From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 06:25:03 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug3.093704.13574@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Aug 92 09:37:04 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
:
: (1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
: would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
: child sexual abuse?
:
: I say "yes", many people say "no". No one can "prove"
: this, *one way or the other*. The researchers are the first to
: point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything. But at
: some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
: public policy. The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
: material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
: decision to ban.
:
(1a) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
would make some people LESS prone to commit acts of rape and
child sexual abuse?
: * * *
:
: (2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
: rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
: allow it to be available anyway?
:
: I say "no", many people say "yes". I have no doubt that
: the legalization of erotic material involving rape and sex with
: children would lead to the creation of widely-accessible shops
: and groups which distribute such material in such a way as to
: reinforce, not break down, certain people's tendencies to commit
: such acts. There are already such groups, underground since
: such material is illegal (in Canada), and we can never eliminate
: them entirely; but we can at least restrict their accessibility.
As the whole thing, in the end comes down to a PERSONAL choice,
then I don't see how you could possibly claim.
(Your argment re-written, there are lots of books, movies and tv programs
dealing with the subject of murder. People may be influenced by these
to commit acts more rederly than if they were not exposed to them)
The alternative is that people use photographs, movies, stories, tv, etc
as a way of safely venting emotions (and fantasys) which could be dangerous
if they were acted out in real life. To restrict access to these media whould
be to encorage people to act out.
(I can claim no originality for this the idea is at least 2000 years old,
read up on the city of Pompaii)
:
: In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
: alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
: that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
: and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff). The
: reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
: real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
: ideal of absolute freedom of speech.
This is a false argument surely such people, will seek out whatever it
is they are looking for.
Are there also possibly people with an axe to grind doing exactly the same
thing?
:
: * * *
:
: (3) Where do you draw the line?
:
: This is almost a non-question, since lawmakers, judges, and
: juries have been drawing lines like this for centuries. My
: answer is that *I* don't draw the line, *they* do.
Buzzz wrong answer, these people cannot decide where to draw the line
there is little consistancy between different countries, even those
geographically adjacent may have different laws.
(this is why international communications media are so bothering to
law makers)
They even change their minds at different times.
:
: The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
: Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
: traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
On the other hand you cannot prove that then will not have the same effect
as in Germany, Italy and Russia in the 1930's
: The existing censorship laws will always lead to debate, and will
: always be on the dividing line between what some people think and
: what other people think. That line has shifted a lot in recent
: decades. It will probably shift some more.
:
: Great idea. Second thing should be spelling.
(Oh dear a spelling flame, the guy must have run out of things to say)
(tell me can you spell colour correctly???)
(rest of babble deleted)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 3 07:06:29 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug3.100241.13827@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Aug 92 10:02:41 GMT
hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd) writes:
: What was removed was a book judged by it's cover. I posted semi-regularly
I thought this was normal in censorship, but then I live in a country
where books and movies can be banned based on their title.
: or find a new hobby. The whole point to a.s.b. was to make the giving of
: consent, and the open questioning of "normal" power relations inherant
: in sex appear in the foreground as something to step back and question.
Maybe it is this questioning that is upsetting to some people?
: Is the removal of these groups going to have a beneficial or deleterious
: effect in the immediate future, damn right I think. Aside from the larger
: abstractions, I can tell you that people will try things, be it tying
: up their consensual partner, or peircing their nipples. Like abortion,
: it will be done, the question is only how much information and safety
: will be available to those who decide to do it. The harmful effects of
: cheap frat boy fantasy porn has not been avoided, it's still out there
: in the bucket load, the harmful effects (the destruction of romance, and
: the explicit ignoring of loaded power relations) that a.s.b. was all
: about the challanging of, will be left there. Don't shut people out of
: information, the more information we have the wiser we become, a mind
: pushed over the edge to rape is one that hasn't questioned the mainstream
: views on sex, and one that was bent way out of balance to begin with.
There it is you say that a.s.b is there to inform people and to attempt
to do something about 'views on sex having been bent way out of balance'
Is it possible that those who oppose this group have a wish (or even
a vested interest) in maintaining the status quo?
: To make a clear debate point for you to consider, I propose that
: the elimination of a.s.b. was an elimination of a group; comitted to the
: dissemination of information with regards to a consensual activity, that
: sought to avoid any damage to the psyche or body of it's practioners, that
: activly sought to empower all the people who engaged in sex of a minority
: interest style by acknowleging the wisdom and accepatbility of consenting
: individuals exploring an alternative to the mainstream power abuse present
: in the sexroles learned from such depraved and pornographic sources as
: COSMOPOLITAN, GQ, FLAIR and whatever. Conversely the attitudes that
: encourage the worst of mainstream sexual power assymmetries, abuse &c
: are all cruising along as normal. Thirdly that thought, not information is
: what produces attitudes, you do not raise pacifist children by keeping them
: away from cartoons, but if they are to deal construcively with conflict
: they must realize how stupid those cartoons are. I've read some very
: good, thought provoking smut, dealing with responsability and weakness
: and strength via the net, but in order to question myself with such things
: I had to wade through a lot of cartoon sex, (I'm not saying it was worth it).
:
: > Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
: >Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
: >anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
: >not exclusively anti-pornography). I defy anyone to still say,
: >after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
: >involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
: >adversely.
:
: The adverse effect may be that the borderline porn of babies in makeup
: advertizing, or the perfume ads with prepubescent kids, then strike the
(or in many forms of advertising)
: individual as being deeply disturbing. I won't defend such trash, but
: I wish you to realize that a.s.b. was NOT about such things, and such
: things are still on the net, and that a group explicity about consensual
: activities was removed in the guise of dealing with such material. To
: debate such a point WRT a.s.b. is a total straw man.
This raises the question of why this other material on the net has not yet
been mentioned.
:
: >(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
: > rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
: > allow it to be available anyway?
:
: Is a group like a.s.b. to be removed because the activities
: it discusses have bad pr. Is it O.K. to censor someone because the
: popular portayal of that person's beleifs are of something horrible.
: You are asking whether, for instance, someone who is thinking of
: putting a ring through their nipple, will have an avenue to information
: about the propper care and cleaning, because someone else has called
(me thinks that no such fuss would be made about puting a ring through
the earlobe, or the nose)
: it bondage, and a third person says that bondage means dragging children
: off the street and tying them up and torturing them. There are
: lots of really gross and scary things that people do to each other, and
: it really disturbs me that people feel it is alright to force their
: will on someone else. Dig that sentence? Someone once said that
: censorship is mental bondage, it's say that to say such a thing is to
: sully the name of something engaged in by caring consesual adults.
consent has very little to do with child abuse, it involves primarly
power of the abuser over the child. (using physical or emotional
bullying both in the process of the abuse and to keep the child quiet)
: Is the risk of allowing the particulars of how to have anal
: intercourse safely and painlessly so high that such information should
: be kept secret? What information, what material, is really being
: silenced here? I think it is that of one of the most caring, loving,
: sexually open minded commuity of minority interested malcontents.
: You seem to think that child rapist propaganda has been silenced, it's
: as here as it ever was. What isn't is gay/lesbian/stright sexual
: malcontents who aren't happy having the world tell them what is and
: is not acceptable behaviour in their bedrooms, or what is and is not
: acceptable accessories to use in their play.
IMHO opinion open-mindedness and child rapist are incompatable ideas.
(it is not unknown for child rapists to continue to attack the same
person for up to 20-30 years)
(my qualifications: I have met and talked to several people who have
been victims of child rape)
: How many people can't find mainstream propaganda in glossy
: magazines, or on tv or in popsongs advocating a truely unhealthy
: attitude. But what has been silenced is a source of information
(though some of the same media offers exactly the opposite attitude
how does one tell the differance, not easily, one way of doing this
is to present an unhealty attitude then 'demolish' it)
: pertaining directly to the theory and practice of giving pleasure
: safely in a scary world. The twisted minds have now triumphed by
: silencing the discussion, while the cartoons continue endlessly.
: Real human misery, is not being able to sexually please your partner(s)
: in the way that they would like. I'm sorry that is way to strong,
: there is real horror being perpetrated by monsters in inhuman ways,
: and I do not wish to sound like I am excusing date-rapists, rapists,
: sexists, homophobes, or any of their ill ilk. But why stifle attempts
: to produce happiness in a severely misunderstood underground, when it
: has no effect on the real villains?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 3 08:31:22 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 12:27:57 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> Look. There are three main questions here, and I seem to
>disagree with most people on these newsgroups (though not with
>most people in the world) about their answers. Most of the rest
>is just hot air.
Of course, most people in the world would love to have the freedom to
actually discuss such touchy matters openly, but that's a differenet
problem.
>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
> child sexual abuse?
(1) Is there violent material that, if it were readily available,
would make some people more prone to commit acts of violence and
child abuse?
or
(1) Is there material depicting drug abuse that, if it were readily available,
would make some people more prone to commit acts of drug abuse and
push child drug abuse?
or
>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
> rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
> allow it to be available anyway?
I don't even have to change the words here.
>(3) Where do you draw the line?
People must draw their own lines -- for themselves and their families.
Given the above, virtually no movie, book, comic, would play,and
especially not the Bible. Any category you can come up with will have
some classic novel or film that would be banned under such things.
Under my first counter-question, we would have to ban all Sherlock
Holmes and Agatha Cristie novels, virtually every American film of the
last two decades, including Apocolypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July,
Mississippi Burning, all monster and sci-fi movies like T2 and Star
Trek. Or should we only ban depictions of certain kinds of violence?
And what kinds? The problem would still remain.
Under the second counter-questions, movies like Days of Wine and Roses,
Clean & Sober, Bright Lights, Big City and books like Wired, and other
autobiographies from Hollywood would necessarily be banned.
You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
criminal activity. This is clearly not so, otherwise everyone who's
ever seen one of the above works would be a violent maniac or a
drug-abuser, or by your thinking, a rapist. Everyone on the Meese
commission must be locked up -- surely no one can view as much filthy
pornography as they did without being driven to rape and child
molestation or worse.
Just because some people are unstable enough to be triggered by
pornography to rape, and some people are unstable enough to be triggered
by Freddy Kruger to go out an kill people with razors, and some people
see others using drugs are compelled to also use drugs is no reason to
bring society as a whole down to their level. Some people are unable to
keep themselves from becoming obese, should we ban chocolate cake?
Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy.
Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 10:33:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID: <9208031434.AA01407@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 04:34:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 10:33:25 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Aug 92 22:08:21 GMT
Recently, three new newsgroups were created in "alt" group hierarchy.
Among those three, one is "alt.moslem.wanted.gay".
Needless to say, muslim community on net is very much offended
by the creation of this group. Obviously one's sexual preference is
not something related to or classifiable with any community or religion.
Since this group is created in "alt" domain, no voting was required. and
this is my personal belief that the person who created this group, did
that intentionally to offend muslims.
My question is that, is there anything that can be done to dissolve
this group? If voting on net is required for that, muslims will
overwhelmingly reject the idea of this (afterall this is supposed
to be a newsgroup for muslims!).
Please reply by email as I do not follow these groups.
Regards
Zafar Kazmi
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 10:33:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID: <9208031435.AA06720@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 04:35:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 10:33:51 1992
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID: <30smyck.adamsr@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 92 23:52:53 GMT
In article zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi) writes:
>
>Recently, three new newsgroups were created in "alt" group hierarchy.
>Among those three, one is "alt.moslem.wanted.gay".
>
>Needless to say, muslim community on net is very much offended
>by the creation of this group. Obviously one's sexual preference is
>not something related to or classifiable with any community or religion.
>Since this group is created in "alt" domain, no voting was required. and
>this is my personal belief that the person who created this group, did
>that intentionally to offend muslims.
>
>My question is that, is there anything that can be done to dissolve
>this group? If voting on net is required for that, muslims will
>overwhelmingly reject the idea of this (afterall this is supposed
>to be a newsgroup for muslims!).
>
While I can understand the position of the poster, I cannot agree
with his desire to eliminate the newsgroup.
It _is_ of course entirely possible that the newsgroup _was_ created
out of a desire to irritate the muslims on the network - but it is equally
possible that it wasn't (particularly since the other two newsgroups were
_also_ alt.moslem. groups, neither of which would have been objectionable to
Islamic readers).
Regardless of the purpose of the newsgroup's creation, however, to
remove it for religious reasons (or any other reason not specifically
related to a violation of Usenet guidelines) would set a dangerous
precident. There are _many_ newsgroups which are offensive to various
religious bodies - ranging from soc.bi to alt.atheism to alt.drugs
In _each_ of these cases, one or more religions could make as valid
a case for removing the group as could be made for the removal of
alt.moslem.wanted.gay Yet, _none_ of those cases would justify their
removal.
If Usenet is to have any value as a tool of communications, it
_must_ be totally free of any form of censorship. This includes censorship
based on political, moral, OR religious grounds.
My vote, should one ever be called on this issue, is in favor of
retaining the newsgroup.
--
Rick Adams | KE8HH /|\ You are right from your side,
adamsr@ais.org / | \ And I am right from mine.
adamsr@netcom.com \ /|\ / We're both just one too many mornings,
rick.adams on GEnie \|/ And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 10:34:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID: <9208031436.AA03839@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 04:36:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 10:34:58 1992
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992Aug3.024428.400@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 02:44:28 GMT
In article <92Aug03.012247.18089@acs.ucalgary.ca>, kinawi@acs.ucalgary.ca (Husam Kinawi) writes:
|> Distribution: news.admin, news.groups, news.misc
A clue for the original poster in this thread, who put this (without the
spaces) in the Distribution header line: This is wrong. You meant to put this
in the Newsgroups header.
A clue for Husam Kinawi, who added the spaces: They're wrong, too.
|> then does it mean that anyone can create a
|> newsgroup??
Anybody can send out a control message to create a newsgroup in *any*
hierarchy, if they know how. The more important question is whether or not
sites honor the control message.
|> If that is true, then anyone can also remove a newsgroup!
Anybody can send out a control message to remove a newsgroup, too. However,
the situation is different because although many sites honor all newgroup
messages automatically, fewer sites honor rmgroup messages automatically,
requiring news admins to intercede by hand in order to remove a newsgroup.
Therefore, if a newgroup and then rmgroup message goes out, the newsgroup will
be created and then not destroyed on many sites.
|> Needless to say, I am not quite aware of newsgroups creation/deletion rules, so
|> is there a FAQ somewhere around?
Yes. I suggest you read these two postings:
Subject: How to Create a New Newsgroup
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.groups,news.admin,news.announce.newgroups,news.answers
Subject: Creating a new "alt" group -- guidelines
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.groups,news.answers
Available in the indicated USENET newsgroup(s), or via anonymous ftp from
pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) in the files:
/pub/usenet/news.answers/creating-newsgroups/part1
/pub/usenet/news.answers/alt-config-guide
Also available from mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu by sending a mail
message containing any or all of:
send usenet/news.answers/creating-newsgroups/part1
send usenet/news.answers/alt-config-guide
Send a message containing "help" to get general information about the
mail server.
--
Jonathan Kamens jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena Moderator, news.answers
(Send correspondence related to the news.answers newsgroup
{and ONLY correspondence related to the newsgroup}
to news-answers-request@MIT.Edu.)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 13:01:41 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Offensive Newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992Aug3.162611.15992@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Aug 92 16:26:11 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: From: zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi)
: Newsgroups: news.admin
: Subject: Offensive Newsgroup
: Message-ID:
: Date: 2 Aug 92 22:08:21 GMT
:
:
: Recently, three new newsgroups were created in "alt" group hierarchy.
