>You still have not adressed how consent could be expressed. If you are
>not allowed to say no then no method of saying yes has any meaning.
Right there is your incorrect assumption, that the slave is not, under any
circumstances, allowed to say no and is exactly my point about not all
slave owners being evil letches. Maybe the master made an advance, the
slave said no, and the master stopped. I could happen. It most likely
did happen here and there. You're letting your own opinion of the
institution of slavery (to be sure a despicable institution) cloud the real
social atmosphere of the time and you're overgeneralizing the archetypal
Evil Slave Owner who beats and abuses his slaves by applying that image to
everyone, when the truth was that most slave owners were not cruel and
abusive.
>|>>|>If there was a conscious attempt to lock the country into their little
>|>>|>capitalist club it was probably because they perceived a free market
>|>>|>economy as the fairest and most equitable system of trade between
>|>>|>individuals.
>|>
>|>>Or because they and their band were a bunch of aristocrats with access
>|>>to capital and therefore had most to gain from that system?
And I suppose you have a better system in mind? What portions of the
Constitution lock us into this system anyway? I hadn't given it much
thought at first, but I can't remember anywhere in the Constitution that
forces us to adhere to one economic system.
>|> There is a lot to be said for a mobile society. The only thing I
>|>recall the constitution using as a social classification was the ownership
>|>of land, which was hardly difficult to get in those days.
>
>Yes, you simply stole it off the native Indians.
Well, yeah. That is the grim reality of it, isn't it?
>The point still remains that locking policy into the constitution has
>meant that methods have had to be found to circumvent the constitution.
>The problem is that the political process is now used to circumventing
>the constitution, because the bill of rights is a part of the
>constitution people are now used to the circumvention of the bill of
>rights.
Well, that's the whole point of having a Constitution, to have governmental
guidelines. Folks who find those guidelines inconvenient for the building
of their own little personal empires at the expense of others will search
for ways around the rules. That is no reason to get rid of the rules.
>Tying the Bill of rights to the constitution was a good move when
>constitutions were more stable than governmental perceptions of the
>rights of man. However the effect has been to stagnate the constitution
>and prevent necessary reforms.
I'm sorry, I don't see what reforms are necessary. Aside from your
advocating the abolition of the 2nd Amendment (which I think is a huge
mistake), what reforms do we need?
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 15:48:59 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Request: Info about Freedom of Information Act
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 19:39:40 GMT
There have been some inquiries at my university concerning the Freedom
of Information Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Specifically, I would like to know to what extent the FOIA applies to
a private university, such as ours. The director of our computer
center is aware that people consider their email private, and wants to
know if this assumption can be supported.
Is there an electronic version of the text of these documents
available for FTP? Any other helpful information is welcome.
Are these newsgroups the right forum for this discussion?
I have set followups to comp.org.eff.talk.
Replies via email are preferred, but I will try to keep up with posted
responses as well.
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu <><
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 16:23:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:45:04 GMT
In article jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
B.U. derives most if not all of its operating income from tuition; I pay
tuition. Thus, the "at university cost" argument isn't very strong; I'm
not really worried about it. Also, fortunately, you are probably
This is an extremely bogus argument. BU is a company and you buy
their product. This doesn't give you the right to control the use of
their money, any more than it gives you the right to say that because
you eat Mars bars you have a right to dictate that company's policy.
The only recourse you have along these lines, if you want to talk
about the fact that the resources originate from you, is to not buy
the product.
-- Dave
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 16:23:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID: <1992Jul20.193027.1585@rice.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 19:30:27 GMT
In article jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
|>
|> asking for help! Second, I think you are talking about legal rights,
|> while I am seeking arguments that might invoke moral rights or some other
|> form of pressure on the university.
When push comes to shove, the only effective tools that you will have
are "legal rights". If the University is so inclined, moral arguments
will not stop it from ordering a system administrator to
remove the file for you. What I am saying is that there are no "moral
rights" in question here. The issue here is whether removing the "Cop
Killer" lyrics in your .plan file against your wishes constitutes
censorship, and whether that censorship is legal or illegal.
|> Third, keep in mind that I am a
|> tuition and fee paying student. Fourth, under Massachusetts law, it turns
|> out that I may actually have the right.
|>
|> B.U. derives most if not all of its operating income from tuition; I pay
|> tuition. Thus, the "at university cost" argument isn't very strong; I'm
Are you assuming this is true, or have you actually checked the
financial report of the University? I say this because if you have not
checked the financial report, you may be surprised. When I was a
student at Rice, I assumed that most of Rice's operating income came
from tuition and hence I had a "right" to do lots of things because, at
least indirectly, I "paid for it". Well, having come back as an
employee, and actually *checking* the financial reports, I discovered
that only a minor percentage (18%) of Rice's operating income actually
comes from tuition and fees paid by students. I don't know the
financial status of B.U., so your statement may be correct. But then
again, if you haven't done the research, you may be very incorrect.
You also seem to be assuming that the University bought all of
the equipment. A lot of it may have been donated by vendors or other
organizations, in which case your theoretical contribution is nil.
Even if the University bought the equipment, don't assume that
it was bought with tuition funds without checking. At Rice, computer
equipment is bought with non-tutition funds. At best, tuition funds
contribute a small percentage of the cost of operating and maintaining
the equipment. But these costs are rarely more than 15 percent of the
purchase cost of the equipment each year. Compared to the total
investment in computer equipment, the contribution by students via
tuition and fees is usually miniscule.
What I am saying in summary is that before you blithely dismiss the
"at University cost" argument because you happen to pay some tuition,
you need to do some research into how the finances of the University
are structured. You may ultimately be right, but you may also be very
wrong in your assumptions.
|> not really worried about it. Also, fortunately, you are probably
|> incorrect about censorship being within their property rights. Several
I am not arguing that censorship is within the university's property
rights. My argument is that their asking (requiring) you to remove the
lyrics from their computers is *not* censorship, but merely property
rights. Disagreeing with and choosing not to support another person's
expression with one's own resources is not censorship.
|> people have informed me already of a wonderful Massachusetts law that may
|> prevent B.U. from preventing free expression. In fact, this law has been
|> used against B.U. before in Abromowitz vs. B.U.
|>
Not preventing free expression and being forced to provide a venue for
expression are very different things. I am not familiar with this
"wonderful Massachussetts law" nor with the Abromowitz vs. B.U. case.
For example, if you were on campus passing out pamphlets to students
who wandered by you, and the pamphlets were printed at non-University
cost on non-University equipment, and the University tried to hustle
you off or otherwise prevent you from distributing the pamphlets to
students, that would be a relatively clear case of preventing free
expression. I would be really surprised and dismayed if the state of
Massachussetts had the power to force the University to buy the paper
and print the pamphlets for you, and then allow you to distribute
them. If we transfer this scenario to computers and electronic media,
we have your case. I would also imagine that if this law and case are
what you seem to be saying they are, then every publishing house in the
state would be making a beeline out of there. After all, under this
law as you describe it, any would be author, no matter how bad or
offensive their work, could go to any of the publishing houses in
Boston and demand that they publish his or her manuscript. After all,
they could argue, to not do so would be to "prevent free expression"
and that is illegal under this "wonderful Massachussetts law". I
could be wrong, but that strikes me as kind of ludicrous.
|> Academic freedom and freedom of personal expression are not the same
|> thing. This is particularly true when the personal expression is not
|> related to academic pursuit. Academic freedom is the freedom to
|> pursue any line of inquiry or study, not the freedom to say whatever
|> the hell you want, no matter how offensive.
|>
|> I believe academic freedom requires freedom of personal expression because
|> otherwise someone else gets to decide that my "academic expression" is
|> really just "personal expression". That would seriously harm academic
|> freedom.
Hmm. "Someone else" is determining "academic expression" all the
time. Research papers and journal articles are submitted to juries
who accept or reject them for publication. Theses are subjected to
defenses and committees, and if they aren't acceptable, a degree is
not awarded. Researchers very often have to apply for grants, and if
the granting institution doesn't agree with the research aims or
anticipated results, the grant isn't awarded. If you are supporting
the entire cost of an academic inquiry and its subsequent expression,
then you can do whatever you want. But to the extent that you need
someone else to support those activities, that other entity has the
right to choose to participate or not. If they choose not to, then
you are out of luck until you can find someone who will contribute.
Academic freedom stipulates that a university cannot dismiss, repress or
otherwise deny basic employee services (office, administrative
activites, benefits) to a faculty member or graduate student under the
tutelage of a faculty member because the university disagrees with the
line of academic inquiry taken by the researcher using someone else's
money. It doesn't stipulate that the university has to dig into its
own pockets to fund research that it disagrees with. All of this goes
back to the "who's paying for it" issue. Basically, if you are not
paying for it, I really don't see that you have a right to demand that
someone else provide you a venue.
Academic freedom does require a measure of freedom of personal
expression *within the context of the academic pursuit*. Your
expressed opinions regarding police activities in this country are, to
me, pretty unrelated to your academic pursuits. Academic freedom
arguments don't apply here.
|>
|> Yes, it is a traditional venue for personal expression, but as I said,
|> its someone else's dollar that makes the venue ...
|>
|> It's my dollar!
Maybe, maybe not. Be sure you have the facts before you give that
answer.
|> The folks at EFF will be happy to supply you with all sorts of case law
|> that demonstrates that a lot more of the legal tenets of the U.S.
|> apply to BU than you might think.
|>
|> Indeed, we are most fortunate.
My point was that even though a lot of laws apply to BU, you may still
not have any legal support for this issue.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 17:27:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 21:27:06 GMT
[Disclaimer: in no way to be construed as official EFF statements and/or
policy. Nor am I a lawyer.]
[Note: I know 'jaw' and 'jbw' would be confusing; I am therefore using
'jaw' and 'Joe' for attributions, which is still confusing, but
hopefully somewhat less so]
jaw> == Joseph A. Watters
Joe> == jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
Joe> people have informed me already of a wonderful Massachusetts law
Joe> that may prevent B.U. from preventing free expression. In fact,
Joe> this law has been used against B.U. before in Abromowitz vs. B.U.
jaw> Not preventing free expression and being forced to provide a venue for
jaw> expression are very different things. I am not familiar with this
jaw> "wonderful Massachussetts law" nor with the Abromowitz vs. B.U. case.
The cited case was, as I recall, about a BU student who had a banner in
his window (about BU's investment in South Africa, I believe the exact
text was "BU DIVEST NOW" or somesuch). BU had a policy against hanging
banners in or from windows, but it was being *extremely* selectively
enforced, as banners promoting a blood drive were left alone.
The law was held to protect expression from rules subject to selective
enforcement, I believe. (Someone with access to back issues of the BU
student paper, the _Daily Free Press_, should probably check me on this.)
jaw> I would be really surprised and dismayed if the state of
jaw> Massachussetts had the power to force the University to buy the
jaw> paper and print the pamphlets for you, and then allow you to
jaw> distribute them. If we transfer this scenario to computers and
jaw> electronic media, we have your case.
Well, given that they have made the facility of .plan files available,
restricting it based on content probably falls under the same general
prohibition that the banner policy hit.
(BU could easily disable .plan files sitewide; I *know* they have the
source to that finger daemon.)
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
``The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the
point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
From caf-talk Caf Jul 20 19:38:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID: <1992Jul20.204321.2755@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:43:21 GMT
dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>viking@iastate.edu >(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>|> You're making the grave
>>|>mistake of assigning action based on social status, not upon individual
>>|>choices. If a slave enjoyed copulating with his or her master, was it
>>|>still rape? I say it wasn't, but you seem to say it was because the
>>|>former party was enslaved to the latter. I say this is simplistic.
>>
>>You still have not adressed how consent could be expressed. If you are
>>not allowed to say no then no method of saying yes has any meaning.
>Right there is your incorrect assumption, that the slave is not, under any
>circumstances, allowed to say no and is exactly my point about not all
>slave owners being evil letches. Maybe the master made an advance, the
>slave said no, and the master stopped. I could happen. It most likely
>did happen here and there. You're letting your own opinion of the
>institution of slavery (to be sure a despicable institution) cloud the real
>social atmosphere of the time and you're overgeneralizing the archetypal
>Evil Slave Owner who beats and abuses his slaves by applying that image to
>everyone, when the truth was that most slave owners were not cruel and
>abusive.
This is either a matter of semantics, or of another false assumption...
but to many people (myself included), the *fact* of holding a slave is
cruel and abusive. Case closed.
The slave probably also realizes that even if the master hasn't been physically
abusive in the past, there's using nothing to prevent him or her from becoming
so if the slave refuses a command.
Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer: "Hey! That's my floppy!"
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 01:06:41 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Corporate E-Mail Policies
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:06:11 GMT
Mitch> == Mitch Sako
Mitch> I'm trying to formulate a corporate policy for our e-mail. This
Mitch> includes the privacy and free speech issues too. We wish to
Mitch> have our e-mail private and uncensored, protected from intrusion
Mitch> from management, and encouraging a productive exchange of ideas
Mitch> and information.
Mitch> I know many companies, schools, and organizations have written
Mitch> policies regarding this. If anyone out there can send theirs to
Mitch> me directly I would appreciate it very much.
This is probably better asked on comp.admin.policy; followups properly aimed.
You might also want to check out the Computers & Academic Freedom
archives on ftp.eff.org; there are quite a few email policies (including
critiques) stored there that you might find useful.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
``The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the
point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 07:06:53 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:22:39 GMT
In article jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
>First, congratulations, you seem to understand perfectly why I came here
>asking for help! Second, I think you are talking about legal rights,
>while I am seeking arguments that might invoke moral rights or some other
>form of pressure on the university. Third, keep in mind that I am a
>tuition and fee paying student. Fourth, under Massachusetts law, it turns
>out that I may actually have the right.
Around here, you have the right to say anything you want...providing
you give people the *choice* of hearing it or not. To my mind, that
means that users can say anything they please on private lists and in
appropriate groups, but anything posted on the public bulletin areas,
in the main msg areas, on X-terminals, *and in finger* must be roughly
equivalent to PG-13.
"finger" is the public directory service provided by this site. Users
should be able to use finger without getting any sort of shock. On my
site, I would ask you to replace that quote with a pointer to a
publicly readable file, if you want to distribute a potentially
offensive message. That way, you are free to say whatever you like,
and users are free to CHOOSE to hear it or not.
Freedom of speech does not equal guaranteed access to any means of
communication at any time. It is the same thing with Usenet news. Post
pornography on alt.sex.stories; keep the talk clean in misc.kids and
comp.unix.programmer.
Does this seem fair?
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 11:49:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:25:35 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com>
If other students have humorous or otherwise irrelevant text in their
.plan files and have not been told to remove them, then you should document
this (print out a session where you get the time & date, and finger
a bunch of other students). This would show that the university is
telling you, and only you, to remove your .plan based on the content,
and not on disk space, or using .plan for what it is intended (does
anyone use .plan for what it is intended?) That would clearly make it a
first amendment case, and the U would almost certainly lose.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 16:59:06 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:47:23 GMT
Actually, a wider audience would probably be interested in this.
It appeared in the Globe and Mail, Monday July 20 1992.
I wrote a letter to the editor complaining about mixing up the Internet
and Usenet, and Ray Johns' "monkey see, monkey do" estimation of
people. It's been posted to alt.sex.bondage.
Anyway, enjoy. (Reposted to alt.sex.bondage so people there will see the
followups; it's no extra bandwidth.)
--
-Colin
=== Beginning
Notes: double paragraph spaces indicate drop caps. This began on the
bottom of the front page and continued on page 6, which also included a
shot of two people at some terminal-like things I don't recognize
titled "Two students use computers with ability to access Internet
system at the University of toronto's Robarts Library." It might be
the computer room in the basement.
There are two articles here, the second is "Network lets users `say
what they think'" Which was also on page 6. I'm pretty sure all
spelling and grammatical errors (San Franciso, for example) are in the
original, but something may have slipped past me.
Computers graphic when it comes to porn
NETWORK SEX: Is increasingly explicit material on some computer
bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity?
BY PETER MOON
The Globe and Mail
Toronto
Pornographic photographs and obscene stories dealing with the violent
sexual degradation of women and children are available to virtually
anyone in Canada with a computer and a telephone link.
The stories and photographs can be sent through an international computer
system that was developed initially to exchange information between
academics and scientific researchers.
The system quickly became a vital communications link for the exchange of
academic and scientific information and ideas, which is still its main
purpose. But in the past 10 years, it has exploded into an interconnected,
worldwide system that appears to have little ability to control the worst of
its content.
The worst includes photographs and stories involving bestiality, sexual
torture, rape and murder. Defenders of the system say the worst is
only a small part of what is offered and that much of what is offered
is useful discussion about sex. The fiction, they argue, is more erotic
than obscene.
After complaints by women's groups, two schools - the University of
Manitoba and Simon Fraser University in British Columbia - decided this
summer to stop making the material readily available to students
through their publicly financed computer systems.
The decisions have provoked a debate about freedom of expression and censorship.
Canadian universities enter the computer system that includes the controversial
sex bulletin boards through Internet.
Please see COMPUTER - A6
Computer porn prompts outcry
* From Page A1
The biggest computer network in the world, it links millions of people
through more than 750,000 "host" connections. For the past two years
the number of users has been growing at a rate of 20 per cent a month,
according to California's Stanford Research Institute.
The system is becoming increasingly available at non-academic places of
work and through private companies which, for relatively modest fees,
make access available to the public. Once in the system, users can
post messages, articles or stories that are available to anyone. They
can also communicate privately by E, or electronic, mail.
Some computer groups on Internet, primarily the academic and
scientific, have a voluntary system of modified censorship. Others
have none at all.
Major subject groupings, known as news groups, deal with academic and
scientific subjects, computing, discussions of a social or cultural
nature and current affairs. The alternate news groups, many of which
have no controls, deal with subjects ranging from hobbies to sexual
lifestyles, illegal drugs and racism.
The content of the alternate groups includes serious discussion and
exchanges of advice and information. There are attempts at humour, and
more personal opinion than some people have the time to get through.
There is a lot of writing about sex, some of it serious, some of it
helpful, some of it of questionable taste, and a small part of it
obscene by virtually any definition.
"Well, if this one doesn't get us all shut down, probably nothing will,"
bragged the anonymous author of a graphic story about the sexual violation
of a 12-year-old girl before posting the tale on one of the uncensored
alternate news groups called "alt.sex.bondage."
(Alt. is an abbreviation for alternate, which warns a reader that the news
group is in the unregulated part of Internet. Sex and bondage describe
the group's subject matter.)
Alt.sex.bondage and others like it continue to thrive because, like
some kind of headless science-fiction monster, they appear to have a
self-generating life of their own a complex system that has no central
control but is connected by hundreds of thousands of computers linked
by long-distance, high-capacity lines leased from telephone companies.
The sex news groups are phenomenally popular.
A survey by DEC Network Systems Laboratory, of Palo Alto, Calif., of more
than 1,500 news groups found that in April three of the sex bulletin
boards were among the 10 most looked at in the world.
A group called alt.sex ranked first. Alt.sex.bondage came fifth and
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, which distributes erotic and obscene
pictures, was 10th with 130,000 viewers.
[Chart: INTERNET GROWTH
Internet hosts (in thousands)
'81..'92, topping out at about 720,000
Source: Stanford Research Institute]
Among the pictures moved recently was a photograph of a woman having
sexual intercourse with a dog. The photo left nothing to the imagination.
It was one of several photographs and fictionalized accounts of sexual
violence to women that ended up last May on the desk of Inspector Ray
Johns, head of the Winnipeg Police vice squad. The stories involved
rape, bestiality, incest, involuntary bondage and the torture of women.
"There is no doubt in my mind that some of it contravened the obscenity
sections of the Criminal Code," Insp. Johns said in an interview. "Our
concern was that it could prompt somebody to act out their fantasy in
real life."