: Among those three, one is "alt.moslem.wanted.gay".
:
: Needless to say, muslim community on net is very much offended
: by the creation of this group. Obviously one's sexual preference is
: not something related to or classifiable with any community or religion.
: Since this group is created in "alt" domain, no voting was required. and
: this is my personal belief that the person who created this group, did
: that intentionally to offend muslims.
:
: My question is that, is there anything that can be done to dissolve
: this group? If voting on net is required for that, muslims will
: overwhelmingly reject the idea of this (afterall this is supposed
: to be a newsgroup for muslims!).
:
: Please reply by email as I do not follow these groups.
:
: Regards
:
: Zafar Kazmi
From the control newsgroup the whole thread
Path: sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!rdc
From: rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor)
Newsgroups: control,talk.bizarre
Subject: creation of alt.wanted.moslem.women
Message-ID: <=bmm8la.rdc@netcom.com>
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:07:19 GMT
Control: newgroup alt.wanted.moslem.women
Followup-To: talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.newbie
Organization: Herbalife Inc.
Lines: 16
Approved: rdc@netcom.com
IN SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN ahmad@frisco.unet.com (Ahmad Esmaeili) wrote:
)
) I have received many positive replies from our brothers in Islam in
) support of starting the "alt.moslem_girls.wanted" newsgroup. Some
) sisters suggested the creation of another newsgroup called
) "alt.moslem_men.wanted".
--
_______________________________________________________________
Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor,
Dietary Researcher,
Fiber Team, "Be one, be peace, be like the hajiputki"
Herbalife Inc. -Maharji Marhiyogi
E-mail: rdc@netcom.com
_______________________________________________________________
Control: newgroup alt.wanted.moslem.men
Newsgroups: control,talk.bizarre
Path: sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!warwick!slxsys!pipex!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!rdc
From: rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor)
Subject: creation of alt.wanted.moslem.men
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 04:08:19 GMT
Organization: Herbalife Inc.
Approved: rdc@netcom.com
Followup-To: talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.newbie
Lines: 16
IN SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN ahmad@frisco.unet.com (Ahmad Esmaeili) wrote:
)
) I have received many positive replies from our brothers in Islam in
) support of starting the "alt.moslem_girls.wanted" newsgroup. Some
) sisters suggested the creation of another newsgroup called
) "alt.moslem_men.wanted".
--
_______________________________________________________________
Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor,
Dietary Researcher,
Fiber Team, "Be one, be peace, be like the hajiputki"
Herbalife Inc. -Maharji Marhiyogi
E-mail: rdc@netcom.com
_______________________________________________________________
Path: sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!rdc
From: rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor)
Newsgroups: control,talk.bizarre
Subject: creation of alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:10:12 GMT
Control: newgroup alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Followup-To: talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.newbie
Organization: Herbalife Inc.
Lines: 22
Approved: rdc@netcom.com
IN SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN ahmad@frisco.unet.com (Ahmad Esmaeili) wrote:
)
) I have received many positive replies from our brothers in Islam in
) support of starting the "alt.moslem_girls.wanted" newsgroup. Some
) sisters suggested the creation of another newsgroup called
) "alt.moslem_men.wanted".
IN SOC.MOTSS gooley@netcom.com (Markian Virgin Gooley) writes:
)
) As a gay muslim, I would be interested in a corresponding
) gay moslem newsgroup.
)
--
_______________________________________________________________
Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor,
Dietary Researcher,
Fiber Team, "Be one, be peace, be like the hajiputki"
Herbalife Inc. -Maharji Marhiyogi
E-mail: rdc@netcom.com
_______________________________________________________________
{This looks like a forged message}
Path: sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!warwick!str-ccsun!strath-cs!uknet!mcsun!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!nobody
From: nobody
Newsgroups: control,misc.test
Subject: rmgroup alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Message-ID: <89007.303901@nowhere>
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:31:24 GMT
Control: rmgroup alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Followup-To: alt.test
Lines: 2
Approved: nobody@nowhere
no reply
ignore
Path: sunserver1.aston.ac.uk!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!rdc
From: rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor)
Newsgroups: control,talk.bizarre,alt.wanted.moslem.gay,alt.wanted.moslem.women,alt.wanted.moslem.men
Subject: THE REMOVAL OF ALT.WANTED.MOSLEM.GAY
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Aug 92 04:01:59 GMT
Control: rmgroup alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Followup-To: alt.wanted.moslem.gay,alt.wanted.moslem.women,misc.test,alt.newbie,alt.wanted.moslem.men
Organization: Herbalife Inc.
Lines: 18
Approved: rdc@netcom.com
My moslem brothers who object strongly to the alt.wanted.moslem.gay
newsgroup: I feel compelled to help and do the good work of Allah.
I will you all my power to remove this blastphomous newsgroup. It is
now clear to all that it is an abomination that the words moslem and
gay appear together.
Peace to all.
--
_______________________________________________________________
Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor,
Dietary Researcher,
Fiber Team, "Be one, be peace, be like the hajiputki"
Herbalife Inc. -Maharji Marhiyogi
E-mail: rdc@netcom.com
_______________________________________________________________
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 3 15:43:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Usenet censorship in Canadian universities
Message-ID: <9208031943.AA08581@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 09:43:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 15:43:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.censorship
Subject: Usenet censorship in Canadian universities
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Aug 92 06:13:05 GMT
As a result of some negative publicity, there is a trend amongst Canadian
Universities toward censorship of Usenet feeds. The University of Waterloo
recently cut off access to several newsgroups, but restored it after a
major outcry from users. The University of British Columbia, after a
negative newspaper article and a letter from a student to the president,
has cut off (in its major feed) access to alt.sex, rec.arts.erotica
and several other groups. UBC, in conjunction with other universities
across Canada, will also examine other groups shortly.
While I don't regularly read the newsgroups that have been deleted so
far, I am against the censorship and am concerned with where it may lead.
Attached is the text of a letter from the UBC president to the campus
community.
David Dalton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 1992
Dear Colleague:
Pornography on Internet
Several colleagues have written to me regarding the availability of
pornographic material on UBCnet. At the outset, I wish to assure you that
neither I nor the university condone such vulgar and reprehensible "news" items
on computer network bulletin boards.
My office has instructed the University Computing Services (UCS) to delete such
material from the UCS computer files. Some of the material forwarded to my
office, however, was not found on the UCS computer files. Through this letter
I am requesting all UBC units to be very vigilant that the university property
is not being used to access, create or store such pornographic material on
university computing equipment.
Associate Vice President B. Sheehan is in the process of establishing a small
task force, as soon as possible, to examine appropriate uses of information
technology at UBC and make recommendations. You may wish to speak to Dr.
Sheehan about terms of reference for the task force. He has been working on
this issue with the UCS staff for several weeks and has been collecting
background information from other institutions worldwide. It may also be of
interest to the university community that CA*Net has offered to work with
A.U.C.C. to develop both short-term and long-term strategy to address this
poisonous invasion of our institutions.
Sincerely,
David W. Strangway
President
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 17:14:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [can.general, et al.] Re: "Computers graphic...", letter to the Globe.
Message-ID: <9208032113.AA09094@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 11:13:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 17:14:05 1992
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic...", letter to the Globe.
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 17:27:05 GMT
Message-ID: <2A7D6C6C.72E6@telly.on.ca>
In article <1992Jul29.212126.6724@ac.dal.ca> phoward@ac.dal.ca (Philip M. Howard) writes:
>The following letter was faxed to the Globe today. Not 30min. later I got a
>call from Peter Moon, the reporter who wrote the article. He was still
>chuckling... He admitted, though, that the Internet is a hard concept to
>grasp (no ribald pun intended).
After you snicker at its cuteness, the novelty of the letter wears thin.
Arguing over semantics, rather than the heart of the issue, is not
the way to attack this. Especially when the nitpicking is mostly untrue.
>The following response to your front page "expose" of the Internet is
>written in the style of a network article, or "post.
An in-joke if ever there was one. If you wanted to convey the image that
the net is populated with self-absorbed propellerheads who are infatuated
with their own cleverness, congratulations.
If you want to preach to the converted, you know where to post. If your
intent was to speak to a public that knows nothing about Usenet, the
people who are genuinely concerned about the crap element, talk in
plain English.
You *must* know your audience if you genuinely want to communicate.
>" On "the Net", quoted
>passages are preceded by the '>' symbol (inserted automatically by software
>when replying to a post). Puns or tongue-in-cheek remarks often end in a
>"smilie", a sideways happy-face symbol made up of keyboard characters; eg,
>:-). Critical remarks are known as "flames."
Is a letter to the editor really the place for a tutorial? If you're
trying to make a point, you're failing, because you've already lost half
the readers who started to read this.
>Postings are usually far more
>casual than is common with written correspondence.
That's not true (not regarding my corresposndence, at least) and in any
respect it's no excuse. Just because the medium allows people to blow off
comments without thinking, is not a pressing reasons for them to do so.
A large portion of what you would call "noise" on the net consists of
people speaking before they think, in front of an audience of tens of thousands.
Perhaps if people spent a little extra time thinking about their comments,
or cooling off from a flame, the net's signal to noise would be in better
shape.
>Acronyms like IMHO (In
>My Humble Opinion) and BTW (By The Way) are used freely to the distress of
>those new to the system, the "newbies."
Could you possibly be any more condescending and patronizing? Not to
mention the awful (but true) implication that the system is *deliberately*
intimidating to novices.
Are you trying to help us or hurt us?
>Postings usually conclude with
>information about the poster. These signature lines, or "sigs", may include
>sarcastic disclaimers along the lines of "The opinions expressed are not
>necessarily those of my employer."
How little you must know about the reality of large portions of the net.
These disclaimers are very real, and often quite necssary. There has been
a recent incident I have seen where people have incorrectly attached an
individual's personal comments to his company's policy.
>(Note: For correct spacing, reproduce the following in a mono-spaced font
>like courier, 80 column page width.)
So it's not enoygh they should reprint the article, they should conform
to your requests of typeface and layout. How, in any way, shape or form,
does this advance the cause of your rebuttal? It's just juvenile, and
more likely to turn people off than win you any support.
When you write for a paper, whether it's an opinion piece, an article,
or an ad, you must consider your audience. How they want to read what
you say is orders of magnitude more important than how you want to write
it. That is, unless your only interest is in amusing yourself.
>>Pornographic photographs and obscene stories... are available to
>>virtually anyone in Canada with a computer and a telephone link.
>Uh, well, nooo... unless one has purchased the network service, access is
>not *publicly* available,
What point are you trying to make? It IS AVAILABLE, though some
people will have to pay for it. Many people, including some who have
access to public-access sites, get it for free.
The fact that Peter, a computer novice, was able to get in, proves his
statement true. Services like Uunet will give anyone a feed for a price.
Services like CRS will give anyone access to Usenet reading and posting,
for a price.
Either it's available or it ain't. You haven't proven your case that it
isn't, while sidetracking the issue with nitpicks. This weakens your
credibility when arguing the other stuff.
Your attempt to confuse the issue by arguing semantics does nothing to
help your cause.
>Peter... as you confess later in the article
"Confess"? Give me a break. You're not fooling a soul.
>>Canadian universities enter the computer system that includes the
>>controversial sex bulletin boards through Internet.
>
>Peter, I think you really missed the mark on this one. Of the almost 3,000
>*Usenet* (to be accurate) discussion groups with worldwide distribution,
>you mentioned the three or four sleazy ones. In fact, Usenet discussion
>groups or "netnews" is only one feature of this "network of networks."
That does not make his statement incorrect. The Internet is a tool, a
medium, though which one can access Usenet news (amongst other things
like smtp, ftp, etc).
Universities "enter", or access, Usenet, primarily through the Internet
(using nntp). You may not like his terminology, but he's got the gist of it
right.
>Electronic mail, the speedy transfer of vast data files, and Internet
>accessible library catalogs and databases make up a far greater portion of
>network traffic. The Internet is a tremendous knowledge resource and your
>article only covered the worst of it.
Irrelevant. His article centered on the portion, no matter how small a
portion of the net it was, that people found offensive. Even if it
turned out to be .00000001% of resources did not make it less offensive.
And stats showing the sex groups to be amongst the most popular may
prove a point that although they're a small part of the Internet's
traffic, they're a significantly larger part of its interest to users.
>It was as if you had visited a foreign land and spent your entire visit at
>the garbage dump! You overlooked the language and the culture.
Your attempt to introduce the language and culture does nothing to help
your case. A gif of a woman getting fucked by a horse does not become
less offensive to someone just because they know the lingo of the medium.
>The Internet
>is becoming, to employ a common phrase, a "distinct society."
What an absolute crock of shit, not to mention the incredible show of
bad taste used by drawing a link with the present constitutional problems.
The only thing distinct about the Internet is that it's presently
top-heavy with techies, students, and assorted others without lives.
>Its ethos is
>people helping people, sharing information and computing resources, working
>together in a way that outsiders cannot fully appreciate.
Condescending and arrogant. I spoke to Moon and he was quite aware of
the self-help spirit on the net. He was, by his own admission, centring
on that portion of the net which was seen by some to be offensive.
A significant number of people on the net do not share your above ethos.
Where is this ethos in talk.bizarre? In alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork...?
In the talk.politics and soc.culture flamefests?
Where is that ethos amongst those who wrote, repost and continue to
request re-posting and re-mailing of Cindy's Torment?
>We are not the
>computer hackers of common lore.
The style of your letter demonstrates the opposite.
>IMHO the subject deserved
>fuller coverage than that very narrow article which could only have been
>meant to appeal the most prurient interests of your readers.
It took a whole page, in the front section of a newspaper mainly
concerned with business and politics. That's more than any other
mainstream media has done, and it, by its author's admission, is only
scratching the surface.
But saying that you can't explain anything because you can't explain
everything at once, is dishonest.
>BTW, these comments will have been available to tens of thousands of people
>by the time you get around to deciding whether or not to include them on
>the Letters to the Editor page. They will circle the globe in can.general
>and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk :-)
So? Who in the Globe's audience gives a damn how many computer geeks
read what you've said?
>Please direct any flames to my email box since I am not a regular reader of
>can.sex.globe&mail... *wink* ;-)
An approriate in-joke end to a letter which in my opinion, did more to
hurt the net's case for freer speech than to help it.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Was "Trouble" (from the Broadway Show, Music Man) the first rap song?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 17:48:17 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: 3 Aug 92 21:35:49 GMT
In article <1992Jul30.025150.6252@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[...]
>>I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
>>setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
>>finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
>>offensiveness or less.
>This is not an "obscenity" standard; it is a PG-13 standard. The word
>"obscene" has a specific legal meaning. It only refers to the hardest
>of the hard core and only then if it has no other value.
>_Penthouse_ magazine, for example, is not obscene. (see references)
Ok, fair enough. What should we call this, a decency policy? Sexual
harassment policy?
>If the policy is justifiable, it is because the display of sexually
>offensive pictures in a public terminal room might violate your
>university's sexual harassment policy.
That's basically it. Again, users may say ANYTHING they want in
appropriate newsgroups and to each other, and may make ANY MATERIAL
publicly readable. All we're asking is that users be offered a choice.
>Be careful that you don't overstep your authority. For example, the
>library computer system (LCS) at my school, U. of Illinois, contains
>serveral books with the word "fuck" in their title. Does your policy
>prohibit access to LCS or similar library computer systems?