The material had been gathered by a women's group at the University of
Manitobs, where students were reading and viewing it through Internet.
The university administration promptly cut off access to several of Interet's
sex groups and now no one at the university can use them.
"The police have said, without question, that some of this is criminal and
I agree with them," said Terry Falconer, the university's vice-president
of administration.
He conceded that simply because the university had cut off access did not
mean that students would not be able to connect to the sex groups. "I think
anybody who's got any moxie can probably get in, using our network, and get
access from, say, the University of Toronto. If they do that, they do it.
But we are not going to help them," Mr. Falconer said.
Danishka Esterhazy, a student women's-centre worker, said many women found
the material threatening, particularly at a time when there were a number
of reported sexual assaults on the university campus.
She said a female student could walk into a computer laboratory and find
a picture of a woman being raped on the computer screen next to her, hear
male students laughing as they read about a woman being tortured, or be
forced to wait at a computer printer while a male student got a printout
of an obscene photograph of a woman.
"The universities are paying to supply this service," Ms. Esterhazy said.
"So, financially, they are setting themselves up as porn distributors for
their students
"I don't think anyone has a problem with bulletin boards on sex issues. There
are bulletin boards for incest victims, for example, and no one has any
problem with any of that.
"It's the material that's degrading to women. It's just a form of sexual
harassment, really, because a woman goes to a university and she turns on
a computer and is surrounded by images that say, very clearly, she's not
welcome there and that she's threatened."
Most universities, she said, have codes of behaviour that prevent anyone
from placing a centrefold from
=========================================
`Our main concern is keeping the little
seven-year-old eyes away from that crap.'
=========================================
Playboy, Penthouse or Hustler magazines on an office wall or workplace.
The display of obscene materials from the Internet's sex groups is equally
offensive and potentially threatening to women, she said.
Everyone interviewed for this article, including people who are adamantly
opposed to any kind of censorship, were critical about the behaviour of
the male students at the University of Manitoba.
"They were forcing it upon people who didn't want to read it or see
it," said Colin Plumb, a graduate student at the University of Toronto
and a contributor to alt.sex.bondage. "That's just plain rude; rude
and inconsiderate enough to warrant some enforcement against doing it.
I've never seen it here at U of T. At private companies, I've seen it
occasionally; people calling out hey, come and look at this."
The University of Manitoba decision to cut off the sex groups was quickly
followed at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C.
"I said it was not an issue of censorship," said Lionel Tolan, Simon
Fraser's director of academic computer services. "We are a publicly
funded institution here. We have an outreach program through our
faculty of education which provides access to our computers and to
Internet to schools in the province. There is an enormous push in
B.C. to get more kinds on the Internet as a training tool. They don't
need access to this part of the Internet."
Mr. Tolan said the decision to stop access to the sex groups of Internet
"seemed timely" because of the growing protests of women's groups, the
fact that public funds supported the university's computer operations,
and because the university made Internet available to schools in British
Columbia.
"It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse. We don't
have them in the university library. If somebody wants them they can go
to a bookstore and buy them. Anybody wants access to the sex groups
on the Internet, they can buy access through a local company."
One commercial seller of access to Internet is Canada Remote Systems of
Mississauga, Ont., which sells a year's access for as little as $99.
But it carefully segregates what it calls "the largest collection of
adult-related material in Canada" and sells a year's access to it for
$49.
Subscribers must provide the company with proof that they are 18 or older
and sign an acknowledgement that they have been informed about the
explicit nature of the material.
"Our main concern is keeping the little seven-year-old eyes away from
that crap," said Neil Fleming, president of Canada Remote Systems.
"Rather than us trying to censor the material by our standards we let
the users censor the material. So the users draw the line. If any
complaint is received about any adult file, the offending item is
removed. We won't remove it all, but we will remove a specific item."
He said that there are two or three complaints a month. About a year
ago, he said, Project P, a joint anti-pornography squad operated by the
Ontario Provincial Police and the Metropolitan Provincial Police, asked
him to remove an offensive picture from a file.
Detective-Constable Patricia MacVicar, an OPP member of Project P, said
that while there have been few public complaints, there is a growing
concern and awareness in police circles about the sex groups. She said
=====================================================
`Nobody condones the small portion that goes over
the network that is really offensive and disgusting.'
=====================================================
she monitors them and is consulting with the Crown attorney about the
possibility of laying a criminal charge involving them for the first
time in Canada.
"There's no doubt there is obscenity, but it's difficult to prove," she
said.
Universities in both Canada and the United States shy away from
censoring access to news groups that cause offence.
"Some university sites in other locations," said a recent policy paper
by the Iowa State University computation centre, "have already come
under internal and external criticism for the use of state and federal
funds to store and distribute items which are alleged either to be
illegal or objectionable.
"[The network's] news groups present a new form of `openness,' both in
access and in collection. University computer access may extend further
into the public in the immediate future with ever-expanding network
access. Assumptions that access is limited to adults (students, staff
or faculty) may no longer be valid.
"This new medium provides users the ability to voluntarily read and
submit anything they want in a relatively uncensored and anonymous
atmosphere. What is posted anywhere on the worldwide network can result
in Iowa State `acquiring' that posting."
Iowa State decided it would not restrict access to networks, but set up
a program to warn users about material they might find offensive.
In 1988, the University of Waterloo became embroiled in a campus
controversy when it banned access to a network humour group because of
racist jokes. The university subsequently banned access to both the
humour group and to alt.sex.bondage because of a few complaints.
"It caused an incredible amount of commotion," said Alan George, the
university's provost and vice-president, academics.
A university committee subsequently decided the university should not
interfere with access to any of the Internet news groups and left it to
users to deal themselves with the sources of any offending material.
"Nobody condones the small portion that goes over the network that is
racist and really offensive and disgusting to people," Mr. George said.
"But how do you deal with it without infringing on people's freedom of
speech and expression?
"Our view is we will place the responsibility for transmitting obscene
material squarely where it belongs, namely, with the person who produces
it. And to the extent that we can, we will deal with the purveyors of
such material in response to objections.
"It isn't that we won't do more. It's just that as a practical matter
it doesn't make sense."
Network lets users `say what they think'
BY PETER MOON
The Globe and Mail
TORONTO - Evan Leibovitch considers himself a responsible and concerned
member of his community.
He's 36, married, and the father of two children. He's active in his
synagogue and he and his wife run their own computer consulting company
from their home in Brampton, Ont.
He's also the founder and unpaid moderator of "rec.arts.erotica," a sex
news group, or bulletin board, on Internet, an international computer
network read daily by millions of people worldwide.
Internet's main purpose is to exchange academic and scientific
information, but in recent years its content has expanded to include
groups that deal with a wide range of subjects, including non-mainstream
sex and obscenity - a trend that has led to growing criticism.
"Part of me understands the complaint because some of the stuff that
comes over the network is truly offensive," Mr. Leibovitch said in an
interview.
His news group deals with sex but in a responsible way, he said.
Nothing gets posted on it until it has his approval. "There is a policy
of nothing non-consensual," he said.
But like may avid readers of Internet, Mr., Leibovitch supports making
it widely available and allowing it to continue, both the parts that are
regulated for content, such as his own group, and the controversial
parts that are uncensored.
"In some ways it's a wonderful medium," he said "because it really,
really encourages people to say what they think, no matter how awful it
can be. . . .Not all the discussion is about sex. There's a neo-Nazi
group, for example, trying to get a group started called Holocaust
Revisionism. There's a lot of opposition. But it's a free medium.
"Why does everybody complain about the sex stuff when there's
homophobia, ethnic slurs and some other pretty awful stuff? What's
wonderful about it is the open discussion without anyone filtering your
ideas. It's better than any newspaper."
Colin Plumb, 23, a graduate engineering student at the University of
Toronto, is a frequent contributor to an uncensored news group called
"Alt.sex.bondage." His contributions have included discussions about
sex and sex censorship as well as sex fiction. Of all the material on
Internet, only a small amount involves the uncensored sex groups, he
said, and "of that a small fraction is stories that are extreme in some
way or another. I would say they come along at a rate of one a month,
maybe."
Jean (Muffy) Barkocy, 26, a computer programmer who lives in San
Franciso, is a frequent contributor to the uncontrolled alt.sex.bondage
group. She is one of three female moderators who control what gets onto
soc.feminism, a regulated Internet news group dealing with women's
issues.
Ms. Barocky said she is not comfortable with all the material that is
posted on alt.sex.bondage, but said she does not have to read anything
she finds offensive.
"But I do find things that are interesting and informative," she said.
"Ice, for example. The various things you can do with ice. I find it a
lot of fun and so does my boy friend. You know, we just like the
sensation of ice in various places. We started using it because of the
news group."
Stella Calvert, 43, a Sunnyvale, Calif., housewife, is another
contributor to alt.sex.bondage. She writes about sado-masochism and sex
issues.
"The freedom of the press belongs to him as owns one, right?" she said.
"With a computer network anybody who has a computer and a modem and a
telephone line has as much power to put their ideas out as Rupert
Murdoch."
For those who want to post their ideas and fiction without identifying
themselves there are free services such as Wizvax, operated by
Stephanie Gilgut, a computer consultant in Methuen, Mass.
A person can send an article to Wizvax by electronic mail. Ms Gilgut's
computer strips it of all identifiers, provides a pseudonym, and sends
it on to the news group. If readers want to communicate with the
anonymous author they can send messages by E-mail to Wizvax, where Ms.
Gilgut's computer forwards it to the author.
"I wanted to post something in the bondage group without saying who I
was and I came up with the idea of a posting service on my machine and
it kind of took off," Ms. Gilgut said. "People could possibly be fired
over something as controversial as the bondage news group. So it serves
a good purpose.
"A lot of people think they are sick when they start having bondage,
sado-masochistic fantasies. Who can you talk to about that? My service
gives then an opportunity to realize there are other people in the world
like them, and they are not really sick, just different."
=== End
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 17:32:15 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.212214.22470@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:22:14 GMT
colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
>But in the past 10 years, it has exploded into an interconnected,
>worldwide system that appears to have little ability to control the worst of
>its content.
Good!!
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 17:32:20 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.172053.10203@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:20:53 GMT
Someone suggested I mention that the Globe and Mail's Fax number is
+1 416 585-5085.
"The Editor of The Globe and Mail welcomes letters from readers on any
subject but reserves the right to condense them as may prove
necessary. Letters should include the name, address and daytime
telephone number of the writer."
The usual citation style is "Colin Plumb, Toronto", with a title inserted if
appropriate. The letters in the 20th's paper are 150 to 400 words long.
Oh, yes, change that posting to "reprinted *with* permission."
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 18:43:51 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:15:17 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
In article <1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
>Actually, a wider audience would probably be interested in this.
>It appeared in the Globe and Mail, Monday July 20 1992.
>
>I wrote a letter to the editor complaining about mixing up the Internet
>and Usenet, and Ray Johns' "monkey see, monkey do" estimation of
>people. It's been posted to alt.sex.bondage.
>
>Anyway, enjoy. (Reposted to alt.sex.bondage so people there will see the
>followups; it's no extra bandwidth.)
>--
> -Colin
Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while. People
telling us what we can look at what we can watch on TV what we can see in
the movies. I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
alt.sex.* and I also feel that child pornography is absolutly wrong but what
about adults that wish to see this. Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
that those who attend universities are of legal age. I know all my friends
where. If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
you don't like the content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
but let those who wish to read or see or watch this type of thing should be
able to. I feed another site and these groups are VERY popular. Even though
I get alt.sex.* on my machine I CHOOSE not to read it. I DO NOT feel that
one should be censored because others feel it ofensive. Does anyone else
agree with my ideas.
--
Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
Scott Scheingold sysadmin Voice 1-215-546-9959
UUCP ...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 20:28:14 1992
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Date: 21 Jul 1992 20:12:23 -0400
Message-ID: <14i95lINNdmu@nigel.msen.com>
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
:
: "finger" is the public directory service provided by this site. Users
: should be able to use finger without getting any sort of shock. On my
: site, I would ask you to replace that quote with a pointer to a
: publicly readable file, if you want to distribute a potentially
: offensive message. That way, you are free to say whatever you like,
: and users are free to CHOOSE to hear it or not.
Many sites run a campus-wide public directory service that's owned and
operated (and controlled by) the computing center with data supplied
by e.g. the registrar's office or the people who put out the campus
paper phone book. In most cases individuals have very little to say
about how they are listed in this directory, except perhaps maybe for
getting their name spelled right or not including home phone numbers.
One popluar pice of software that does this is the "CSO Name Server".
You can find more information about it in
rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/alt.gopher/*
since the gopher clients can look at these systems.
The whole question of what services a user without any special priveleges
is allowed to provide to the rest of the internet is a tough one.
Consider that e.g. an unprivelged user can run a WAIS server, a gopher
server, and thus allow some amount of access to whatever files are on
the system (good, bad, useful or "obscene"). The finger .plan file
is a very small piece of what all else people might do if they were
sufficiently motivated and skillful.
--Ed
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 20:46:09 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:11:49 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul22.001149.29524@clarinet.com>
People who do insist on talking to the press on such issues, by the way,
should put a lot of caveats in place before using Brian Reid's numbers
for USENET size. There are a lot of assumptions in these numbers, and
we don't really know how accurate they are. One measurement I did
a few years ago pegged them as probably 3-5 times too large. Other
measurements have given different results. Nobody can be sure.
However, if people are doing negative articles about USENET, and any
article on alt.sex.bondage is 99% likely to be a negative article,
there is no need to use numbers we don't even know are right to
pump up the significance of the "problem" for them.
The only hard number we have is that under 6,000 people have posted
anonymously or even REPLIED BY MAIL to anonymous postings on
alt.sex.bondage. And that should be reduced by those who have been
re-assigned aliases. If there are 120,000 readers, than the lurk
factor of people who have done nothing but read -- no posting, no
e-mail replies, is huge.
However, remember that NO STORY which decides to take alt.sex.bondage as
its focus, even a story that corrects negative impressions from a previous
story, is going to be a positive story for USENET. Even if the story
is balanced -- and the Globe's story was remarkably balanced -- it will
not send a positive message to most readers.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Jul 21 22:14:31 1992
From: ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <711770390@romeo.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:59:51 GMT
In article <1992Jul22.001149.29524@clarinet.com>
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>The only hard number we have is that under 6,000 people have posted
>anonymously or even REPLIED BY MAIL to anonymous postings on
>alt.sex.bondage. And that should be reduced by those who have been
>re-assigned aliases. If there are 120,000 readers, than the lurk
>factor of people who have done nothing but read -- no posting, no
>e-mail replies, is huge.
Brad, the "lurker factor" is huge. On my system, there are 15 users with
currently in use ".newsrc" files, indicating that they are reading the
materials. The number of active posters from this site is only 4.
When I had news administrative access on the university public UNIX box a
few years ago, the lurk factor was on the order of 180:25 (out of >2000)
active accounts.
This has been one of the main advantages of netnews. Since the luirk
factors are generally high in most media (viz letters to the editor of a
daily newspaper) netnews is an effective way to allow folks who want to
listen to discussions without having to make their own comments to do so.
--
Gregory G. Woodbury, System Programmer, Duke Center for Demographic Studies
ggw@cds.duke.edu | ggw@cs.duke.edu
also at The Wolves Den and other sites. (...!duke!wolves!ggw)
[The Line Eater is a Boojum snark!]
From caf-talk Caf Jul 22 00:10:07 1992
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul22.034149.13317@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:41:49 GMT
colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
}Actually, a wider audience would probably be interested in this.
}It appeared in the Globe and Mail, Monday July 20 1992.
...
}Universities in both Canada and the United States shy away from
}censoring access to news groups that cause offence.
}"Some university sites in other locations," said a recent policy paper
}by the Iowa State University computation centre, "have already come
(that's) center (down here)
}under internal and external criticism for the use of state and federal
}funds to store and distribute items which are alleged either to be
}illegal or objectionable.
...
}Iowa State decided it would not restrict access to networks, but set up
}a program to warn users about material they might find offensive.
As regular readers of some of these newsgroups are no doubt aware,
the original ISU open access policy [which I helped write] has been
superceeded by a (imho) less enlightened policy [which I did not].
[the final outcome is still uncertain]
I am not aware of any such "program" (computer or otherwise).
John
--
John Hascall Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Jul 22 02:58:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:17:48 GMT
My apologies for taking so long to make a response -- it's been a
rather hectic week.
In <1992Jul19.173448.1333@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article , viking@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>|> That one of the people involved in the act was a slave in no way
>|>makes it a rape. Consent is the issue here, not the social status
>|>and
>|>freedom of the people involved. I don't call you a bigot -- I think
>|>slavery a crime too, but at what stage do individuals take over for
>|>the
>|>labels you are so quick to ascribe meaning to? Slave? What happens
>|>if
>|>it is an indentured servant? How about a person over the age of
>|>consent
>|>and under the age of majority? How about a pet?
>Last time I looked the law had very stiff penalties for the latter case
>and outlawed indentured status. Sex with a minor or mental defective
>merits life and buggery 30 odd years.
Yes, and these laws already exist, but base the penalties on the
differing age or mental condition of the subject. Nowhere is consent
mentioned, and that's the point of my argument. A slave may be an adult
perfectly capable of giving consent, or of not giving it. The laws you
cite above assume that consent can not be given. This is wrong. Take
it from a man who was propositioned by a 15 year-old, consent can be
given at any age (I refused, BTW). Slavery is a social condition that in
no way is reflected in the laws you cite. I pointed out the conditions
to show that there are other means besides slavery that might have a
"master" over a "subject" but which are not slavery. In other words,
the law makes the same mistake in that it ascribes age where you ascribe
social standing to mean consent cannot be given. Here I disagree, though
I must admit I do find the idea somewhat repulsive.
>You still have not adressed how consent could be expressed. If you are
>not allowed to say no then no method of saying yes has any meaning.
You assume a slave cannot say "No." I say this is still overly
simplistic and that this is not always the case. There are other
cultures, notably the old Norse, who gave many rights to slaves, and this
was one of them as I remember. Thus, the notion has proven failed in one
instance, and thus perhaps is wrong in individual instances. Maybe one
slave-owner raped his slaves, but not all can be said to have done it by
virtue of just being slave-owners. This was my original annoyance.
>|> There is a lot to be said for a mobile society. The only thing I
>|>recall the constitution using as a social classification was the ownership
>|>of land, which was hardly difficult to get in those days.
>Yes, you simply stole it off the native Indians.
Which, of course, makes no difference here. The point is that those
who elected the founders were in favor of mercantilism and thus it was
represented. Any state is free to institute any other form of economic
plan, so long as it doesn't interfere with interstate commerce, and the
Constitution can be amended should a majority wish it so. That there is
little calling for any other sort of economic system just shows that most
are willing to keep the present system, which is hardly a flaw.
>The point still remains that locking policy into the constitution has
>meant that methods have had to be found to circumvent the constitution.
>The problem is that the political process is now used to circumventing
>the constitution, because the bill of rights is a part of the
>constitution people are now used to the circumvention of the bill of
>rights.
This bears poorly on the elected, not the Constitution. If
the policy wasn't locked in, I don't believe it would change a thing.
>It does not matter if the powers such as the right to declare war are
>effectively traded between Congress and the President as the changing
>world makes the constitutional requirements obsolete. However this
>inevitable exchange should be held separate from the Bill of rights wich
>should be imutable, except to the extent that the citizen be given more
>rights and the government less.
Whoa! I agree here! As a matter of fact, so does the document
you cite. The amendments, such as the bill of rights, supercede the
stipulations in the Constitution.
>Tying the Bill of rights to the constitution was a good move when
>constitutions were more stable than governmental perceptions of the
>rights of man. However the effect has been to stagnate the constitution
>and prevent necessary reforms.