I still think there's a difference between *allowing* access and
trying to *force* access. Again, our users may access anything they
please and make anything they please visible, and may use the public
message system to post pointers to anything they like.
Besides, we are not a library, we are a research computer system
expressly designated as being for teaching and research purposes.
Personal pleasure and exploration are essentially "leftover"
activities which are allowed as long as they do not load the machines.
I got nasty mail from the department chair when a user posted a
public message about a game system, on the grounds that the system was
not intended for playing games. We had to clarify our policy, and
spell out what constituted "off hours" and what was allowed (game
playing only when the load average is below xxx)
. If things got too ugly, it seems totally within the rights of the
administration to say that the system is for work use ONLY. I see some
of what we are doing as forestalling any possible clash like that
(which we would probably lose, as this university is VERY short on
funds) by trying to set standards which we can all agree to live with.
If we can settle all our disagreements within the department, we can
avoid some of the problems that have plagued other schools. Remember,
we WANT, personally, to have the most open system possible, and we are
coming pretty close!
--
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 Aug 3 17:48:41 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: 3 Aug 92 20:58:29 GMT
In article <1992Jul30.074946.15202@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>:I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
>:setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
>:finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
>:offensiveness or less.
>My first thought when I read this was: "I wonder how many of their
>users are under 13?"
At least half a dozen.
Also it seemed a reasonable measure of obscenity...it *is* harassment
if people in the workplace are exposed to unsolicited obscene
material.
We alow folks to have ANYTHING THEY WANT in their private files and to
make ANYTHING THEY WANT publicly readable. They may create any mailing
list they want, and post to usenet within the standard guidelines
distributed in Comp.news.newusers etc.
ALL we are limiting is what may be displayed in certain public,
unsolicited areas... mainly finger (which is considered a systems
tool) and publicly visible X-terminal screens.
If someone wanted to post the lyrics to cop killer, we would NOT ban
it from the system, we would just ask them to replace the message with
a pointer to a publicly readable file.
This isn't censorship, and it's not an "unreasonable hardship" to
those who which to read this material. It simply makes accessing
this material a matter of conscious choice. I think it's analagous to
making users check out a library book, or take the book from an open
stack, as opposed to posting the contents of the book on the walls.
If we limited access in any way, or made users go through any
paperwork to get acess, I think that would be censorship.
--
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 Aug 3 20:46:29 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk
From: kbennion@dsd.es.com (Karl Bennion)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug4.002431.6899@dsd.es.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 92 00:24:31 GMT
Folks, can we take news.admin of the newsgrous path an not clutter up new.admin
with this "Computers graphic when it comes to porn" stuff, PLEASE!!!!! :-}
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Karl Bennion : Pro is to Con as Progress is to :
: Evans & Sutherland : Congress! :
: (kbennion@dsd.es.com) : Anonymous :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 21:40:16 1992
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Survey on user privacy
Date: 4 Aug 1992 01:39:40 GMT
Message-ID:
[parents of deceased user want access to the account]
Seems to me that you should treat the account and its files the same
way you'd treat a filing cabinet and its files. Would you give the
parents access to the files in the user's office?
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@sun.com
terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode,
DSS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, SDI, communist, proletariat.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 10:58:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college,alt.privacy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.30
Message-ID: <1992Aug4.145837.8468@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 14:58:37 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n30".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n30
--- begin abstract ---
[Best of May 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, Andrew, and by guest editor A. Andrew Brennan.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses some of the privacy risks of Florida State's new
ID/ATM/Calling card.
1. Florida State's new Seminole ACCESS system (for Fall '92) will
combine an ID card, ATM card, MCI calling card and a credit card all
in one. While touting convenience and ease of use, it also permits
ACCESS offices to track an alarming number of an individual's
activities - it's all in the database!
<9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Notes 2-3 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
2. "When Iowa State University restricted alt.sex it violated the
principles of academic freedom. When it punished a student for
exercising his Constitutional right to free expression in a University
forum and imposed that punishment summarily in violation of that
student's Constitutional right to due process, it violated the law."
<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
3. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
4. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions.
<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
5. UNL has said that had they continued to supply the "pornographic"
alt. hierarchy and someone had complained to the federal government,
UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria
of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, or risk losing
NSFNET access. This is based on a misunderstanding of the NSFNET's
powers and of their policies.
<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
Note 6 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
6. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
Notes 7-8 discuss censorship of the alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the
light of recent events in Canada.
7. "The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC
Radio's news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored
on 9755 KHz at 2300 UTC. All spelling and punctuation has been added,
and may be incorrect."
8. In a letter to the administrators at the University of Manitoba I
said, among other things, that "there are those who feel very strongly
that a University should never tell its people what they can't read."
<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
Notes 9-10 discuss trying to appeasing Canadian censors.
9. If we are to ensure that alt.sex.bondage is safe from the censors -
in Canada or elsewhere - we must make an effort to exclude depictions
of non-consensual sex from the newsgroup.
<1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca>
10. If we encourage self-censorship of alt.sex.bondage, and advocate
creating `alt.sex.nonconsensual' as both a forum for that genre of
writing and as a target for the Canadian censors, then we allow them a
foot in the door. We must stand by our right to write about what we
choose.
<15492@autodesk.COM>
Notes 11-12 are about the how Usenet fits in with the university ideal
and the meaning of peer pressure in the context of Usenet.
11. "Usenet is *most positively* an invaluable resource. If anything
represents the free flow of information and expression of ideas that
our institutions of higher learning purport to value, this is it."
<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
12. 'Peer pressure' is the Usenet community telling the jerk that he is
a jerk. 'Administrative sanction' is the sysadmins telling/forcing
the user to become normal - often by removing his 'voice.'
Administrative sanctions should be based on policies previously set
forth for the user community. Usenet's 'peer pressure' becomes
necessary when it is realized how few administrative sanctions there
actually are and that even these are based on the individual
institution's policies - there is no network-wide police force.
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 06:58:21 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.001511.27836@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 00:15:11 GMT
In article hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd) writes:
>... The whole point to a.s.b. was to make the giving of
>consent, and the open questioning of "normal" power relations inherant
>in sex appear in the foreground as something to step back and question.
>... Like abortion,
>it will be done, the question is only how much information and safety
>will be available to those who decide to do it.
I agree with you entirely. I have been reading
alt.sex.bondage since last September, and have been reading
articles from it since it was created in 1989. As many people
point out, most of the material on it is very helpful.
However, the direct cause of the censoring of a.s.b, at
Manitoba and SFU ACS, was "Farmer Bob" and stories like that.
Someone in the Winnipeg police department saw "Farmer Bob", an
article which was clearly illegal, and the universities in
question covered their asses the best way they could.
Of course, "Farmer Bob" can be sent out on, say, sci.logic;
but in that case it would probably be cancelled and/or removed
from individual machines. But alt.sex.bondage is a newsgroup
where such articles come across regularly, and its readership
is against cancelling such articles. It's very difficult to
defend a university against charges of wilfully importing
illegal material in those circumstances.
[DISCLAIMER: I am speaking *only* for myself in this article,
and all of my articles in fact; in particular, I have *no*
connection with SFU Academic Computing Services.]
If the a.s.b community could bring itself to cancel the
illegal articles, and put them in another newsgroup which Canada
could block, then there would be no reason to block a.s.b, and
the universities would feel freer to get it back. But proposing
such things in a.s.b gets you compared to Chamberlain appeasing
Hitler (this is first-hand knowledge!).
[some good points about other disturbing things in mass media]
>...I wish you to realize that a.s.b. was NOT about such things, and such
>things are still on the net, and that a group explicity about consensual
>activities was removed in the guise of dealing with such material....
I would say that a.s.b is not *primarily* about such
things, but it does crop up there and is never going to go away
unless the views of the readership change.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 06:58:24 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.002925.27929@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 00:29:25 GMT
In article <1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
>become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
>criminal activity.
No I don't. Read my article again please. You just went
through the usual steps: read the article, form an extreme
version of the guy's argument, hold the extreme version up for
ridicule.
--Jamie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 08:24:48 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.114622.27548@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Aug 92 11:46:22 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
:
: I agree with you entirely. I have been reading
: alt.sex.bondage since last September, and have been reading
: articles from it since it was created in 1989. As many people
: point out, most of the material on it is very helpful.
:
: However, the direct cause of the censoring of a.s.b, at
: Manitoba and SFU ACS, was "Farmer Bob" and stories like that.
: Someone in the Winnipeg police department saw "Farmer Bob", an
: article which was clearly illegal, and the universities in
: question covered their asses the best way they could.
:
: Of course, "Farmer Bob" can be sent out on, say, sci.logic;
Are not alt groups usually unmodorated anyway.
: but in that case it would probably be cancelled and/or removed
: from individual machines. But alt.sex.bondage is a newsgroup
: where such articles come across regularly, and its readership
: is against cancelling such articles. It's very difficult to
: defend a university against charges of wilfully importing
: illegal material in those circumstances.
Rather an intersting choice of words, considering that to
stop parts of a usenet feed one must take action.
(importing inplys that action be taken to get that specific material
there in the first place)
A closer model for usenet is that of broadcasting, e.g. someone
sets up a radio station outside your country and broadcasts things
you don't like.
The source is outside your juristiction, the transmission medium is
inside, but policing it is completly impractical.
HAVE NOT YOUR LAW IMFORCEMENT AGENCYS GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO?
Like catch real crooks?
:
: [DISCLAIMER: I am speaking *only* for myself in this article,
: and all of my articles in fact; in particular, I have *no*
: connection with SFU Academic Computing Services.]
:
: If the a.s.b community could bring itself to cancel the
: illegal articles, and put them in another newsgroup which Canada
It would be impossible for the readers on a.s.b (or any other
group) on what is and isn't illegal at the present time.
Unless the question of what is and isn't illegal to say can be
settled by INTERNATIONAL law then the whole argument is pointless
: could block, then there would be no reason to block a.s.b, and
: the universities would feel freer to get it back. But proposing
: such things in a.s.b gets you compared to Chamberlain appeasing
: Hitler (this is first-hand knowledge!).
And rightly so!!!
:
: [some good points about other disturbing things in mass media]
: >...I wish you to realize that a.s.b. was NOT about such things, and such
: >things are still on the net, and that a group explicity about consensual
: >activities was removed in the guise of dealing with such material....
:
: I would say that a.s.b is not *primarily* about such
: things, but it does crop up there and is never going to go away
: unless the views of the readership change.
If you have an unmodorated group anyone can post to it, that includes
jerks!
The only way this will go away is to have a moderated group,
are you prepared to PAY (yes it would really be a full time job) someone
to do this?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 5 10:16:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.140228.7609@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:02:28 GMT
In article <1992Aug5.114622.27548@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>: Of course, "Farmer Bob" can be sent out on, say, sci.logic;
>
>Are not alt groups usually unmodorated anyway.
No. A smaller percentage of alt groups are moderated than of
USENET groups, but there's nothing inherent about the altnet
that says "altnet groups are usually unmoderated."
>: [...] It's very difficult to
>: defend a university against charges of wilfully importing
>: illegal material in those circumstances.
>
>Rather an intersting choice of words, considering that to
>stop parts of a usenet feed one must take action.
>(importing inplys that action be taken to get that specific material
>there in the first place)
Bullshit. Are you a news administrator? I bet not. In order to
get any newsgroups you have to take action. Even if somebody blasts
news in your direction without you asking for it you still have to
set up receiving processes and file the stuff on your disks in order
to "receive" it.
>A closer model for usenet is that of broadcasting, e.g. someone
>sets up a radio station outside your country and broadcasts things
>you don't like.
More bullshit. This would be vaguely correct if those "broadcasts"
of yours didn't take up dozens of megabytes of space on my disks, but
since they do, your model is _completely_ useless. You think I'm
going to let some bozo fill up my disks unless I want to?
>The source is outside your juristiction, the transmission medium is
>inside, but policing it is completly impractical.
Yes, but receiving and storing it is at your option.
>HAVE NOT YOUR LAW IMFORCEMENT AGENCYS GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO?
>Like catch real crooks?
Those are my sentiments, too, but that doesn't make your argument
any more useful.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 10:36:43 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1992 13:08:57 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Aug05.130857.15827@NCoast.ORG>
As quoted from <1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu> by grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy):
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
>
> > Look. There are three main questions here, and I seem to
> >disagree with most people on these newsgroups (though not with
> >most people in the world) about their answers. Most of the rest
> >is just hot air.
>
> Of course, most people in the world would love to have the freedom to
> actually discuss such touchy matters openly, but that's a differenet
> problem.
>
> >(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
> > would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
> > child sexual abuse?
>
> (1) Is there violent material that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of violence and
> child abuse?
>
> or
>
> (1) Is there material depicting drug abuse that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of drug abuse and
> push child drug abuse?
>
> or
>
> >(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
> > rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
> > allow it to be available anyway?
>
> I don't even have to change the words here.
>
> >(3) Where do you draw the line?
>
> People must draw their own lines -- for themselves and their families.
>
> Given the above, virtually no movie, book, comic, would play,and
> especially not the Bible. Any category you can come up with will have
> some classic novel or film that would be banned under such things.
> Under my first counter-question, we would have to ban all Sherlock
> Holmes and Agatha Cristie novels, virtually every American film of the
> last two decades, including Apocolypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July,
> Mississippi Burning, all monster and sci-fi movies like T2 and Star
> Trek. Or should we only ban depictions of certain kinds of violence?
> And what kinds? The problem would still remain.
>
> Under the second counter-questions, movies like Days of Wine and Roses,
> Clean & Sober, Bright Lights, Big City and books like Wired, and other
> autobiographies from Hollywood would necessarily be banned.
>
> You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
> become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
> criminal activity. This is clearly not so, otherwise everyone who's
> ever seen one of the above works would be a violent maniac or a
> drug-abuser, or by your thinking, a rapist. Everyone on the Meese
> commission must be locked up -- surely no one can view as much filthy
> pornography as they did without being driven to rape and child
> molestation or worse.
>
> Just because some people are unstable enough to be triggered by
> pornography to rape, and some people are unstable enough to be triggered
> by Freddy Kruger to go out an kill people with razors, and some people
> see others using drugs are compelled to also use drugs is no reason to
> bring society as a whole down to their level. Some people are unable to
> keep themselves from becoming obese, should we ban chocolate cake?
>
> Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about
> Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
> Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy.
> Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 10:43:51 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.143219.7016@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:32:19 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>>You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
>>become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
>>criminal activity.
> No I don't. Read my article again please. You just went
>through the usual steps: read the article, form an extreme
>version of the guy's argument, hold the extreme version up for
>ridicule.
Bull. Your posting was putting forth such a statement. You put forth
a supposition, which you acknowledge is not widely held, that exposure
to pornography is causal vis men raping women. The underlying
assumption of such a statement is that men are incapable of controlling
whatever urges pornography may or may not arouse in them. While there
are surely some people like that, the vast majority of people who see
pornography live their lives without ever feeling like raping someone or
sexually abusing children. You feel that since there are _some_
unbalanced individuals who may be "pushed over the edge" by porn, it is
justifiable to ban porn for everyone.
I tried to point out that such a line of reasoning is facitious at best.
For if some people might actually act out what they see in porn, then
there also must be poeple who act out what they see in mainstream action
films where murder is a common theme. To continue the anology would
lead us to believe that we must then also ban such movies.