I still don't get the "stagnation" reference, and as a sort of
conservative person don't see where "stagnation" need be inherently wrong
when it comes to defining the rules of governing. Perhaps you could
explain your reasoning here a bit more?
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From caf-talk Caf Jul 22 08:27:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:04:06 GMT
In article <3342@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
>In article tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>
>>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>>should be taken out and shot.
>>
>>I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
>>wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
>>being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
>No, Amnesty Int'l wouldn't agree with it. But, there is a condition
>here: The person you are shooting, is s/he in the process of violating
>someone's rights in a violent, criminal manner? Then, it becomes
>a moral, and legally defendable, form of defense.
>Does Amnesty Int'l support a person's rights to defence?
As far as I know, they do not. Not that they oppose it either, but I
don't see a situation where it would fall within Amnesty's mandate.
I seem to remember a decision that it would not disqualify one
from being considered a prisoner of conscience, if other conditions
are met. (Note that even "advocating violence" normally
disqualifies one from POC status; hence, e.g., Nelson Mandela
was not considered such.)
I don't know if it's ever been specifically addressed, but _I think_
that if some country chose to ban violent self-defense completely,
AI would not concern itself with that. If, say, it were directed to
a specific group in a country without effective police protection,
then maybe it could be considered an indirect violation of their
human rights, but as such the right to self-defence is not considered
a human right by AI. But you better ask them directly if you
want to be sure.
Anyway, saying that someone "should be taken out and shot" doesn't
sound like self-defence to me, but death penalty, which AI opposes
without exceptions.
Nonetheless, I think Mr Walz and AI would agree on freedom of speech,
although they might disagree on the means suitable for defending it.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 07:07:14 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:56:43 GMT
In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while....
> I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
>alt.sex.*...
Why? Isn't that Censorship too? Don't children have
Absolute Freedom of Speech too? Gee, I guess everyone has a
point where they draw the line, eh.
> Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
>that those who attend universities are of legal age.
There's a very bright kid at my university who is about 13
or 14, and who I believe has computer access. Based on your
comment above, I guess it's a good thing that they cut off
alt.sex.* to undergrads.
>... If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
>you don't like the content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
...
Blah blah blah. Now it's such a mantra that no one even
has to propose censorship, people just recite it whenever
anything slightly challenging to their ideas comes up.
--Jamie. ,
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 08:49:14 1992
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:20:34 GMT
In article <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while....
>> I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
>>alt.sex.*...
>
> Why? Isn't that Censorship too? Don't children have
>Absolute Freedom of Speech too? Gee, I guess everyone has a
>point where they draw the line, eh.
Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? Can a seven year old get into
an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
adult book store censorship as well? I grew up in an very open family sex
was NOT an issue to hide. We would talk about sex in a very open matter. I
still do not belive that an seven year old can really understand what is
going on. in alt.sex.* or reading penthouse ect.
My intention is not to draw a line it is to just to point out what the USA
and the laws have put in place. If I had a child I may or may not let
him/her read it. I am not sure as I have not been put in that position.
(I know there is no law about alt.sex.* I am refering to the adult book
store point)
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
>>that those who attend universities are of legal age.
>
> There's a very bright kid at my university who is about 13
>or 14, and who I believe has computer access. Based on your
>comment above, I guess it's a good thing that they cut off
>alt.sex.* to undergrads.
Point well taken. The 13 or 14 year old is the exception not the rule.
If this person is attending a university I would feel that they COULD
understand what alt.sex.* was about. As far as undergrads ar concerned I
feel that they have come to a point that they CAN understand what alt.sex.*
means and decide if they wish to read it or not.
>
>>... If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
>>you don't like the content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
>...
>
> Blah blah blah. Now it's such a mantra that no one even
>has to propose censorship, people just recite it whenever
>anything slightly challenging to their ideas comes up.
>
Say what you wish. I am NOT reciting it is MY view on the subject. I have
seen the type of TV they show in europe and they are much more open with sex
ect. on TV. You would not find the same show on ABC or any other network
other than cable. (Without being cut up to no end)
I feel that censorship is wrong in all forms EXCEPT when it comes to YOUNG
children. The way I see it you are for children to see and read alt.sex.* so
therefor do you belive that child pornography is ok too? That could be
censorship as well.
Scott
--
Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
Scott Scheingold sysadmin Voice 1-215-546-9959
UUCP ...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 10:59:11 1992
From: dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:46:33 GMT
scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> colin@eecg.toronto.
> >Actually, a wider audience would probably be interested in this.
> >It appeared in the Globe and Mail, Monday July 20 1992.
> >
> >I wrote a letter to the editor complaining about mixing up the Internet
> >and Usenet, and Ray Johns' "monkey see, monkey do" estimation of
> >people. It's been posted to alt.sex.bondage.
> >
> >Anyway, enjoy. (Reposted to alt.sex.bondage so people there will see the
> >followups; it's no extra bandwidth.)
> >--
> > -Colin
>
>
> Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while. People
> telling us what we can look at what we can watch on TV what we can see in
> the movies. I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
> alt.sex.* and I also feel that child pornography is absolutly wrong but what
> about adults that wish to see this. Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
> that those who attend universities are of legal age. I know all my friends
> where. If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
> you don't like the content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
> but let those who wish to read or see or watch this type of thing should be
> able to. I feed another site and these groups are VERY popular. Even though
> I get alt.sex.* on my machine I CHOOSE not to read it. I DO NOT feel that
> one should be censored because others feel it ofensive. Does anyone else
> agree with my ideas.
>
> --
> Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
> Scott Scheingold sysadmin Voice 1-215-546-9959
> UUCP ...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
> Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
Two quick comments on Scott's post. One, there are many countries in the
world connected to Usenet that have much more relaxed rules about porn
and child porn that the USA or Canada do, especially those countries in
Europe. Secondly don't make the assumption that all the people on Usenet
are of legal age. I personally started college at 16, I know people who
started at 13 or younger. All of these people have the same access you
do, it just turned out that I didn't find Alt.Sex.* till after I was 18.
And there are many people out there who have access to alt.sex heirarchy
though private bulletin boards which carry usenet groups. If someone
wants to get to the heirarchy he/she can very easily, and without much
money or an account at a college or work. I am not saying I am against
censorship, but I believe that those places which do allow access to such
newsgroups shoul make sure the people who are using them are of legal age
and realize what is in the content of the newsgroups.
Dean
--If you don't like it, DON'T LOOK!
--
dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 10:59:12 1992
From: dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:55:11 GMT
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> People who do insist on talking to the press on such issues, by the way,
> should put a lot of caveats in place before using Brian Reid's numbers
> for USENET size. There are a lot of assumptions in these numbers, and
> we don't really know how accurate they are. One measurement I did
> a few years ago pegged them as probably 3-5 times too large. Other
> measurements have given different results. Nobody can be sure.
>
> However, if people are doing negative articles about USENET, and any
> article on alt.sex.bondage is 99% likely to be a negative article,
> there is no need to use numbers we don't even know are right to
> pump up the significance of the "problem" for them.
>
> The only hard number we have is that under 6,000 people have posted
> anonymously or even REPLIED BY MAIL to anonymous postings on
> alt.sex.bondage. And that should be reduced by those who have been
> re-assigned aliases. If there are 120,000 readers, than the lurk
> factor of people who have done nothing but read -- no posting, no
> e-mail replies, is huge.
>
> However, remember that NO STORY which decides to take alt.sex.bondage as
> its focus, even a story that corrects negative impressions from a previous
> story, is going to be a positive story for USENET. Even if the story
> is balanced -- and the Globe's story was remarkably balanced -- it will
> not send a positive message to most readers.
> --
> Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Also remember that the fact that the word "bondage" is in the name of the
newsgroup (or bestiality or whatever) sends out a very, VERY negative
impression to most mainstream people. They think our practices are weird
and only for the mentally sick, not anything a stable person would do.
On the other hand IMHO we all have less qualms about ways to express our
sexuality, and are more apt to explore different practices.
Dean
--If you don't like it, DON'T LOOK!
--
dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 11:12:14 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:13:11 GMT
In article <14i95lINNdmu@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>: should be able to use finger without getting any sort of shock. On my
>: site, I would ask you to replace that quote with a pointer to a
>: publicly readable file, if you want to distribute a potentially
>: offensive message. That way, you are free to say whatever you like,
>: and users are free to CHOOSE to hear it or not.
>Consider that e.g. an unprivelged user can run a WAIS server, a gopher
>server, and thus allow some amount of access to whatever files are on
>the system (good, bad, useful or "obscene"). The finger .plan file
Personally, I think our site is taking a slightly different approach.
As I mentionned above, we are not in the business of denying anyone
access to anything. However, my own feeling is that potentially
offensive materials should be available on a *request* basis. The user
should have to type a file name, run a viewer, or whatever. Doing a
finger, or an ls, or casually glancing around a room full of
terminals, or reading a file identified as technical help, should not
result in a display of offensive stuff.
Sort of a "keep it in a plain brown wrapper" philosophy, I guess!
Disclaimer: I think this is my own personal philosophy. We've never
had a test case. There *is* pressure at our site to restrict
non-academic uses of the computer, based solely on processor overload
and disk space crunch (four years of consecutive CUTS to the budget..)
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 11:41:30 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.152745.14722@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:27:45 GMT
In article <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while....
>> I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
>>alt.sex.*...
>
> Why? Isn't that Censorship too? Don't children have
>Absolute Freedom of Speech too? Gee, I guess everyone has a
>point where they draw the line, eh.
Of course children don't have "Absolute Freedom of Speech". Who ever
said they did? Where have you seen anyone here claim that the Bill of Rights
applies to minor children in exactly the same way as it does to adults?
Looks like another rhetorical straw man to me.
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
>>that those who attend universities are of legal age.
>
> There's a very bright kid at my university who is about 13
>or 14, and who I believe has computer access. Based on your
>comment above, I guess it's a good thing that they cut off
>alt.sex.* to undergrads.