Such reasoning also fails to take into consideration that since
kiddie-porn is not particularly widely available, child sexual abusers
often have large collections of catalogs, flyers, etc. which depict
children in states of undress (advertising Scooby-Doo underware, for
example). Ted Bundy got his kicks from cheerleader magazines. Let's
ban K-mart flyers and cheerleader magazines. I mean, if _some_ weirdo
might feel like acting out his rape fantasy on a 6-year-old because of a
Sears catalog, then there must be other out there who *might* do the
same, and the public has to be protected from them.
The problems with a lowest-common-denominator society are manifest.
Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy.
Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 10:45:56 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.144547.29948@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:45:47 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
[...]
> However, the direct cause of the censoring of a.s.b, at
>Manitoba and SFU ACS, was "Farmer Bob" and stories like that.
>Someone in the Winnipeg police department saw "Farmer Bob", an
>article which was clearly illegal, and the universities in
>question covered their asses the best way they could.
[...]
But why was is alt.sex removed? Most of its articles aren't even
pornographic let alone obscene-by-the-Canadian-definition.
Here is a sample of alt.sex article titles (from the most recent
twenty-five articles):
3 - Can Blacks be Racist? (wa<>Re: Re: women and minority)
1 - SEX, LIES and GAFFER TAPE - Outtakes
2 - Want Jessica story...
2 - Can Blacks be Racist? (wa<>women and minority)(long!)
1 - Top Ten Cartoon^H^H^H^H^H^H^HComix Babes...
2 - Stud finders (usedta be Hanging...plants-)
1 - Turning On Techno
1 - Asahiya Bookstores Japanese Magazine subscription update
4 - Circumcission
1 - Good Places In London
1 - Adult stores in yellow pages?
These, like most articles in alt.sex, are just people discussing sex.
Is sex now a forbidden topic?
It the _Globe_ article, an administrator said "It's the same as if
somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse. We don't have them in the
university library."
He was wrong, you do have _Playboy_ in the university library.
The admin also said "I said it was not an issue of censorship."
I think he was wrong here too. I don't know what else to call it a
whole area of discourse is banned from what used to be a free forum at
a University.
The admin compared the computer facilities to a library. It's time for
the Univeristy to learn more about library policy and intellectual
freedom.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
umanitoba.ca
=================
Information related to the alt.sex* ban at the Univerity
of Manitoba. Including:
1) The Canadian Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Statement
2) A statement arguing that newsgroups should be selected like library
material (w/ U.S. centered references)
3) An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba
4) Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity
5) My comments on the U. of Manitoba's application of this definition.
6) History of the U. of Waterloo ban of rec.humor.funny and alt.sex*.
(They eventually restored the newsgroups.)
7) Abstract of Stanford's Dr. John McCarthy talk about the Waterloo ban.
8) The new U of Wateroo policy and the report that justifies it.
9) Information about the Computers and Academic Freedom discussion group.
10) Article explaining why the U. of Toronto will not be banning newsgroups.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/umanitoba.ca
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom umanitoba.ca
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 13:25:25 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.163753.28815@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Aug 92 16:37:53 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
: In article <1992Aug5.114622.27548@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
: >jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
: >: Of course, "Farmer Bob" can be sent out on, say, sci.logic;
: >
: >Are not alt groups usually unmodorated anyway.
:
: No. A smaller percentage of alt groups are moderated than of
Isn't that what I said?
: USENET groups, but there's nothing inherent about the altnet
: that says "altnet groups are usually unmoderated."
I never claimed this.
:
: >Rather an intersting choice of words, considering that to
: >stop parts of a usenet feed one must take action.
: >(importing inplys that action be taken to get that specific material
: >there in the first place)
:
: Bullshit. Are you a news administrator? I bet not. In order to
: get any newsgroups you have to take action. Even if somebody blasts
: news in your direction without you asking for it you still have to
: set up receiving processes and file the stuff on your disks in order
: to "receive" it.
And what will the out of the box (or rather out of the tar file) program
do once you have compiled it and set it running?
(maybe your softaware incorporates an AI to ensure that nothing you
might not like gets through.
: >A closer model for usenet is that of broadcasting, e.g. someone
: >sets up a radio station outside your country and broadcasts things
: >you don't like.
:
: More bullshit. This would be vaguely correct if those "broadcasts"
: of yours didn't take up dozens of megabytes of space on my disks, but
: since they do, your model is _completely_ useless. You think I'm
: going to let some bozo fill up my disks unless I want to?
and the 'importing' claim is not ('useless bullshit')?
:
: >The source is outside your juristiction, the transmission medium is
: >inside, but policing it is completly impractical.
:
: Yes, but receiving and storing it is at your option.
:
: >HAVE NOT YOUR LAW IMFORCEMENT AGENCYS GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO?
: >Like catch real crooks?
:
: Those are my sentiments, too, but that doesn't make your argument
: any more useful.
: --
: Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
: Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
: Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
: South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 5 13:47:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu (Mark Goodman 495-1412 CSIA Fellow)
Subject: removal from mailing list
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 17:39:37 GMT
Please remove my name from the mailing list for the digest of
the computers and academic freedom newsgroup. I do not have
enough time to read it. My name and email address are
Mark Goodman
goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu
I am sorry that I can't remember (or find) how to "unsubscribe"
using the listserver. Thank you.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 15:26:30 1992
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.183243.15310@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
Date: 5 Aug 92 18:32:43 GMT
In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
> This non-"debate" is just amazing to me. There's now a
>standard litany of extremizations, generalizations, and ad
>hominem attacks that gets trotted out every time someone objects
>to the Absolute Freedom of Speech party line.
>
> The real "debate" content is about 1 percent. It is very
>possible to disagree with me and truly make some sensibly-
>constructed counter-arguments. To postings and email of this
>kind, I always respond seriously. The rest of the postings and
>email, I either ignore or respond to with the ridicule they
>deserve.
>
> Look. There are three main questions here, and I seem to
>disagree with most people on these newsgroups (though not with
>most people in the world) about their answers. Most of the rest
>is just hot air.
>
> * * *
>
>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
> child sexual abuse?
If there is, who is *responsible* for this increased propensity. I
would think that *adults* cannot escape responsibility by pointing
to a magazine and saying, "It gave me ideas!" To share in the
responsibility, the magazine would have to do considerably more than
"give ideas".
>
> I say "yes", many people say "no". No one can "prove"
>this, *one way or the other*. The researchers are the first to
>point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything. But at
>some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
>public policy. The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
>decision to ban.
So, it is *possible* that you have committed murder, so let's throw
you in jail, just to be safe. I don't care that we don't know who it
was you *may* have killed, and we can't prove anything. The decision
to let you go free is just as experimental as the decision to jail you.
>
> Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
>Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
>anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
>not exclusively anti-pornography). I defy anyone to still say,
>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>adversely.
Again, whose responsibility is it? Does this "effect" amount to
incitement or conspiracy? If not, it doesn't seem strong enough to
do anything.
>
> I'm not saying you will be affected, I'm not saying me,
>I'm not saying most people. But there are some who will be
>affected, IMHO. Which leads to the next question.
>
> * * *
>
>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
> rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
> allow it to be available anyway?
Any ban on speech hands the power to the censors of deciding *what*
to ban. This is tantamount to letting them tell us what to think.
This robs the concept of "adult" of any meaning.
>
> I say "no", many people say "yes". I have no doubt that
>the legalization of erotic material involving rape and sex with
>children would lead to the creation of widely-accessible shops
>and groups which distribute such material in such a way as to
>reinforce, not break down, certain people's tendencies to commit
>such acts. There are already such groups, underground since
>such material is illegal (in Canada), and we can never eliminate
>them entirely; but we can at least restrict their accessibility.
>
> In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
>alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
>that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
>and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff). The
>reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
>real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
>ideal of absolute freedom of speech.
So, people are *so* irresponsible that they have to be told what to
think?
>
> * * *
>
>(3) Where do you draw the line?
>
> This is almost a non-question, since lawmakers, judges, and
>juries have been drawing lines like this for centuries. My
>answer is that *I* don't draw the line, *they* do.
They've been contradicting eachother for centuries, too. Lawmakers,
judges and juries don't have a monopoly on justice.
>
> The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
False analogy. Traffic laws don't restrict where you may go, they
regulate the *process* of getting there. Censorship regulates the
*results* of speech and the press, not its process.
>The existing censorship laws will always lead to debate, and will
>always be on the dividing line between what some people think and
>what other people think. That line has shifted a lot in recent
>decades. It will probably shift some more.
It's not *one* line. Just look at the different "community standards"
in the USA for an example of that. This "dividing line" is not
sacrosanct.
>
> I personally think the Canadian laws are not perfect,
>insofar as they lump pro-rape erotica and consensual spanking
>erotica together under "violence". But I'm unlikely to get a
>law which I consider perfect. Neither are you. My opinions are
>not an attempt by me to control your reading, they are an attempt
>to contribute to public discourse on a legal point.
Your discussion contains references to violence and rape, which, if
your opinions drive the lawmaking process, would be banned out of
hand (it is so, see your references to alt.sex.bondage, you have
not spared any discussion within the scope of that group). You
advocate laws that would muzzle your very advocacy of them, so you
contradict yourself.
>
> * * *
>
> Those are the main points. The rest is just babble, and
>the avoidance of these real discussions and the raising of the
>standard litany of non-arguments is the mark of someone who
>hasn't really thought things out.
Stop framing yourself as the only authority on the proper context of
discussions about censorship.
>
> The latest poster child of this kind is John Chapman, of
>right here at SFU. I'll close with my comments to his postings,
>tuned to the level of his discourse.
>
> * * *
>
>>Just who the hell do you think you are, that you think you can tell me
>>what to read?
>
> You must be thinking of someone else. I haven't been
>telling you what to read.
Yes you have, indirectly, by advocating controls on what he reads. If
I advocated state-sanctioned rape of censorship advocates, would you be
outraged? (I don't care what your gender is, men can be raped too, in
more ways than one)
>
>> You want the ability to draw lines? Fine. I suggest
>>we only let people with 2 PhD's (or proven kernel hacking abilities -
>>just to be flexible :-) decide what can appear in newspapers, books,
>>movies etc.
>
> Fine, peace be upon you. Now go argue your position in the
>House of Commons, and see how far you get.
We're discussing justice, not law. Law *should* follow justice, but
very often doesn't.
>
>> In fact people who want to control other people seem especially
>>dangerous - perhaps we should have them confined until they learn to
>>see things the *correct* way......hmmmm?
>
> I think you should see the ship's counsellor about this
>paradoxical self-hatred you have.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Would you care to provide some proof for this assertion or is
>>it just an unctrollable emotional reaction not subject to rational
>>thought.
>
> No. (Er, I assume that was a question.)
It *is* a question, lacking only a question mark. So, what are you
answering? Whether to provide a proof, or whether your previous
statement is an uncontrollable emotional reaction?
>
>>You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
>>is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions.
>
> Great idea. Second thing should be spelling.
Flaming spelling mistakes is a great way to catch flames from people
who notice *your* spelling errors.
>
>> Perhaps
>>the second (just to anticipate the usual attempt at supporting the
>>quoted argument above) ought to be the difference between correlations
>>and causal relationships.
>
> Oh OK, spelling can be third. But didn't you learn the
>difference between correlation and causation in university?
>I sure did. No, come to think of it, I tell a lie. I learned
>it in highschool.
Quite possibly many university graduates still don't know it (at least
in the USA). How can this be farfetched where colleges routinely offer
"English A" (Bonehead English)?
>
>> The third might be some education on bullshit
>>research by people with an axe to grind.
>
> Oh OK, spelling can be fourth. But John, I would never ask
>you to accept any research like that. Now go read Malamuth and
>Donnerstein and so on.
Keep flaming his spelling. Really. Go ahead.
.sig
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 18:13:12 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 17:00:46 GMT
In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
> child sexual abuse?
>
> I say "yes", many people say "no". No one can "prove"
>this, *one way or the other*. The researchers are the first to
>point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything. But at
>some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
>public policy. The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
>decision to ban.
No, it's not, it's a philosophical decision. The essence of the
freedom of speech and press guaranteed in the US Constitution can be
expressed in the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty". That is, in
American law, censoring requires _establishing_, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that you have a special case on your hands.
> Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
>Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
>anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
>not exclusively anti-pornography). I defy anyone to still say,
>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>adversely.
Nonsense. Donnerstein, himself, has demurred from such a
position. In fact, when you admit that the harm from such material can't
be "proven", you understate the problem: no one has even found serious
_evidence_ for such a conclusion.
>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
> rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
> allow it to be available anyway?
>
> I say "no", many people say "yes".
The US Constitution also says "no". Read your John Stuart Mill
if you want to understand why it's important.
>I have no doubt that
>the legalization of erotic material involving rape and sex with
>children would lead to the creation of widely-accessible shops
>and groups which distribute such material in such a way as to
>reinforce, not break down, certain people's tendencies to commit
>such acts.
You should then ask yourself why you have "no doubt", when you
also have no evidence. If nothing else, you might then understand why
people are disagreeing with you. Unsupported assertions don't make very
convincing arguments.
> In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
>alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
>that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
>and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff). The
>reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
>real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
>ideal of absolute freedom of speech.
You're assuming your conclusion, Jamie. What you, personally,
have "no doubt" about is irrelevant to anyone but you. It remains the
case that there is no evidence for your position, and that censoring on
the grounds of distaste or having a "bad feeling" is a dangerous
business, with no built-in limits on what is censorable.
>(3) Where do you draw the line?
>
> This is almost a non-question, since lawmakers, judges, and
>juries have been drawing lines like this for centuries. My
>answer is that *I* don't draw the line, *they* do.
And that should worry you more than it does.
> The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
"I'm so average and normal, they'll never come after me".
>The existing censorship laws will always lead to debate, and will
>always be on the dividing line between what some people think and
>what other people think. That line has shifted a lot in recent
>decades. It will probably shift some more.
No, censorship suppresses debate. You have an example sitting
right in front of you: alt.sex.bondage. You've already conceded the
legitimacy of most of what gets posted there, but with typical censor's
logic, you feel that suppressing the entire group is justified in order
to suppress the specific articles which you feel should be censored.
What is that if not suppressing debate?
> I personally think the Canadian laws are not perfect,
>insofar as they lump pro-rape erotica and consensual spanking
>erotica together under "violence". But I'm unlikely to get a
>law which I consider perfect.
I'm glad you've figured this much out, at least. Yes, Jamie, the
censors have their own agenda; it is not yours. Give them the power to
dictate to you what you may read, say, and think, and you can't expect
them to do it your way. This is not a circumstantial difficulty, it is
the key theoretical flaw in the whole notion of censorship: who is
competent to decide what should be allowed? For better or worse, the
answer to that one is easy and obvious: no one.
>Neither are you.
At least my preference is simple in principle: no content-based
restrictions on speech or press. The pro-censorship people don't even
_know_ what they want. Every proposed censorship standard I've ever seen
leaves the door wide open to censoring things the law's supporters
approve of. The law can't draw sharp distinctions when no such
distinctions exist. Instead, censorship law is perforce vague, and the
net result is censorship by consensus and popularity. What gets censored
is what pisses too many people off, and the specifics don't matter.
>My opinions are
>not an attempt by me to control your reading, they are an attempt
>to contribute to public discourse on a legal point.
When you get your way, other people's reading gets controlled. I
read a.s.b. That's none of your business, none of Canada's business, and
none of America's business. You have a right to disapprove, you have a
right to _support_ laws that would restrict access, but, in the
philosophical sense, I concede to no one and nothing the right to make
such decisions for me. I don't dispute your right to speak in favor of
censorship. I do dispute my government's or your government's right to
impose censorship.
- nothing fails like success - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: barry@netcom.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 20:29:12 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug06.002148.12441@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 92 00:21:48 GMT
In article <1992Aug5.002925.27929@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>>You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
>>become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
>>criminal activity.
>
> No I don't. Read my article again please. You just went
>through the usual steps: read the article, form an extreme
>version of the guy's argument, hold the extreme version up for
>ridicule.
The technique is called 'reductio ad absurdum', and it works, provided
the "extreme version" is only quantitatively different.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 22:10:44 1992
From: Bruce.K.Johnson@dartmouth.edu (Bruce K. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Networking Mac CPU's
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.013459.19235@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 92 01:34:59 GMT
I'm looking for information about creating a virtual multiprocessor
computer here on the Dartmouth campus network (where, at any given time
of the day, generally 100 or more Mac's are connected). This virtual
machine would be possible by using the networked Mac's for the multiple
CPU's (in their spare time, which is practically most of the time). I
have heard about people at Yale University working on a similar project
named LINDA, but haven't received any reply from the departments their.
If anyone esle has any information for me it would be greatly
appreciated. I can be reached at the following E-mail address:
BRUCE.JOHNSON@DARTMOUTH.EDU
Thanks
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 05:47:48 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.091651.2958@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Aug 92 09:16:51 GMT
barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
: In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
:
: At least my preference is simple in principle: no content-based
: restrictions on speech or press. The pro-censorship people don't even
: _know_ what they want. Every proposed censorship standard I've ever seen
: leaves the door wide open to censoring things the law's supporters
: approve of. The law can't draw sharp distinctions when no such
If you want a good example then come over here and read the 1911 Official
Secrets act. Then note that information covered by this act is freely
available outside the UK..
: distinctions exist. Instead, censorship law is perforce vague, and the
: net result is censorship by consensus and popularity. What gets censored
: is what pisses too many people off, and the specifics don't matter.
I thought it was more like 'what gets censored is what pisses off a
vocal minority'
If one looks at statistics claiming to show readership of newsgroups,
then alt.sex apprears near the top. (this is dispite widespread censorship)
: When you get your way, other people's reading gets controlled. I
: read a.s.b. That's none of your business, none of Canada's business, and
: none of America's business. You have a right to disapprove, you have a
: right to _support_ laws that would restrict access, but, in the
: philosophical sense, I concede to no one and nothing the right to make
: such decisions for me. I don't dispute your right to speak in favor of
: censorship. I do dispute my government's or your government's right to
: impose censorship.
I wonder seriously about people who wish to prevent discussion of
NORMAL human activities.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 6 05:59:56 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.092815.3054@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Aug 92 09:28:15 GMT
perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
: In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
: >
: >(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
: > would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
: > child sexual abuse?
:
: If there is, who is *responsible* for this increased propensity. I
: would think that *adults* cannot escape responsibility by pointing
: to a magazine and saying, "It gave me ideas!" To share in the
: responsibility, the magazine would have to do considerably more than
: "give ideas".
Unless they made a claim of insanity in the court?
Back to the argument about the status of information on how to commit
illegal acts.
(see info on software packages such as COPS and CRACK)
: >(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
: > rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
: > allow it to be available anyway?
:
: Any ban on speech hands the power to the censors of deciding *what*
: to ban. This is tantamount to letting them tell us what to think.
: This robs the concept of "adult" of any meaning.
If you want to stop people from getting info over netnews
then maybe you should also do the following; prevent them from
using the postal service, ditto telephone service; ditto allowing
them to talk to someone else and also take their passport away.
(otherwise people might carry on discussing by other means)
: We're discussing justice, not law. Law *should* follow justice, but
: very often doesn't.
This is unfortunatly only to true.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 6 10:36:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: alan@ssd.ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208061339.AA05740@george.ukpoit.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 14:41:37 GMT
Mark Evans>
>
> If you want a good example then come over here and read the 1911 Official
> Secrets act. Then note that information covered by this act is freely
> available outside the UK..
Forget outside, information covered by this act is freely avaliable INSIDE
the UK.
--
Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England
alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214261
iT - The Information Technology Business | explist now set to 3 days.
Of The Post Office : In Tune With Technology | Anyone got a 1.2 Gig disk?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 11:59:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: weisstr%phvax.dnet@smithkline.com
Subject: RE: Computer graphics when it comes to porn
Message-ID: <9208061552.AA00691@smithkline.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 07:52:55 GMT
>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
> child sexual abuse?
> I say "yes", many people say "no". No one can "prove"
>this, *one way or the other*. The researchers are the first to
>point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything. But at
>some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
>public policy. The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
>decision to ban.
> Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
>Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
>anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
>not exclusively anti-pornography). I defy anyone to still say,
>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>adversely.
> I'm not saying you will be affected, I'm not saying me,
>I'm not saying most people. But there are some who will be
>affected, IMHO. Which leads to the next question.
O.K. you start this argument stating that there is no provable
conclusion, yet you state that in your humble opinion, there is
one. Is your "humble" opinion so important that entire news reading
public must agree with it? I have read Donnerstein and Malamuth's
studies, and yet I am not convinced, where does that leave your
argument?.....
>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
> rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
> allow it to be available anyway?
> I say "no", many people say "yes". I have no doubt that
>the legalization of erotic material involving rape and sex with
>children would lead to the creation of widely-accessible shops
>and groups which distribute such material in such a way as to
>reinforce, not break down, certain people's tendencies to commit
>such acts. There are already such groups, underground since
>such material is illegal (in Canada), and we can never eliminate
>them entirely; but we can at least restrict their accessibility.
> In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
>alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
>that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
>and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff). The
>reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
>real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
>ideal of absolute freedom of speech.
Dogmatic ideal? You make it sound like a crime, yet your very
letter is an excercise in free speech, but that' another flame.
To the point: Has it ever occured to you that the kind of person
that will be affected by this material may already be inclined to
action? Do you really think that someone who is capable of rape,
or child molestation really needs to find a.s.b to fully form the
idea? There is a school of thought that states that this sort of
discussion group may actually prevent violence by allowing a safe
place to vent emotion and feelings. IMHO repression of those feelings
and emotions the actual cause of the sort of violence that you fear.
Remember rape, child molestation, etc. are not sexual crimes, they are
violent crimes....
>(3) Where do you draw the line?
> This is almost a non-question, since lawmakers, judges, and
>juries have been drawing lines like this for centuries. My
>answer is that *I* don't draw the line, *they* do.
> The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
>(deleted more of the same)
Perhaps that is an answer for you but I am not willing to let
"*they*" or anyone else make up my mind for me. And that is the
crux of the matter. You are willing to be led and so assume that
everyone else can also be led. I happen to believe that human beings
are intelligent and capable of drawing their own lines! If a person
is presented with all choices, they are capable of making intelligent,
well informed decisions, something they are not allowed to do when
some elite presents them with skewed choices.
And as for your "Stalin" statement: It's already happening, you
may think that it isn't repression because you share the "popular"
opinion. But I can assure you that you *don't* speak for the
rest of the world as you claimed earlier in you post. Nobody can...
> Those are the main points. The rest is just babble, and
>the avoidance of these real discussions and the raising of the
>standard litany of non-arguments is the mark of someone who
>hasn't really thought things out.
that statement is later followed by
>>You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
>>is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions.
> Great idea. Second thing should be spelling.
In closing I found this statement extremely distasteful. You claim
that you are above flames and "raising of the standard litany of non-
arguments", yet you could make this statement?
Jamie - keep your opinions and draw you own line and don't read a.s.b
but don't you dare try to draw mine or force me to let someone else do it
for me. That type of repression creates the violence you loathe...
Terry
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 12:04:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.31
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.160356.21036@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 16:03:56 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n31".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n31
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending June 28, 1992
[This issues guest editor is Lorrie Ackerman, lorracks@wucs1.wustl.edu
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
1. It is nearly impossible to keep students from posting to news, and there
is no good reason to do this. "It would seem to me that a little user
education, and instilling a sense of responsibility in students....would
be a lot more effective, and probably a lot less work."
2. Speculations on "why the First Amendment uses the language 'Congress
shall make no law....' while the remainder of the Bill of Rights uses
language like 'the right to [something] shall not be violated.'"
3. The news system for the Cleveland Free-Net "has been patched to support
anonymous newsgroups as a class of moderated newsgroups, and all identifying
information is removed from the header of an article before it is mailed
to the moderator....The system seems to be quite effective...."
<9206250251.AA04855@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
4. Information overload on the net could be eased by the addition of meta
discussion groups in which self-selected commentators make short comments
on posts. People could write kill files to select articles to read
based on these comments.
<1992Jun25.092338.8704@cadlab.sublink.org>
5. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing policies
that apply to the largest educational network at Rice, Owlnet." Includes
notes on Rice's University Computing Policy, Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies
Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet Student Advisory Committee Charter, System
Administrator Statement of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement. Also
includes access information for these documents.
<1992Jun27.181753.21585@eff.org>
- Lorrie]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 05:50:42 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,sci.med,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.nordic,new.misc,news.future
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [news.announce.newgroups] 2nd CFV: talk.politics new groups
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.090337.6193@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 09:03:37 GMT
In article <1992Aug4.183850.19471@uunet.uu.net>, jkp@cs (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>CALL FOR VOTES: talk.politics new groups
[ rest deleted ]
For your information, the list of newsgroups on the vote follows. See
article <1992Aug4.183850.19471@uunet.uu.net> in
news.announce.newgroups to which this article is a followup to for
detailed information on the vote.
talk.politics.usa.misc Misc. USA politics.
talk.politics.usa.constitution U.S. Constitutional politics
talk.politics.canada Politics of and in Canada
talk.politics.asia.japan Politics of and in Japan
talk.politics.asia.taiwan Politics of and in Taiwan
talk.politics.europe.britain Politics of and in Great Britain
talk.politics.org.ec European Community politics
talk.politics.org.un Politics of United Nations
talk.politics.org.spook "Spook" organizations around the world
talk.politics.org.misc Political organizations
talk.politics.europe.misc Misc. discussion on European politics
talk.politics.europe.nordic Politics of Norden
talk.politics.europe.baltic Politics of Baltic countries
talk.politics.europe.east East European politics
talk.politics.europe.balkan Balkanese politics
talk.politics.latin-america Latin American politics
talk.politics.north-america Politics of Northern America
talk.politics.americas Geopolitics on the American continents
talk.politics.africa.misc Politics in Africa
talk.politics.asia.misc Politics in Asia
talk.politics.asia.southwest Politics in South-West Asia
talk.politics.asia.southeast Politics in South-East Asia
talk.politics.asia.south Politics in South Asia
talk.politics.australasia Politics in Australasia
talk.politics.antarctica Politics of the Antarctic
talk.politics.elections Elections discussions and reports
talk.politics.sex "Blue laws", decency laws, sexual behaviour
talk.politics.equality Equality and discrimination
talk.politics.civil-liberty Civil liberties
talk.politics.libertarian The libertarian ideology
talk.politics.constitution A constitution as a basis for a society
talk.politics.economics Political economics: taxes, gov. budgets
talk.politics.media Media and politics
talk.politics.usenet Politics of Usenet
talk.politics.science Politics in science.
talk.politics.health Health care, politics in medicine, etc.
talk.politics.ethics Ethics in politics.
talk.politics.work Workplace and employment politics
talk.politics.reform Political reform
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 07:41:26 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.175120.129@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 17:51:20 GMT
In article <1992Aug5.143219.7016@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
|>>You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
|>>become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
|>>criminal activity.
|> No I don't.
|Bull. Your posting was putting forth such a statement.
Followups to alt.is.too.
--Jamie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 07:41:27 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 18:52:05 GMT
Every posting I make seems to generate 5 responses, so I'd
better not respond to all of them or I'll be doing it all day.
I'll just respond to Kenn's, which as usual is very articulate.
In general, people seem to be taking the attitude that
Absolute Freedom of Speech is a principle which is somehow
outside the normal give and take of the legal system. I think
this may be because we usually associate suppression of freedom
of speech with Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational
debate of ideas. I find it odd that people can't see a
distinction between this, and the kind of censorship of socially
undesirable non-rhetorical material which has been practised for
centuries all over the world -- including the US under the
Constitution and the First Amendment.
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>> The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
>>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
>>decision to ban.
>
> No, it's not, it's a philosophical decision.
What I meant was that it's both. If you were confronted
by empirical evidence that challenged your philosophy, surely
that would shake your philosophy. My point was that at some
point we have to break off experimenting (before the experiments
become too Mengele-like, presumably) and start philosophizing,
which is your point too.
> The essence of the
>freedom of speech and press guaranteed in the US Constitution can be
>expressed in the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty".
Then how was it that _Playboy_ (which didn't even show
pubic hair) was banned for so long, in so many places, under
the US Constitution + First Amendment? And that so much other
material was banned for decades before that, under the same
US Constutition + First Amendment? I think everyone has always
recognized that "freedom of speech" is subject to balance with
other freedoms and rights that people enjoy; what gets banned
depends on the mores of the time.
>>... I defy anyone to still say,
>>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>>adversely.
>
> Nonsense. Donnerstein, himself, has demurred from such a
>position.
Donnerstein has pointed out that his experiments do not
"prove" anything about real life situations. That's clear.
But again, our position on censorship is a combination of
empirical evidence and philosophy, and we can surely use the
empirical evidence to whatever extent we find reasonable.
> In fact, when you admit [sic] that the harm from such material can't
>be "proven", you understate the problem: no one has even found serious
>_evidence_ for such a conclusion.
I would have to disagree with you, and so, apparently,
would the Canadian lawmakers. I do agree that more study is
needed to deal with objections to the current evidence, but
the current evidence isn't enough to cause us to tear down
current censorship laws.
>>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
>> rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
>> allow it to be available anyway?
> The US Constitution also says "no". Read your John Stuart Mill
>if you want to understand why it's important.
Presumably you mean it says "yes"... but tell me again why
old censorship laws were upheld within the framework of the US
Constitution.
(By the way, I must say at this point that I find it
difficult to understand why people keep dragging the US
Constitution into a debate which was sparked (at least in this
incarnation) by Canadian law. But that's beside the point.)
> You're assuming your conclusion, Jamie. What you, personally,
>have "no doubt" about is irrelevant to anyone but you. It remains the
>case that there is no evidence for your position, and that censoring on
>the grounds of distaste or having a "bad feeling" is a dangerous
>business, with no built-in limits on what is censorable.
Since this is assuming that there is no experimental
evidence, I can't really respond to it. I would be nervous if
my lawmakers were censoring solely due to "bad feeling"; as far
as I can tell, they aren't.
>> The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
>
> "I'm so average and normal, they'll never come after me".
A government could come into power tomorrow that would
change the laws and throw me in jail for being blond and
driving my mother's car. I would object to that law, but I
wouldn't object to the principle of being able to pass traffic
laws.
A government could come into power tomorrow that would
change the laws and throw me in jail for possessing a copy of
_Lolita_. I would object to that law, but I wouldn't object
to the principle of being able to censor some things.
>You've already conceded [sic] the
>legitimacy of most of what gets posted there, but with typical censor's
>logic, you feel that suppressing the entire group is justified in order
>to suppress the specific articles which you feel should be censored.