>
It's a debatable point. Obviously *some* of the students at any
university are under 21 and a very small number *might* be under 18, so if
you really think a university should act "in loco parentis" I suppose an
argument could be made for it. Whether the (largely theoretical) harm in
allowing the possibility of under-21 access to the alt.sex.* hierarchy
justifies he time and effort necessary to accomplish this is another question.
>>... If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
>>you don't like the content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
>...
>
> Blah blah blah. Now it's such a mantra that no one even
>has to propose censorship, people just recite it whenever
>anything slightly challenging to their ideas comes up.
>
Eh? Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
material they find offensive? Or are you just one of those who proposes
censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
>--Jamie. ,
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
>"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'
--
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 Jul 23 19:09:37 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.230442.903@fid.morgan.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:04:42 GMT
In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it?
I think Scott accidentally asked the right question.
It is up to _me_ whether _I_ let _my_ seven-year-old read it. It is
not up to Scott, nor Congress, nor the local police department.
> Can a seven year old get into
>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>adult book store censorship as well?
Yes it is. The child's parents have the right to control what the
child sees; a bunch of people who want the child to grow up naive,
innocent, and foolish do not.
> I grew up in an very open family sex
>was NOT an issue to hide. We would talk about sex in a very open matter. I
>still do not belive that an seven year old can really understand what is
>going on. in alt.sex.* or reading penthouse ect.
So? A seven-year-old probably can't understand a lot of things.
Should you prevent him from learning by keeping him away from anything
he might not understand?
> If I had a child I may or may not let
>him/her read it.
That's your decision.
>I feel that censorship is wrong in all forms EXCEPT when it comes to YOUNG
>children. The way I see it you are for children to see and read alt.sex.* so
>therefor do you belive that child pornography is ok too? That could be
>censorship as well.
It is censorship. I'm against child abuse; I don't care about child
pornography. (If somebody writes a story in which one fictional
character has sex with another fictional character who is depicted as
being 12 years old, what child is injured?)
Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 19:47:24 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.205340.16903@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:53:40 GMT
dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe) writes:
:
: Two quick comments on Scott's post. One, there are many countries in the
: world connected to Usenet that have much more relaxed rules about porn
: and child porn that the USA or Canada do, especially those countries in
: Europe. Secondly don't make the assumption that all the people on Usenet
: are of legal age. I personally started college at 16, I know people who
: started at 13 or younger. All of these people have the same access you
: do, it just turned out that I didn't find Alt.Sex.* till after I was 18.
: And there are many people out there who have access to alt.sex heirarchy
: though private bulletin boards which carry usenet groups. If someone
: wants to get to the heirarchy he/she can very easily, and without much
: money or an account at a college or work. I am not saying I am against
: censorship, but I believe that those places which do allow access to such
: newsgroups shoul make sure the people who are using them are of legal age
: and realize what is in the content of the newsgroups.
Just one point, so far as European countries being more liberal in their
attitudes, there is one obvious exception.
This one, the good 'ol United Kingdom.
Alt.sex.* dosn't even make it in to the country, which sounds even more
silly when you realise that one of the main feeds into the UK for netnews
is via the Netherlands.
(the only stuff which gets through is that which is crossposted to other,
'OK', groups)
If you find a site in the UK, with an uncensored feed, then they probably
have a feed bypassing the UKC backbone site.
(All you need is someone willing to offer a nntp feed, mcsun.eu.net,
which is UKC's feed is probably as good as any, if the volume dosn't
over do the 64kbs link)
But then the UK has some odd laws as whitnessed by the recent (10 months ago)
case with 'The Lovers' video which used the educational loophole to get round
UK censorship regulations.
Yes you can show _anything_ so long as it is 'educational', ordinary
books, films and videos have a list as long as your arm (thats in stacked
fanfold paper :-) ) of what cannot be shown, mentioned or whatever.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 19:47:25 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.210740.16965@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:07:40 GMT
dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe) writes:
:
: Also remember that the fact that the word "bondage" is in the name of the
: newsgroup (or bestiality or whatever) sends out a very, VERY negative
: impression to most mainstream people. They think our practices are weird
: and only for the mentally sick, not anything a stable person would do.
: On the other hand IMHO we all have less qualms about ways to express our
: sexuality, and are more apt to explore different practices.
Also do these newsgroups not tell people how to perform potentially dangerous
activites safely???
There are plenty of newsgroups which send out suggestions that are less
that flattering to people.
e.g.
alt.suicide.holiday
or whatever...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 21:15:38 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul18.141212.27368@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 18 Jul 92 14:12:12 GMT
In article <1992Jul14.231918.20382@bkj386.uucp> brian@.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>Well, I think we did a damned good job of contributing to Panama's
>>"debate" about freedom, and I think Manuel Noriega can now appreciate
>>that. He learned a new song, "Welcome to the Jungle", and he now gets
>>his choice of 40 years in prison or military stockade.
>
>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>or military stockades (half a :)).
-------------------------
No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
disagree with.
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now.
>
>As a Canadian I can relate to this. You have about ten times the
>population and 800 times the number of firearm related deaths a
>year. It is certainly good to see such a clear summary of the
>philosophical and social stucture of the US.
----------------------------
And I'm glad that you realize it fully. You seem to capture the gist
of the US in a single bound, minus the problem of minority racial
situations that you don't have and can't fathom. Without the drug
trade and the racial prejudice in a number of crucial places here,
though they are few, we likely kill fewer people than you do, per
capita.
>> I cannot
>>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north.
>
>You might try libel, treason, disturbing the peace and all those
>other little things that can land you in the slammer. I think that
>the only thing Canada has that the US doesn't is malicious libel
>against an identifiable group. I gather that is what the guns are
>for down there.
--------------------------------
Libel is civil not criminal. Guns are irrelevant to it. I had already
described disturbing the peace or treason/threatning the life of a
publically elected official. You have said nothing here.
>>You can
>>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>>we could in the fifties!
>
>Like the vicar, I could recommend you for jail time too. Like the vicar,
>it would mean nothing in Canada -- before or after the fifties.
---------------------------------
I have a Canadian friend who would strongly disagree with you about
that. He wound up without a job and without a rental and without
defenders in a goodly sized place where he had simply behaved a bit
differently than some locals without breaking any law except the
minister's sense of "propriety".
>>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>>I am ashamed to live next to you.
>
>Feel free to move. Panama is nice this time of year, I hear.
>
>>- Richard Steven Walz
>Brian Jenkins
--------------------------------------
I already have a nice place to live, thank you. And being ashamed
shouldn't bother me. It should bother you.
- R. Steven Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 21:54:06 1992
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.012400.5765@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:24:00 GMT
In article <1992Jul23.230442.903@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
>scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>
>>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it?
>
>I think Scott accidentally asked the right question.
>
>It is up to _me_ whether _I_ let _my_ seven-year-old read it. It is
>not up to Scott, nor Congress, nor the local police department.
I agree with this. I feel with the right guide through sex a child can be
helped to understand. I have always felt that the parent SHOULD be the one
to decide when a child is ready to understand sex. I do not belive in
beating around the bush and making up things about sex. One should be open
and honest. Sex is healthy and what one likes is ones own buisness. No one
should judge what one likes just because the other thinks it is weird or
perverted. I have always felt that those who FORCE their ideas on others are
wrong.
>
>> Can a seven year old get into
>>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>>adult book store censorship as well?
>
>Yes it is. The child's parents have the right to control what the
>child sees; a bunch of people who want the child to grow up naive,
>innocent, and foolish do not.
>
I agree with parents right to control what the child sees. But even with the
right guide I don't know if a child could fully understand what goes on in
the adult book store. I would NEVER want my child to grow up naive or
foolish. Even with the best in sex education by my parents one thing comes
to mind. We where in NYC seeing a show and afterwards we went to dinner but
on the way we saw prostitution and a couple *screwing* in an alley. It was
explained to me that this was not the way sex was for MOST people. I was
about 7 or 8 but I did not really understand until I was in my teens.
This brings us to another question. What *IS* a childs age of understanding
fully about sex?
>> I grew up in an very open family sex
>>was NOT an issue to hide. We would talk about sex in a very open matter. I
>>still do not belive that an seven year old can really understand what is
>>going on. in alt.sex.* or reading penthouse ect.
>
>So? A seven-year-old probably can't understand a lot of things.
>Should you prevent him from learning by keeping him away from anything
>he might not understand?
>
True a seven year old does not understand alot of things. I may be slow but
I did not understand the NYC city stuff for a long time. Yes it could have
been my parents fault but I don't think so. A child learns through education
either by parents or schooling and time.
>>I feel that censorship is wrong in all forms EXCEPT when it comes to YOUNG
>>children. The way I see it you are for children to see and read alt.sex.* so
>>therefor do you belive that child pornography is ok too? That could be
>>censorship as well.
>
>It is censorship. I'm against child abuse; I don't care about child
>pornography. (If somebody writes a story in which one fictional
>character has sex with another fictional character who is depicted as
>being 12 years old, what child is injured?)
There is nothing wrong with fiction.
--
Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
Scott Scheingold sysadmin Voice 1-215-546-9959
UUCP ...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 23:21:07 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul22.233047.24572@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:30:47 EDT
In article <711770390@romeo.cs.duke.edu> ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
>
>Brad, the "lurker factor" is huge. On my system, there are 15 users with
>currently in use ".newsrc" files, indicating that they are reading the
>materials. The number of active posters from this site is only 4.
>
>When I had news administrative access on the university public UNIX box a
>few years ago, the lurk factor was on the order of 180:25 (out of >2000)
>active accounts.
Well, it's nice to know that big brother is watching!
>This has been one of the main advantages of netnews. Since the luirk
>factors are generally high in most media (viz letters to the editor of a
>daily newspaper) netnews is an effective way to allow folks who want to
>listen to discussions without having to make their own comments to do so.
But apparently not with anonymity, eh?
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Jul 23 23:29:18 1992
From: kashif@ocf.berkeley.edu (Mohammad K. Qayyum)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: GIF files
Date: 24 Jul 1992 03:25:28 GMT
Message-ID: <14nt78INN5nj@agate.berkeley.edu>
Hi, folks, does anyone have some computer pictures, e.g. GIF or JPEG
format, of any er... erotica? If you do I would appreciate it if
anyone would send it to me. Please contact me at kashif@ocf.berkeley.edu
Thanx in advance.