You make it sound like I'm personally in charge of all the
traffic on Usenet, suppressing newsgroups here and there on a
whim. All I was saying is that I thought the Manitoba and SFU
ACS people did something perfectly reasonable, to avoid criminal
charges in Canada. After all, they aren't forced by the
Canadian constitution (much less the US constitution) to import
everything on the net. If the newsgroups were set up
differently, or if the alt.sex.bondage readership weren't so
intransigent, there would be no reason to have to block the
import of the legitimate debate that goes on there.
>... Yes, Jamie, the
>censors have their own agenda; it is not yours. Give them the power to
>dictate to you what you may read, say, and think, and you can't expect
>them to do it your way.
Again the association of censorship with total mind
control. Believe me, if anyone who wants to suppress free
debate of ideas gets into power, they'll have a hell of a fight
on their hands.
> At least my preference is simple in principle: no content-based
>restrictions on speech or press.
So if, say, someone were to produce a magazine called
_RAPE_, with erotic stories involving women getting raped and
loving it, pictorials of rapes (produced by consenting adults,
of course), and features like "How to Convince People You're Not
a Rapist Anymore", and if they were to distribute this magazine
in prisons for convicted rapists, you would think that's OK?
Sorry, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
>.... Every proposed censorship standard I've ever seen
>leaves the door wide open to censoring things the law's supporters
>approve of.
Well, IMHO, that's life, that's law. Sometimes, late at
night, when there aren't any other cars around, I want to go
through a red light. I can't. Tough.
> The law can't draw sharp distinctions when no such
>distinctions exist. Instead, censorship law is perforce vague, and the
>net result is censorship by consensus and popularity.
But while the edges aren't clearly defined (as with any
law, including the "principle" you state above), at least we can
be sure that the current censorship laws are not going to
suppress party political debate, for instance.
>I read a.s.b.... You have a right to disapprove, you have a
>right to _support_ laws that would restrict access, but, in the
>philosophical sense, I concede to no one and nothing the right to make
>such decisions for me.
You sound like you are a reasonable person. I wish I could
say that about everyone.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 11:13:25 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 15:13:18 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
[...]
> Then how was it that _Playboy_ (which didn't even show
>pubic hair) was banned for so long, in so many places, under
>the US Constitution + First Amendment? And that so much other
>material was banned for decades before that, under the same
>US Constitutional + First Amendment? I think everyone has always
>recognized that "freedom of speech" is subject to balance with
>other freedoms and rights that people enjoy; what gets banned
>depends on the mores of the time.
[...]
What right is being defended when my speech banned because of your
mores. The "right" not to have other people violate your mores? If
there is such a right then there is no room for other rights.
Censors often claim that they are balancing the right not to be raped
or the right of equality against the right of free expression. If so,
they have their thumb on the scale.
Here is some of the history of government [U.S., U.K., Canada]
suppression of sexual materials. I think history shows
that such suppression is relatively new and that it exists in spite
of, not because of, scientific evidence. I'll follow this up in a
second article that lists some of the scientific evidence.
[Sources:
ACLU Handbook: The Rights of Authors and Artists by Kenneth
P. Norwick and Jerry Simon Chasen
The First Amendment Book by Robert J. Wagman]
"[T]he suppression of explicit sexual materials is little more than a
hundred years old. Although government censorship has existed
throughout record history, it has mostly been direct toward political
and religious heresy rather than obscenity. In Greek and Roman times,
and indeed until a few centuries ago, sexual explicitness was widely
accepted in popular literature, drama, and ballads." [Norwick, p. 148]
In the U.S. "explicit sexual materials were very much in circulation
through out the colonies, only Massachusetts had any law addressed to
them and it was not until 1821 -- 110 years after its enactment --
that anyone was prosecuted for violation of the statute." [Norwick, p.
149]
In the first half of the last century, "[b]ooks and pamphlets that
would be considered hard-core pornography today circulated freely in
England; if they lacked anti-religious content they apparently
violated no law" [Norwick, p. 149]
"No obscenity legislation was enacted in England until 1824 ... By
1857 ... what was called Lord Campbell's Act generally prohibited the
dessemission of obscene materials in England." [Norwick, p. 149]
In Britain, in 1868, the most important obscenity prosecution of the
period occurred. In _Regina v. Hicklin_, the judge said that "a
publication may be considered obscene if _any_ part of it (even a
single paragraph or illustration in a thousand-page book) can be
adjudged to have a _tendency_ to "deprave and corrupt" even the most
sensitive and susceptible mind -- such as a young child into whose
hands the publication might accidently fall." [Wagman, p. 202] This
definition (the Hicklin Rule) was adopted by judges in the U.S.
In the U.S., "[m]modern obscenity jurisprudence really began in 1934,
when [the courts were asked] to determine if author-poet James Joyce's
_Ulysses_ was obscene. The legal test started when the U.S. Customs
Service refused to admit copies of the book under a law prohibited the
importation of obscene works." The [U.S. district] judge ruled that it
wasn't obscene. "In doing so, three significant changes in the
Hicklin Rule. First, he ruled that a jury in determining obscenity
should judge the work in its entirety and not just isolated passages.
Second, he believe that works 'deprave' and 'corrupt', as used in the
Rule, too vague. He said the material must 'lead to sexually impure and
lustful thoughts." Finally, he ruled that the jury must consider the
effect of the work in its entirety on a normal, average person -- a
person 'average sexual instincts' -- and not on a child or a person
with the most susceptible mind." [Wagner, p. 203] The decision was
upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and not appeals further.
"In September 1970 the [first] President's Commission on Obscenity,
which had been appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1967, released its
final report. ... At the hear of that report was the recommendation
that all government censorship be ended of materials aimed at
consenting adults ... The report started a firestorm of criticisms
range from the Senate, which reject its finding 60 to 5, to Richard
Nixon in the White House, who called it 'morally bankrupt' and vowed
to continue appointing to the high court justices who believed that
'American morality is not to be trifled with.'" [Wagman, 210]
The U.S. Supreme Court's current definition of obscenity (the
so-called _Miller_ test) is:
1) must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person
2) must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive"
to community standards
and
3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value"
Note that only "patently offensiveness" is decided by community
standards and even here, as Rehnquist wrote in a later case, "it would
be a serious misunderstanding of Miller to conclude that juries have
unbridled discretion in determining what is 'patently offensive.'"
* * *
(This part of my response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the
ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)
On a related topic, is there a right to speech that goes beyond
fiction and actually advocates illegal acts or violence?
In 1919 the Court said no. Indeed, it said that any speech that had a
'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be punished. This
principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar
leaflets.
In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.
In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthrowing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).
In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. In the U.S.,
the Brandenberg test is the law today.
* * *
Canada, according to May/June 1992 _Ms. magazine, has a new definition
of obscenity that is based squarely in the "bad tenancy". The new
definition is based not on science, but on the political arguments
of U. of Michigan law professor Catherine A. MacKinnon and writer
Andrea Dworkin.
In a decision given in February, Justice John Sopinka of the Canadian
Supreme Court wrote: "If true equality between male and female persons
is to be archived we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting
from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent and degrading
material."
The _Ms._ article says: [...] 'The case provided the court with the
opportunity to clarify the weak and muddled obscenity law, which was
based on "undue exploitation of sex", violating undefined "community
standards." The court's more precise definitions of these terms no
longer include morality and taste,. But violence and degradation will
invariable push pornography over the line into illegal obscenity: "The
portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute
the undue exploitation of sex," said the court in its ruling.
"Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the
risk of harm is substantial." [...] '[T]he guidelines are now clear:
degradation, bondage, child pornography, and violence are out; adult
erotica, no matter how explicit, will not be considered obscene.'
According to the _Ms._ article: "The ruling has the support of most
women's groups in Canada, where the free-speech tradition is not a
dominant as it is in the U.S.; as a result, feminist debate on
pornography is less intense." Also: "'This is of world historic
importance,' proclaimed Catherine A. MacKinnon, the University of
Michigan law professor whose analysis of pornography and the law,
co-authored with writer Andrea Dworkin, helped form the basis of
LEAF's [Woman's Legal Education and Acuation Fund] argument.
I note that _Ms's._ prediction that "adult erotica, no matter how
explicit, will not be considered obscene" seems, as a practical matter
incorrect. If it were true, alt.sex would not have been banned.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 11:17:19 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug7.151709.9915@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 15:17:09 GMT
Here is a repost listing many studies that tested the Meese conclusions
scientifically. (Many of the studies were done in Canada.)
- Carl
>From alt.sex Fri Apr 5 16:19:04 1991
>From: gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....)
>Newsgroups: alt.sex,talk.rape
>Subject: Re: pornography (long)
>Message-ID: <1991Apr5.193828.27539@milton.u.washington.edu>
>Date: 5 Apr 91 19:38:28 GMT
Sounds like this is needed to be posted again.
Clogging the net again...
Pornography, erotica, and attitudes toward women:
The effects of repeated exposure.
Padgett,-Vernon-R.; Brislin-Slutz,-Jo-A.; Neal,-James-A.
Rio Hondo Coll, Whittier, CA, US
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1989 Nov Vol 26(4) 479-491
PY: 1989
AB: Assessed the relationship between pornography and attitudes
toward women in 2 correlational studies, and tested the effect
of nonviolent erotica on attitudes toward women with 184
psychology students and 20 patrons at an "adult" theater. Hours
of viewing pornography was not a reliable predictor of attitudes
toward women in either sample. Patrons of the adult theater, who
viewed more pornography, had more favorable attitudes toward
women than male or female Ss.
Pornography and sexual offences.
Langevin,-Ron; Lang,-Reuben-A.; Wright,-Percy; Handy,-Lorraine; et-al
Clarke Inst of Psychiatry, Toronto, ON, Canada
Annals-of-Sex-Research; 1988 Vol 1(3) 335-362
LA: English
PY: 1988
AB: Examined whether erotica is harmful and incites sexual crimes
by interviewing 227 male sex offenders and 50 control Ss from
the community in Canada about purchase of erotic magazines and
videos and attendance at erotic movies. Erotica use was not a
pertinent factor in offenders' sex offenses nor to their legal
situation. Results do not support the conclusion of the Meese
Commission (1986) that there is a causal association of sexual
violence and use of violent pornography.
Physiological desensitization and judgments about female victims of violence.
Linz,-Daniel; Donnerstein,-Edward; Adams,-Steven-M.
U California, Santa Barbara, US
Human-Communication-Research; 1989 Sum Vol 15(4) 509-522
AB: 29 male undergraduates viewed a control film (nonviolent with
explicit sexual content) and 34 male undergraduates viewed an
experimental film (violent with explicit sexual content). All Ss
were then exposed to 2 brief clips of violence perpetrated by a
man against a woman while their heart rates were monitored.
Results indicate that heart rates for Ss exposed to the violent
videotape were lower during the final 90 sec of each violent
dependent measure film clip than controls. Although the
violence-viewing Ss experienced no change in moods, control Ss
experienced significant increases in hostility, anxiety, and
depression during the dependent measure clips. Ss in the
violence-viewing condition attributed less injury to the victims
but greater responsibility to the perpetrators in the dependent
measure clips, compared to control Ss.
Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?
Knudsen,-Dean-D.
Purdue U, West Lafayette, IN, US
Journal-of-Family-Violence; 1988 Dec Vol 3(4) 253-267
AB: A review of official reports and other research indicates
that the circumstances surrounding sexual abuse are inadequately
specified to allow specific causal interpretations. The role of
pornography in contributing to such abuse is explored by
reviewing laboratory studies and the circumstances of child
sexual abuse. An assessment of the research literature suggests
that pornography is a minor and indirect influence on child
sexual maltreatment.
Exposure to sexually explicit materials and attitudes toward rape:
A comparison of study results.
Linz,-Daniel
U California Communication Studies Program, Santa Barbara, US
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1989 Feb Vol 26(1) 50-84
AB: Reviews experimental studies conducted since the 1970
pornography commission that have tested the effects of exposure
to sexually explicit materials on attitudes and perceptions
about rape. Studies of short-term exposure to nonaggressive
sexually explicit communications have yielded mixed results.
When effects do exist for this material, they are both fewer and
weaker than antisocial effects from sexually violent material.
Studies of the effects of long-term exposure to nonviolent
pornography have also yielded mixed results: Some experiments
find increases in negative attitudes about rape, and others show
no effects. Studies that have included violent film conditions
have consistently found less sensitivity toward rape victims
after exposure to these materials.
A preliminary examination of the pornography experience of sex offenders,
paraphiliacs, sexual dysfunction patients and controls based on
Meese Commission recommendations.
Condron,-Mary-K.; Nutter,-David-E.
Sexual Behavior Ctr, Lancaster, PA, US
Journal-of-Sex-and-Marital-Therapy; 1988 Win Vol 14(4) 285-298
AB: The Meese Commission Report (1986) claims that exposure to
pornography leads to sex offenses and states that it is
important to examine the developmental patterns of offenders.
The present study found that the frequency of use of pornography, age of
exposure to pornography, age of 1st masturbation experience and use of
pornography during 1st masturbation experience for 62 male sex offenders,
paraphiliacs, sexual dysfunction patients, and controls were not significantly
different.
Pornography and rape: A causal model.
Russell,-Diana-E.
Mills Coll, Oakland, CA, US
Political-Psychology; 1988 Mar Vol 9(1) 41-73
AB: Contends that in order for rape to occur, a man must not only
be predisposed to rape, but his internal and social inhibitions
against acting out rape desires must be undermined. It is
theorized that pornography (1) predisposes some men to want to
rape women or intensifies the predisposition in other men
already so predisposed; (2) undermines some men's internal
inhibitions against acting out their rape desires; and (3)
undermines some men's social inhibitions against the acting out.
Research substantiating this theory is presented and discussed,
and suggestions are made for further research.
Rape rates and the circulation rates of adult magazines.
Scott,-Joseph-E.; Schwalm,-Loretta-A.
Ohio State U, Columbus, US
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1988 Vol 24 241-250
AB: Examination of reported rape rates and the sale of 10 popular
adult magazines by states for 1982 revealed a significant
relationship. Although the assumption was that the more sexually
explicit magazines and those containing the most violent sexual
depictions would have higher correlations with rape rates,
correlations for individual magazines indicate the opposite.
The censorship of pornography: Catharsis or learning?
McCormack,-Thelma
York U, Toronto, ON, Canada
American-Journal-of-Orthopsychiatry; 1988 Oct Vol 58(4) 493-504
AB: Asserts that contemporary research on pornography reveals an
impasse between the models of catharsis and learning. It is
suggested that preference for the latter by a recent government
report (US Department of Justice, 1986) is based on ideological
rather than scientific considerations. The breakdown in the
liberal tradition, current pornography research based on
behaviorism, and 2 major theoretical problems are discussed. An
alternative approach is suggested that uses knowledge of
sexuality, gender inequality, and institutional oppression, and
the meaning of texts to better understand pornography. It is
argued that censorship may obstruct research and fail to advance
feminist goals. (
Beitrag zur Beziehung von Video-Filmkonsum und Kriminalitat in der Adoleszenz. / Relationship between viewing of video films and criminality in adolescents.
Klosinski,-G.
U Bern, Jugendpsychiatrischen Klinik und Poliklinik, Switzerland
Praxis-der-Kinderpsychologie-und-Kinderpsychiatrie; 1987 Feb-Mar Vol 36(2) 66-71
AB: Presents 3 forensic-psychiatric case reports in which
criminal acts perpetrated by adolescent males were associated
with previously viewed horror or pornographic videos. In each
case, the videos served to precipitate and legitimize a neurotic
solution to existing conflicts. It is suggested that in
exceptionally unusual, ludicrous, or cruel offenses by
adolescents, the possibility of video-induced criminality should
be considered.
Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexually
degrading depictions of women.
Linz,-Daniel-G.; Donnerstein,-Edward; Penrod,-Steven
U California, Communication Studies Program, Santa Barbara, US
Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology; 1988 Nov Vol 55(5) 758-768
AB: Investigated the effects of emotional desensitization to
films of violence against women and the effects of sexually
degrading explicit and nonexplicit films on beliefs about rape
and the sexual objectification of women. Males viewed either 2
or 5 R-rated violent "slasher," X-rated nonviolent
"pornographic," or R-rated nonviolent teenage-oriented ("teen
sex") films. Affective reactions and cognitive perceptions were
measured after each exposure. Later, these men and no-exposure
control Ss completed a voir dire questionnaire, viewed a
reenacted acquaintance or nonacquaintance sexual assault trial,
and judged the defendant and alleged rape victim. Ss in the
violent condition became less anxious and depressed and showed
declines in negative affective responses. They were also less
sympathetic to the victim and less empathetic toward rape
victims in general. However, longer film exposure was necessary
to affect general empathy. There were no differences in response
between the R-rated teen sex film and the X-rated, sexually
explicit, nonviolent film, and the no-exposure control
conditions on the objectification or the rape trial variables. A
model of desensitization to media violence and the carryover to
decision making about victims is proposed. (
Violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of sexual aggression.
Demare,-Dano; Briere,-John; Lips,-Hilary-M.
U Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Journal-of-Research-in-Personality; 1988 Jun Vol 22(2) 140-153
AB: 222 undergraduate males were administered an attitudes survey
examining pornography use, attitudes, and self-reported
likelihood of rape (LR) or using sexual force (LF). Nonviolent
pornography was used by 81% of Ss within the previous year,
whereas 41% and 35% had used violent and sexually violent
pornography, respectively. 27% of Ss indicated some hypothetical
LR or LF. Discriminant function analysis revealed that use of
sexually violent pornography and acceptance of interpersonal
violence against women were uniquely associated with LF and LR.
It is hypothesized that the specific fusion of sex and violence
in some pornographic stimuli and in certain belief systems may
produce a propensity to engage in sexually aggressive behavior.
An empirical investigation of the role of pornography in the
verbal and physical abuse of women.
Sommers,-Evelyn-K.; Check,-James-V.
York U, Toronto, ON, Canada
Violence-and-Victims; 1987 Fal Vol 2(3) 189-209
AB: Studied the presence of pornography and both sexual and
nonsexual violence in the lives of 44 battered women drawn from
shelters and counseling groups, and a comparison group of 32
women from a mature university population. It was found that the
partners of the battered Ss read or viewed significantly greater
amounts of pornographic materials than did the partners of the
comparison group. In addition, 39% of the battered Ss (in
contrast to 3% of the comparison group) responded in the
affirmative to the question, "Has your partner ever upset you by
trying to get you to do what he'd seen in pornographic pictures,
movies, or books?" It was also found that battered Ss
experienced significantly more sexual aggression at the hands of
their partners than did the Ss in the comparison group.
Four theories of rape: A macrosociological analysis.
International Congress on Rape (1986, Tel Aviv, Israel).
Baron,-Larry; Straus,-Murray-A.
U California Ctr for the Study of Women, Los Angeles, US
Social-Problems; 1987 Dec Vol 34(5) 467-489
AB: Presents a theoretical model that integrates 4
macrosociological theories of gender inequality, proliferation
of pornographic materials, cultural spillover of violence to
other social contexts, and social disorganization as mechanisms
promoting rape. The theoretical model was tested, using 1980
-1982 data on rapes known to the police in the 50 states in the
US. The results show that gender inequality, social
disorganization, percent residing in standard metropolitan
statistical areas, the circulation of pornography, economic
inequality, and percent unemployed had direct effects on the
incidence of rape.
The use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapists, child molesters
and nonoffenders.
Marshall,-W.-L.
Queen's U, Kingston, ON, Canada
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1988 May Vol 25(2) 267-288
AB: 89 male sex offenders (voluntary outpatients) and 24 male
nonoffenders were asked to retrospectively recall their use of
sexually explicit materials during pubescence, and currently. 23
rapists and 51 men who molested children other than their own
(i.e., child molesters) reported significantly greater use of
materials than was indicated by either incest offenders or
nonoffender controls. Rapists and child molesters reported
frequent use of these materials while preparing themselves to
commit an offense. Current use was significantly related to the
chronicity of their sexual offending (as revealed by number of
victims) among the child molesters and to laboratory-assessed
sexual preferences for children in the heterosexual child molesters.
The pornography/aggression linkage: Results from a field study.
Smith,-M.-Dwayne; Hand,-Carl
Tulane U, New Orleans, LA, US
Deviant-Behavior; 1987 Vol 8(4) 389-399
AB: Assessed the impact of presenting a pornographic movie on a
college campus in a longitudinal, self-report study of 230 women
students to determine effects of the film's showing on the Ss'
experiences with aggression from males. Compared with the weeks
prior to and following the movie's showing, no significant
difference in reported aggression was found. Those Ss reporting
association with males attending the movie reported no
significantly different levels of experienced aggression from
those Ss whose companions did not view the film. PO: Human
Use of pornography in the criminal and developmental histories
of sexual offenders.
Carter,-Daniel-L.; Prentky,-Robert-A.; Knight,-Raymond-A.; Vanderveer,-Penny-L.; et-al
Massachusetts Treatment Ctr, Research Dept, Bridgewater, US
Journal-of-Interpersonal-Violence; 1987 Jun Vol 2(2) 196-211
AB: Investigated exposure to and use of pornography in the
familial, developmental, and criminal histories of 64
incarcerated male volunteers (38 rapists and 26 child
molesters). Data were gathered using a paper-and-pencil self
-report questionnaire. Results show that while both groups
reported similar exposure to pornography in the home and during
development, child molesters indicated significantly more
exposure than rapists in adulthood and were significantly more
likely both to use such materials prior to and during the
offenses and to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act
out. Findings are discussed with regard to the catharsis
hypothesis and to the role of pornography in the commission of
sexual offenses for certain types of rapists and child
molesters.
"Stranger" child--murder: Issues relating to causes and controls.
Wilson,-Paul-R.
Australian Inst of Criminology, Canberra, ACT, Australia
International-Journal-of-Offender-Therapy-and-Comparative-Criminology; 1987 Vol 31(1) 49-59
AB: Discusses the causes and control of serial killings of
children. Despite the tendency to view such killers as
psychiatrically ill, studies suggesting that these offenders do
not differ psychologically from nonoffenders are cited. It is
suggested that subcultural and other sociological perspectives
stressing social disadvantage have low levels of explanatory
power. While evidence concerning the effects of media on sexual
and violent crime is inconclusive, case studies indicate that
pornography and even popular music may increase the propensity
of some individuals to commit atrocities. It is concluded that
countermeasures to control stranger killing of children lie in
more sophisticated law enforcement, long periods of
incarceration, and more sophisticated crime analysis.
The findings and recommendations of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: Do the psychological "facts" fit the political fury?
Linz,-Daniel; Donnerstein,-Edward; Penrod,-Steven
U California, Los Angeles
American-Psychologist; 1987 Oct Vol 42(10) 946-953
AB: The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography has
concluded that there is a causal relationship between exposure
to many forms of pornography and several antisocial effects,
including increased levels of violence against women. As a
result of these findings, the commission has called for more
strict enforcement of existing obscenity laws and serious
consideration of additional legal measures not traditionally
handled under obscenity law. The authors question whether the
social science data relied on by the commission justifies either
the commission's conclusions about harm or the call for more
stringent law enforcement. Although some of the commission's
findings appear to be sound extrapolations from the empirical
studies, the authors find several of the commission's findings
and recommendations incongruent with available research data.
Instead of advocating stricter legal controls the authors
reiterate their call for educational programs to mitigate the
effects of sexual violence in the media.
Exposure to pornography and attitudes about women and rape:
A correlational study.
Garcia,-Luis-T.
Rutgers U, Camden Coll
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1986 Aug Vol 22(3) 378-385
AB: Investigated the relationship between exposure to sexually
explicit material and attitudes toward rape in 115 male
undergraduates. Data provide mixed support for the hypothesis
that exposure to pornographic materials would be correlated with
less liberal attitudes toward women: Only exposure to coercive
or violent sexual themes was related to more traditional
attitudes about women. Contrary to predictions, Ss having
greater exposure to sexual materials were found to express more
liberal attitudes toward women in the area of sexual behavior.
Pornography and sex-related crime: A sociological
perspective. Hong Kong Psychological Society: Psychosocial
aspects of pornography (1986, Hong Kong).
Sharp,-Imogen
U Hong Kong
Bulletin-of-the-Hong-Kong-Psychological-Society; 1986 Jan-Jul No 16-17 73-81
AB: Suggests that the incidence of reported rape is lower in
areas in which there are more liberal attitudes toward
pornography. Women may choose to not report a rape because of
fear, threat of further victimization, or powerlessness and
helplessness. In a society that has a liberal tolerance for
pornography and in which rape is often presented as a normal
part of male-female relations, a woman may assume that rape
would not be viewed as a serious offense by authorities.
Pornography as cause or pornographic experience as constituted?
Hong Kong Psychological Society: Psychosocial aspects of pornography
(1986, Hong Kong).
Tsang,-Adolf
U Hong Kong
Bulletin-of-the-Hong-Kong-Psychological-Society; 1986 Jan-Jul No 16-17 29-32
AB: Suggests that pornography should not be viewed as the cause
of certain behaviors but as the material constituent of a
pornographic experience. Experiments that attempt to assess the
effects of pornography on behavior ignore the element of choice
in the real-life pornographic situation, since the experimental
Ss are presented with pornography while it must be actively
sought out in real life. It is also suggested that determining
what constitutes pornography may depend on an individual's
personal experience.
Fifteen years of pornography research: Does exposure to pornography have
any effects? Hong Kong Psychological Society: Psychosocial aspects of
pornography (1986, Hong Kong).
Hui,-C.-Harry
U Hong Kong
Bulletin-of-the-Hong-Kong-Psychological-Society; 1986 Jan-Jul No 16-17 41-62
AB: Reviews 35 studies published between 1972 and 1985 on whether
exposure to pornography (EP) has any effects on behavior. One
study examined the effects of EP on prosocial behavior (none was
found); 20 studies assessed the effects of EP on antisocial
behavior and found general support for a causal link between EP
and aggression; 3 studies found some evidence of a link between
EP and rape; and 11 studies examined the relationship between EP
and moral values and attitudes and found some evidence relating
EP to a greater acceptance by men of the victimization of women.
Overall, the studies indicate that pornography does have
psychosocial effects on users, contrary to the 1970 report by
the US Congress's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography.
The question of pornography.
Donnerstein,-Edward-I.; Linz,-Daniel-G.
U California, Santa Barbara
Psychology-Today; 1986 Dec Vol 20(12) 56-59
AB: Questions the conclusions of the 1986 US Attorney General's
Commission on Pornography and argues that the most important
problem in the media is not pornography but violence. Research
is summarized that suggests that the amount of violence depicted
in pornography has not increased, that the aggression-evoking
effects of exposure to sexually violent material may be
temporary, that materials depicting women "enjoying" rape have
especially damaging effects on male attitudes, and that violence
against women need not occur in a sexual context to have a
negative effect on viewer attitudes and behavior.
Mass media sexual violence and male viewers: Current theory and research.
Donnerstein,-Edward-I.; Linz,-Daniel-G.
U Wisconsin, Ctr for Communication Research, Madison
American-Behavioral-Scientist; 1986 May-Jun Vol 29(5) 601-618
AB: Reviews research on aggressive pornography and research that
examines nonpornographic media images of violence against women.
The question of whether pornography influences behaviors and
attitudes toward women is considered. There is no evidence for
any "harm"-related effects from sexually explicit materials. But
research may support potential harmful effects from aggressive
materials. Although messages about violence and the sexualized
nature of violence may be part of some forms of pornography,
they are also pervasive in media messages in general, from
prime-time TV to popular films. It is concluded that the media
is just one of many influences in society that contribute to
men's callous attitudes about rape and sexual aggression.
Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of
raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women.
Malamuth,-Neil-M.; Ceniti,-Joseph
U California, Los Angeles
Aggressive-Behavior; 1986 Vol 12(2) 129-137
AB: Examined the long-term effects of repeated exposure to
violent and nonviolent pornography on males' laboratory
aggression against women and their self-reported likelihood of
raping. 42 university students were randomly assigned to the
sexually violent, sexually nonviolent, or control exposure
conditions. Those assigned to the sexually violent or sexually
nonviolent conditions were exposed over a 4-wk period to 10
stimuli including feature-length films and written and pictorial
depictions, whereas controls were not exposed to any stimuli.
Following the end of the exposure phase, Ss participated in what
they believed to be a totally unrelated experiment in which
aggression was assessed within a Buss paradigm. Exposure to the
violent or nonviolent pornographic stimuli did not affect
laboratory aggression, but likelihood of raping ratings
predicted laboratory aggression.
"Prudes" and "pornographiles": Effects of subject and audience attitudes
on the viewing and rating of pornographic materials.
Yuen,-Kenneth; Ickes,-William
U Wisconsin
Journal-of-Social-and-Clinical-Psychology; 1984 Fal Vol 2(3) 215-229
AB: Examined stereotyped conceptions of the prude and the pornographile
by testing the responses of 72 male undergraduates with anti- or
propornography attitudes to pornographic stimuli presented in varying
social contexts. Specifically, both types of Ss were allowed to view
and rate a series of pornographic slides in 1 of 3 conditions: alone
(control) or in the presence of a peer whose expressed attitude toward
pornography was either favorable or unfavorable. For measures of viewing
time and rated pornographic value, the antipornography Ss were more
susceptible to the influence of the peer audience's expressed attitude
than were the propornography Ss. In general, the stereotyped images of
the prude and the pornographile were supported. However, it remains to
be determined to what degree the observed differences were due to
personality, social comparison, and arousal-attribution processes.
Self-regulated exposure to erotica, recall errors, and
The relief of sexual problems through pornography.
Court,-John-H.
Australian-Journal-of-Sex,-Marriage-and-Family; 1984 May Vol 5(2) 97-106
AB: Examines the scientific foundations for claimed efficacy of sexually
explicit materials for use in sex therapy. The term pornography is
examined to establish important distinctions between different
materials, and the case for pornography, as advanced by W. C. Wilson
(1978), is examined critically. While acknowledging that many therapists
are finding sexually explicit materials educationally valuable in the
treatment of sexual disorders, it is concluded that the evidence is
insufficient for the therapeutic use of what most people mean by
pornography. (28 ref)
Pornography and sexual abuse of women.
Silbert,-Mimi-H.; Pines,-Ayala-M.
Delancey Street Foundation, San Francisco, CA
Sex-Roles; 1984 Jun Vol 10(11-12) 857-868
AB: Interviewed 200 juvenile and adult, current and former, female
street prostitutes, aged 10-46 yrs, to investigate the sexual abuse of
street prostitutes. 70% of the Ss were less than 21 yrs old; 60% were
less than 17 yrs old. 69% of the Ss were White and 18% were Black. 68%
were single and never married. 42% described themselves as very poor.