.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 07:21:33 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:19:00 GMT
In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? Can a seven year old get into
>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>adult book store censorship as well?
You miss my point. My point was that everyone has a line
to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
material given to children, but not any given to adults. I draw
it to include censoring some material given to adults too. Where
to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.
--Jamie. ,
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 07:21:34 1992
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.002542.16999@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:25:42 GMT
In article <1992Jul23.152745.14722@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> Eh? Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
>material they find offensive?
No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
The issue is the effect of the material on people.
> Or are you just one of those who proposes
>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
--Jamie. ,
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 08:51:15 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:33:59 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.123359.16514@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
In article <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? Can a seven year old get into
>>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>>adult book store censorship as well?
>
> You miss my point. My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults. I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too. Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.
OK when it comes to children I do have a line to draw. Being a gay person I
am open to anything for adults except for child pornography. ( Not fiction
only the real thing). I am courious what would you censor to adults? And yes I
do agree with where to draw the line is debatable, and can be a VERY volitile
subject I'm sure.
Scott
--
Need service? Ask me about USENET news feeds and mail service.
Scott Scheingold sysadmin Voice 1-215-546-9959
UUCP ...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 09:07:10 1992
From: mathew
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <0c1eoB25w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 12:56:44 BST
evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
> Just one point, so far as European countries being more liberal in their
> attitudes, there is one obvious exception.
> This one, the good 'ol United Kingdom.
> Alt.sex.* dosn't even make it in to the country, which sounds even more
> silly when you realise that one of the main feeds into the UK for netnews
> is via the Netherlands.
Oh, yes it does. Alt.sex.* have been available in the UK for years. They
just aren't available from most JANET sites.
> If you find a site in the UK, with an uncensored feed, then they probably
> have a feed bypassing the UKC backbone site.
Not necessarily. They might just get the articles mailed over their UKnet
feed.
> Yes you can show _anything_ so long as it is 'educational', ordinary
> books, films and videos have a list as long as your arm (thats in stacked
> fanfold paper :-) ) of what cannot be shown, mentioned or whatever.
Actually, the Obscene Publications Act doesn't have anything as useful as a
list of what is and is not allowed. Magazines and video sellers have to find
out the hard way, by gradually getting more and more explicit until they're
raided, then dropping back a little towards tameness. Many magazines have
their own guidelines -- like the recently publicized For Women magazine,
which uses a protractor to check that the male models' erections are below a
threshold angle. [ Now there's an interesting job. ] Such guidelines have no
legal basis, however.
mathew
--
Down, boy! There's a good dogma.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 10:37:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.142408.385@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:24:08 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> You miss my point. My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults. I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too. Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.
scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
}OK when it comes to children I do have a line to draw. Being a gay person I
}am open to anything for adults except for child pornography. ( Not fiction
}only the real thing). I am courious what would you censor to adults? And yes I
}do agree with where to draw the line is debatable, and can be a VERY volitile
}subject I'm sure.
IMHO the `crime' in child pornography is not the pictures themselves, but
the actual child abuse (i.e., a picture of a fire is not arson). Now we
find ourselves on the threshold of computer technology to produce such
material without the use of minors. Can a completely computer generated
image be child pornography? Should it be?
John
--
John Hascall ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 11:37:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.143852.7441@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:38:52 GMT
In article <1992Jul18.141212.27368@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>
>>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>-------------------------
>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>disagree with.
Does putting people who kill people and traffic cocaine in jail mean we
will get to jail George Bush for his actions as director of the CIA?
Or was the CIA only trafficking in heroin when George was director?
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 13:10:32 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.165510.16557@bradley.bradley.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:55:10 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>> Eh? Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
>>material they find offensive?
>
> No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.
Oh? I suppose you're one of these people who believe that pornography
causes rape, even with evidence to the contrary? Foolishness.
>> Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
>
> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
Again, who cares? What is your point here?
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 17:13:51 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.210318.27699@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:03:18 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.165510.16557@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
>>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>> Eh? Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
>>>material they find offensive?
>>
>> No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>>The issue is the effect of the material on people.
>
>Oh? I suppose you're one of these people who believe that pornography
>causes rape, even with evidence to the contrary? Foolishness.
Actually, what we have is a lack of any empirical evidence
demonstrating this connection, despite the best attempts of pro-censorship
forces to manufacture it or deliberately misinterpret data to give this
appearance.
>
>
>>> Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
>>
>> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
>
My use of thatr turn of phrase was, of course, a direct slam at the
original poster's use of a similar phrase to criticize someone who was opposed
to censorship. Of course the infamous "Cindy's Torment" doesn't "present
any argument". Neither does "Terminator II" or "Mary Poppins", for that
matter. As the man says:
>Again, who cares? What is your point here?
>--
>=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
> Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
>--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'
--
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 Jul 24 22:27:06 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.022558.10669@fid.morgan.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:25:58 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
(Jamie Andrews) writes:
> You miss my point. My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw;
Which is not true. Some of us just don't believe in censorship.
> you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults. I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too. Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.
I'll even let you give whatever you want to your children, if you
think it's in their best interest.
Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 22:32:27 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.023117.10755@fid.morgan.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:31:17 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.002542.16999@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
(Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.152745.14722@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.
For any effect you name, I can show you some material that you would
not ban that has the same effect on some people as the stuff you would
ban has on others. (I get to choose the people, and select which
stuff you wouldn't ban to use. You choose the stuff you would ban.)
>> Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
Do you propose we ban anything that presses anybody's sexual buttons?
Do you have any idea if anything at all would be left?
I don't care if that story has any "idea" or not. If you can ban
something because it lacks an "idea", the next step is to decide that
Liberalism, Conversatism, or whichever political concept is deemed
threatening to those in power possesses no "idea" and therefore can be
banned.
Just say NO to censorship.
Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 24 22:37:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.023333.10841@fid.morgan.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:33:33 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.142408.385@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
(John Hascall) asks:
>IMHO the `crime' in child pornography is not the pictures themselves, but
>the actual child abuse (i.e., a picture of a fire is not arson). Now we
>find ourselves on the threshold of computer technology to produce such
>material without the use of minors. Can a completely computer generated
>image be child pornography? Should it be?
I believe that the laws state that such a thing is child pornography;
I've added misc.legal to the newsgroup list to get a better opinion.
Of course, there should be no laws against child pornography per se
(against child _abuse_, yes).
Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com
From caf-talk Caf Jul 25 09:27:19 1992
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.113338.2310@panix.com>
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:33:38 GMT
In <1992Jul25.023333.10841@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com sez:
>In article <1992Jul24.142408.385@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
>(John Hascall) asks:
>
>> Can a completely computer generated
>>image be child pornography? Should it be?
>
>I believe that the laws state that such a thing is child pornography;
>I've added misc.legal to the newsgroup list to get a better opinion.
Not having read every state's law on the subject, I can only address
the question in a general manner.
The relevant federal statute -- 18 USC sec. 2252 -- criminalizes the
shipment/receipt of pornography only where "the producing of such
visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct." That language makes clear that a real-live minor
must have been involved.
I would speculate, largely relying on First Amendment principles, that
the government could not make purely computer-generated child
pornography generally illegal, any more than it could ban a book
containing fictional accounts of such conduct. (For the record,
specific works of either sort might be legally "obscene", but cannot
be declared universally so.)
And no, _Osborne_ isn't relevant here, so we needn't get into the
_Stanley v. Georgia_ argument again . . . .
--
O net, thou art sick. The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy. (Film at 11.)
Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From caf-talk Caf Jul 25 12:19:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.161950.10061@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:19:50 GMT
In article <1992Jul25.023333.10841@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>Can a completely computer generated
>>image be child pornography? Should it be?
>
>I believe that the laws state that such a thing is child pornography;
>I've added misc.legal to the newsgroup list to get a better opinion.
The relevant federal law specifies that children are actually used in
creating the depiction of sexual conduct. This would exclude a
computer-generated image of the sort described. See 18 USC 2251.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'"
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --W.H. Auden
From caf-talk Caf Jul 26 00:06:02 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:02:40 GMT
In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
I agree with the point of not letting children see or read alt.sex.* ...
Why? Do you feel it is better to keep children ignorant of some things?
Do you think sex is wrong or shameful?
I find censorship of anything at any time for any reason to be wrong,
immoral, and evil.
--
Joe Wells
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
From caf-talk Caf Jul 26 09:18:56 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.073651.16929@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:36:51 GMT
In article <1992Jul17.152119.14526@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
> ^^^^^^^
> deeptht == deep thought? :)
>
>[ lunatic ranting deleted]
>
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now. I cannot
>>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north. You can
>>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>>we could in the fifties! Religion based countries are vicious
>>countries, and you will learn that by and by.
>
>Recently at my company we had a "personal growth" seminar, conducted by
>someone from head office (in California). As part of the exercise, we had to
>rank our personal values from a set of 28. As it turned out, in our group
>10 out of 15 people ranked religion in the bottom 3 of their set of values.
>The American who conducted the course remarked on this, and said that it was
>typical of the Canadian groups he had given the course to. By contrast,
>the Americans who he gave the course to were far more religious.
>
>Casual observation leads me to believe that Canadians are less religious than
>Americans, and have more separation between Church and State. We tend to
>be less demonstrative in our religion -- far less fundamentalism. How many
>times do you hear Canadian politicians mention god? And how many times do you
>hear their American counterparts mention god?
>
>[ raving deleted ]
>
>>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>
>Well, that was a well-informed opinion.
>Marc Riehm Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
> 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
> Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8
>marc@meadow.UUCP
-----------------------------
Another devout Ontarian fighting for his honor. :)
Honest, Marc. I don't hate Canadians, why some of my best friends are
Canadians!!!!!! :->
- R. Steven Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jul 26 09:18:58 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul25.093030.17849@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 25 Jul 92 09:30:30 GMT
In article tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot.
>
>I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
>wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
>being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
>Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
----------------------------
Hell yes it violates their rights, else what's the point. I think that
Saddam Hussein has violated so many people's human rights that he
deserves to be flayed and quartered on international TV. And I hope we
get the chance. Also, though I admit to intentional, nay terminal
cuteness, the juxtaposition of my two sentences was supposed to bait
you into defending Amnesty International. That doesn't mean I need to.
I support AI when they help good people, and I would oppose them if
they helped bad people. A bad person is one who has killed thousands
or millions for no good reason. (Yes, there might be a good reason,
recall the Nazi's).
I do rather hope that we have the good sense to destroy the personal
bodies of the ruling council of Iraq this time, and that we can be
even more precise in our air war. If we had wanted Saddam Hussein, I
think we could have had him before. It was a reasonable idea not to
martyr him last time and leave him stewing, but he is playing tricks
with his nuclear program again and the location of his latest chinese
acqisition, more scud's. I think it is time to declare him an
international terrorist and renounce his human rights formally.
- Steve Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jul 26 12:21:24 1992
From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul26.154303.1141@mdd.comm.mot.com>
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:43:03 GMT
in alt.censorship, rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) said:
>In article <1992Jul17.152119.14526@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul13.073249.28035@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>>>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>>>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>>>- R. Steven Walz
>>
>>Well, that was a well-informed opinion.
>>marc@meadow.UUCP
>
>Honest, Marc. I don't hate Canadians, why some of my best friends are
>Canadians!!!!!! :->
>- R. Steven Walz
Could have fooled me....
--
mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 26 16:16:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca (jim boyce u)
Subject: six newsgroups banned at wilfrid laurier university
Message-ID: <9207262009.AA27467@unix1>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:09:39 GMT
The following article appeared in Laurier's student newspaper, The Cord, on
June 14, 1992.
Access to six newsgroups on Laurier's computing system has
been restricted until the Senate Committee on Computing Ethics
can meet and discuss their controversial content. All six were
from the alt.sex hierarchy, a collection of groups that deals
with topics ranging from bondage and bestiality to recovery from
sexual abuse and a general discussion on sex. WLU President John
Weir said he made the decision because, "in my opinion, and in
the opinions of others, the material was offensive."
Newsgroups first began arriving at Laurier two months ago
when the university started to switch from the "unix" computer
system to the faster, "sequent" system. They enter through a
computer network called ONET via the University of Waterloo, and
include messages and information from computer users all over the
world.
While there are more than a thousand newsgroups available,
it is a handful which are raising moral and legal questions at
several Canadian universities. Most of these are in the alt.sex
hierarchy which are among the most popular newsgroups.
In May, the alt.sex hierarchy and several other groups were
banned at the University of Manitoba after a student sent some
prinouts from alt.sex to a reporter at The Winnipeg Free Press.
Gerry Miller, Director of Computing at the University of
Manitoba, said the Winnipeg vice squad visited the univeristy
twice asking for technical information on newsgroups. The ban is
still in effect, Miller said, although individual users may get
access, "if anybody can make a case that the material should be
brought back for scholary issues."
On July 2, The Kitchener-Waterloo Record ran a front page
story about computer pornography at the University of Waterloo.
It was reported that the newspaper had received newsgroup stories
and pictures anonymously, including, "a photograph of an almost
nude woman hanging by her neck from a rope on a hook. Her mouth
is open as if screaming." The Waterloo Regional Police Department
was quoted as saying no investigation would be undertaken unless
campus police requested help. The University of Waterloo, which
banned the alt.sex hierarchy for several months in 1990, plans no
investigation either unless a complaint about the material is
received.
Other universities to recently deal with the matter include
University of Ottawa, University of Toronto and Simon Fraser.
The Cord began an investigation on newsgroups in May after
being informed by Ruby Ramji, a Laurier student, that many of
them were unavailable at Laurier. Ramji said she had found a
newslist on the Laurier system and tried to access some of the
groups that were listed on it but was unable to get most of the
"alt" groups, including the entire alt.sex hierarchy.
Ramji then talked to Bob Ellsworth, Assistant Systems
Administrator, about the problem and said she was told that no
restrictions had been placed on the groups. She decided to pursue
the matter further. "Since Bob said it was happening outside the
university, I decided to follow the link."
Because the newsgroups come to Laurier via the University of
Waterloo, Ramji used a friend's account there to see if U of W
was restricting "alt" groups and indirectly keeping them out of
Laurier. She said she checked the U of W system about eight times
during May and found that the "alt" groups were always available.
On June 17, the Cord interviewed Ellsworth and Carl
Langford, Systems Administrator. Two reasons were offered to
explain the absence of the alt.sex newgroups.
First, there was an expiry date of one day for messages in
the "alt" groups. Even with such an expiry date, however, there
should have been dozens of messages a day at Laurier just as
there were at the University of Waterloo. Instead, there were
only one or two and they arrived indirectly via other newsgroups.
Secondly, system problems may have been keeping the groups
out. Whatever the reason, Langford said that it was
unintentional: "We have done nothing here to stop if from coming
in."
A week later, the Cord interviewed Langford, Ellsworth and
Hart Bezner, Director of Computing Services. Bezner said he was
"stunned by even the suggestion that people would be keeping it
[alt.sex] out", and attributed the unavailablility of alt.sex to
problems within the system.
Bezner typified the content of alt.sex as "puerile" and said
that he could not understand why students would be interested in
reading "bondage" groups. He added that the situation would have
to be considered in regards to the university switching over to
the new computer system: "It's a matter of priorities, putting
sex groups on is not as important as compilers... it's just like
walking up to a half-finished apartment and asking why the
bathroom isn't finished... we just haven't got around to it yet."
Later, Bezner said the Cord interview "turned on our
interest" and he decided to do something about the material in
the alt.sex groups. He took one hundred pages of output from one
of the groups to Don Baker, Vice-President Academic: "it was my
personal decision... I looked at it and said to myself, `I don't
want to be held legally responsible for that, let those guys [the
administration] investigate the legalities of it'."
Langford said that many of the people in Computing Services
had moral and legal concerns about the material and had talked
about it amongst themselves: "We're a small enough group that we
can discuss these things."
A meeting was held shortly after and attended by Baker,
Langford, WLU President John Weir, and Arthur Stephens and Julia
Easley of Institutional Relations. The printout was discussed at
the meeting and John Weir made known his decision to restrict the
six newsgroups.
On June 26, one of the newsgroups was restricted, and on
July 2, another five met a similar fate. All six were from the
alt.sex hierarchy, according to Ramji (Bezner referred us to her
because he was not sure which of the groups were restricted).
They included: alt.sex.bondage, bestiality, motss (members of the
same sex), movies, pictures.d (a subgroup that discusses
pictures), pictures.misc, and wizards (a less tame version of the
generic alt.sex group).
Don Baker said that the solution was "short term". He said
that there were policies on language use at Laurier and laws on
such issues as hate literature, and that while the university
should try to be as liberal as possible, "we're mindful of the
fact that language has consequences, and to the extent that they
can be discriminatory or demeaning, we should have some concern."
John Weir said that the decision was based on how offensive
the material was and not any legal implications. He did not think
the decision compromised the university in any way and said, "I
think one has to always make judgement about the need to judge
things as being offensive versus the right people claim to have
to read anything they want to read... we could have, I suppose,
allowed the thing to run and gave it to the committee as a
problem such as that. We chose not to do that. We felt that we
would prefer to have it off-line during the interim rather than
on-line."
Ruby Ramji disagrees with the judgement and, until the
Senate Committee makes a decision, will have to access alt.sex at
the University of Waterloo. She said that the newsgroups have
educational content and discuss issues such as sexual hangups and
relationships, and provide information on AIDS and other sexual
diseases. They also have an academic purpose: "I was doing a
study on alt.sex and I couldn't get access to it and I needed it
as a primary source... I feel they [the administration] are
hindering the flow of information into an academic institution
that's supposed to uphold the freedom of information."
From caf-talk Caf Jul 26 19:10:42 1992
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul26.221946.19035@wolves.uucp>
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:19:46 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
>>
>>Brad, the "lurker factor" is huge. On my system, there are 15 users with
>>currently in use ".newsrc" files, indicating that they are reading the
>>materials. The number of active posters from this site is only 4.
>>
>>When I had news administrative access on the university public UNIX box a
>>few years ago, the lurk factor was on the order of 180:25 (out of >2000)
>>active accounts.
>
>Well, it's nice to know that big brother is watching!
Oh, go suck an egg. The fact that I have a little program to go
out and see what groups are being read by my users so that I can tune
and adjust the expiration times of newsgroups has absolutely ZERO
relevance to your accusations.
First, this is *MY* machine, I bought it, I set it up, I pay for
the modems and the phone lines. The folks who use it do so as my guests
and under a grant of permission from me to do so. (Also with the
understanding that they are responsible for what they do when posting to
netnews.)
Up at the "university" (a private university, btw) the same
automatic scripts kept track of a whole mess of statistics about how
many users were reading how many different groups. Just for your
eddification, the scripts produce raw numbers telling me what I want to
know, without telling me anything by name.
>>This has been one of the main advantages of netnews. Since the luirk
>>factors are generally high in most media (viz letters to the editor of a
>>daily newspaper) netnews is an effective way to allow folks who want to
>>listen to discussions without having to make their own comments to do so.
>
>But apparently not with anonymity, eh?
Anonymity is *not* a right. Most folks who are worth talking to
or listening to have the courage of their convictions and don't need to
hide behind some kind of mask. (IMHO of course.) Besides, as pointed
out above, there is absolutely no need to find the names or newsgroups
to go with the cited statistics, the programs can produce them inside a
black box without naming names.
Note further that I am *not* saying that there are not cases
where there are advantages to posting anonymously. Especially in cases
where there are reasons to believe that harassment or other untoward
reactions may/will occur. (E.g. the a.p.b. redirection service at
Wizvax.)
Big brother is the government, I am not.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account. stinking disclaimers"