The Ss were administered a sexual assault experience questionnaire
consisting of questions on background information, forms of assault
experienced, history of juvenile sexual exploitation, and self-concept.
Many of the descriptions of sexual assaults made reference to the role
played by pornography; these references were unsolicited by the
interviewers. A detailed content analysis of 193 cases of rape and of
178 cases of juvenile sexual abuse revealed a clear relationship
between violent pornography and sexual abuse in the experience of
street prostitutes. Results can neither confirm nor reject the
catharsis model of pornography; however, they lend considerable weight
to the imitation model.
The effects of erotica and pornography on attitudes and behavior:
A review.
Masterson,-John
U Dublin, Trinity Coll, Ireland
Bulletin-of-the-British-Psychological-Society; 1984 Aug Vol 37 249-252
AB: Reviews the literature on the effects of erotica (ER) and
pornography (PN) on attitudes and behavior, noting that researching
these topics poses difficult experimental problems. The reliability of
data on availability and use of PN is questionable. It is asserted that
the context in which PN thrives needs to be reexamined. Of particular
interest is the degree of acceptance of coercion in sexual relations
by "normal" males and females. Findings on ER vs PN are discussed, and
decisions concerning the effects of PN and ER by the US National
Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the Committee on Obscenity
and Film Censorship (UK) are reviewed. Current concern centers around
violent sexual material. Research has shown that exposure to sexually
violent material can lead to antisocial attitudes and behavior. It has
been argued that the enjoyment of PN by individuals will decline when
such individuals begin to accord women their status as fully human. It
is concluded that PN can be viewed as a useful indicator of the state
of male-female relations in society
Debriefing effectiveness following exposure to pornographic rape
depictions.
Malamuth,-Neil-M.; Check,-James-V.
U California, Los Angeles
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1984 Feb Vol 20(1) 1-13
AB: Examined the ethics of exposing undergraduate students to
pornographic rape portrayals followed by a debriefing designed to
dispel a number of rape myths. 150 Ss were randomly assigned to read
pornographic stories. Some of these depicted a rape, whereas others
depicted mutually consenting intercourse. Afterwards, those exposed to
the rape version were given a debriefing that included statements
concerning the true horror of rape and the existence of rape myths.
About 10 days later, a survey ostensibly conducted by a local committee
of citizens was given to Ss in their classes. As part of the survey, Ss
indicated their reactions to a rape article and their opinions about the
general causes of rape. Results indicate that those exposed to the rape
depictions followed by a debriefing were less accepting of certain rape
myths than Ss exposed to mutually consenting intercourse depictions.
Implications are discussed both in terms of work focusing on the
potential antisocial impact of violent pornography and of research
specifically designed to identify the conditions most likely to change
acceptance of rape myths.
Can there be positive effects of participation in pornography experiments?
Check,-James-V.; Malamuth,-Neil-M.
York U, Downsview, Canada
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1984 Feb Vol 20(1) 14-31
AB: Conducted a 2-phase experiment in response to recent ethical concerns
about the possible antisocial effects of exposing research Ss to
pornographic rape portrayals. In Phase 1, 64 male and 94 female
undergraduates were randomly assigned to read either an "acquaintance"
or a "stranger" rape depiction, or to read control materials. Ss who
read the rape depictions were then given a rape debriefing that included
a communication about the undesirable desensitizing effects of pairing
sexual violence with other highly explicit and pleasing sexual stimuli.
Half of the Ss who read the control materials were also given the rape
debriefing. In Phase 2, Ss were presented with a number of newspaper
articles in which a newspaper report of a rape was embedded and asked
to give their opinions. Results indicate that the rape debriefing
generally increased Ss' perceptions of pornography as a cause of rape.
Ss in the rape debriefing conditions also gave the rapist in the
newspaper report a higher sentence and saw the rape victim as less
responsible than did Ss in the control conditions. This latter effect,
however, occurred only under conditions where Ss had earlier been
exposed to an example of a rape depiction that was relevant to both
the rape myths discussed in the rape debriefing and the newspaper report
of the rape. (24 ref) (PsycLIT Database Copyright 1985 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserve
Pornography and social science research: . . .higher moralities.
Zillmann,-Dolf; Bryant,-Jennings, Indiana U
Journal-of-Communication; 1983 Fal Vol 33(4) 111-114
AB: Responds to comments by L. Gross (see PA, Vol 71:23017)
concerning the present authors' (see PA, Vol 70:1038) study on
pornography, which found that massive exposure to pornography
results in a loss of compassion for female rape victims and
women in general. The present authors provide sources for
information on their debriefing procedures and address the
issues of possible damage to research Ss and the contamination
of results because Ss may have talked about their experience in
the study with others.
Pornography and social science research: Serious questions. . . .
Gross,-Larry, U Pennsylvania
Journal-of-Communication; 1983 Fal Vol 33(4) 107-111
AB: Contends that D. Zillmann and J. Bryant's (see PA, Vol
70:1038) study on pornography, which found that massive exposure to
pornography resulted in a loss of compassion toward women as rape
victims and toward women in general, cannot be taken at face value
because information on how the research was conducted is lacking. In
addition, according to the present author, the research raises serious
questions of ethics concerning experimental procedures and conditions
and "damage" to the Ss that the researchers did not address.
Exposure to pornography, permissive and nonpermissive cues, and male aggression
toward females.
Leonard,-Kenneth-E.; Taylor,-Stuart-P.
U Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Western Psychiatric Inst & Clinic
Motivation-and-Emotion; 1983 Sep Vol 7(3) 291-299
AB: 40 male undergraduates viewed either neutral slides with a silent
female or erotic slides with a female who made permissive,
nonpermissive, or no comments about the slides. Ss rated the slides and
subsequently rated the female confederate. Ss were then given an
opportunity to administer their choice of several intensities of
shock to the female in a competitive RT task. Ss in the permissive cues
condition rated the erotic slides as more arousing, saw the female as
more reasonable and accepting, and selected more intense shocks for the
female than did Ss in the other conditions. One explanation of these
results is that permissive cues in the presence of erotica led the S
to believe that other normally inappropriate behaviors would be
tolerated.
Pornography, sexual callousness, and the trivialization of rape.
Zillmann,-Dolf; Bryant,-Jennings
Indiana U, Inst for Communication Research, Bloomington
Journal-of-Communication; 1982 Fal Vol 32(4) 10-21
AB: Studied the effect of pornography on perceptions of sexuality and
behavioral dispositions toward sex and gender. 160 male and female
undergraduates were assigned to 1 of 4 conditions in which exposure to
pornography was massive, intermediate, or nil. Ss were tested for
habituation effects, perceptions of sexuality, and dispositions
concerning sex and gender. A control group was tested with no prior
exposure to pornographic materials. Results show that numerous
persisting perceptual and dispositional changes concerning sexuality,
especially female sexuality, were recorded during the 3rd wk after the
exposure treatment. Findings show that massive exposure to standard
pornography resulted in a loss of compassion toward women as rape
victims and toward women in general.
Effects of erotica on retaliatory behavior as a function of level of prior provocation.
Ramirez,-John; Bryant,-Jennings; Zillmann,-Dolf
Indiana U, Inst for Communication Research, Bloomington
Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology; 1982 Nov Vol 43(5) 971-978
AB: 72 male undergraduates were mildly or severely provoked by the
experiments; exposed to nonerotic, suggestive, or explicitly erotic
stimuli; and then provided with an opportunity to treat their provoker
in a hostile manner. The effect of exposure to suggestive erotica
interacted with degree of provocation. Exposure to such erotica
significantly reduced hostile behavior under conditions of mild
provocation, but it had no appreciable effect under conditions of
severe provocation. In contrast, exposure to explicit erotica
significantly increased hostile behavior, and this effect did not
reliably interact with degree of provocation. There was some indication,
however, that the hostility-enhancing effect of exposure to explicit
erotica was strongest under conditions of severe provocation. (
Exposure to pornography and aggression toward women: The case of the
angry male.
Gray,-Susan-H.
Fordham U, Lincoln Ctr Campus
Social-Problems; 1982 Apr Vol 29(4) 387-398
AB: Reviews research since 1970 on the effects of pornography on men's
treatment of and underlying attitudes toward women. There is little
evidence that exposure to hard-core pornography produces aggressive
behavior in men. However, levels of aggression in already angered men
are increased by exposure to hard-core materials. Research on the
long-term effects of exposure to pornography and the difference between
laboratory-induced anger and deeper anger that is a product of
psychosexual development are discussed. It is concluded that anger is a
greater social problem than pornography, particularly in men who are
unable to resolve it or distinguish it from sexual arousal and control
over women.
--
-----
Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie and art nerd
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 12:55:58 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug7.163337.10855@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Aug 92 16:33:37 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
:
: You make it sound like I'm personally in charge of all the
: traffic on Usenet, suppressing newsgroups here and there on a
: whim. All I was saying is that I thought the Manitoba and SFU
: ACS people did something perfectly reasonable, to avoid criminal
: charges in Canada. After all, they aren't forced by the
: Canadian constitution (much less the US constitution) to import
: everything on the net. If the newsgroups were set up
: differently, or if the alt.sex.bondage readership weren't so
: intransigent, there would be no reason to have to block the
: import of the legitimate debate that goes on there.
How do you think they should be set up?
Are these people being intransigent or just realistic?
Is it easy to tell what is legitimate, if it is that easy
then release your AI program which does it :-)
: So if, say, someone were to produce a magazine called
: _RAPE_, with erotic stories involving women getting raped and
: loving it, pictorials of rapes (produced by consenting adults,
: of course), and features like "How to Convince People You're Not
: a Rapist Anymore", and if they were to distribute this magazine
: in prisons for convicted rapists, you would think that's OK?
: Sorry, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
So you scream and shout about how horrible it is, try to get it
banned.
Do this and the publishers might pay you?
Why, you are giving them prime quality advertising.
If you don't want it to happen, just be quiet and let it die a quiet death.
I am sure that some people would claim that magazines depicting things
not a million miles away from your example, not only already exist,
but are on sale openly.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 7 13:34:29 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 16:57:44 GMT
>What right is being defended when my speech banned because of your
>mores. The "right" not to have other people violate your mores? If
>there is such a right then there is no room for other rights.
I think what is meant is the consensus mores of the group, not any one
person's. And what these are should be decided at the polls. Although
I'm afraid this doesn't always happen.
>Censors often claim that they are balancing the right not to be raped
>or the right of equality against the right of free expression. If so,
>they have their thumb on the scale.
Everyone has their thumb on the scale. Don't they?
>Here is some of the history of government [U.S., U.K., Canada]
>suppression of sexual materials. I think history shows
>that such suppression is relatively new and that it exists in spite
>of, not because of, scientific evidence. I'll follow this up in a
>second article that lists some of the scientific evidence.
>On a related topic, is there a right to speech that goes beyond
>fiction and actually advocates illegal acts or violence?
Rappers do it all the time. Of course, some of them get censored.
>In 1919 the Court said no. Indeed, it said that any speech that had a
>'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be punished. This
>principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar
>leaflets.
Isn't that odd. You can sing about rape, but you can't write against
violence.
>In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
>that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
>present danger' of imminent harm.
This seems to be going in the right direction, anyway.
But is pornography "speech"? Can it in any way be construed in the same
light as war protests, etc...
The founding fathers provided this so that man may openly discuss
important issues, not to protect those who would degrade womankind.
>In a decision given in February, Justice John Sopinka of the Canadian
>Supreme Court wrote: "If true equality between male and female persons
>is to be archived we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting
>from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent and degrading
>material."
Good. I agree.
>The _Ms._ article says: [...] 'The case provided the court with the
>opportunity to clarify the weak and muddled obscenity law, which was
>based on "undue exploitation of sex", violating undefined "community
>standards." The court's more precise definitions of these terms no
>longer include morality and taste,. But violence and degradation will
>invariable push pornography over the line into illegal obscenity: "The
>portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute
>the undue exploitation of sex," said the court in its ruling.
>"Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the
>risk of harm is substantial." [...] '[T]he guidelines are now clear:
>degradation, bondage, child pornography, and violence are out; adult
>erotica, no matter how explicit, will not be considered obscene.'
Unless it can be construed as degrading. Like 5 men lining up to get
oral sex from a woman, for example. Or anything that portrays a woman
as an object of lust.
>According to the _Ms._ article: "The ruling has the support of most
>women's groups in Canada, where the free-speech tradition is not a
>dominant as it is in the U.S.; as a result, feminist debate on
>pornography is less intense." Also: "'This is of world historic
>importance,' proclaimed Catherine A. MacKinnon, the University of
>Michigan law professor whose analysis of pornography and the law,
>co-authored with writer Andrea Dworkin, helped form the basis of
>LEAF's [Woman's Legal Education and Acuation Fund] argument.
>I note that _Ms's._ prediction that "adult erotica, no matter how
>explicit, will not be considered obscene" seems, as a practical matter
>incorrect. If it were true, alt.sex would not have been banned.
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays" - D Adams
- Patrick Taylor
Ericsson Network Systems exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you" alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 14:30:16 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug7.183008.13395@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 18:30:08 GMT
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
[...]
>But is pornography "speech"? Can it in any way be construed in the same
>light as war protests, etc...
>The founding fathers provided this so that man may openly discuss
>important issues, not to protect those who would degrade womankind.
[...]
Almost any speech that someone objects to is said to degrade someone
or another. To give a government the authority to define and censor
"degrading" speech is to give it the authority to censor almost any
speech.
The way to fight "degrading" speech is not to ban it, but rather to
out compete it.
[From _On Liberty_, 1859. This excerpt is quoted on page 121 of
_Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Johnathan W. Emord.]
======================== start ==================================
[I]f any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught
we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own
infalliabilty ....
[T]hough the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly
does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only
by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth
has any chance of being supplied ....
[E]ven if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth;
unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the
manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension [of] or feeling [for]
its rational grounds.
===========================end==========================
Moreover, discussion of important issues is only one reason the
founders (and many others) valued freedom of expression. Many of us
think freedom of expression is of value in and of itself. We think it
part of what is meant to be free.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 02:10:32 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 92 05:49:38 GMT
In article <1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> In general, people seem to be taking the attitude that
>Absolute Freedom of Speech is a principle which is somehow
>outside the normal give and take of the legal system. I think
>this may be because we usually associate suppression of freedom
>of speech with Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational
>debate of ideas. I find it odd that people can't see a
>distinction between this, and the kind of censorship of socially
>undesirable non-rhetorical material which has been practised for
>centuries all over the world -- including the US under the
>Constitution and the First Amendment.
I won't repeat Carl Kadie's excellent summary of the history of
suppression of "obscenity", except for the conclusion: suppression of
"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
19th century.
The genuinely long-standing tradition behind the suppression of
porn is the tradition that Authority has the right to control speech.
That is the tradition the founding fathers of the American system took a
stand against when they added the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
If you look at the language of that amendment, or at the philosophical
works that inspired it, you will find no evidence that the guarantee was
meant to be less than absolute. The only "intuitive" exception would be
cases where there was a conflict with other people's fundamental legal
rights.
>In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>> The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
>>>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
>>>decision to ban.
>>
>> No, it's not, it's a philosophical decision.
>
> What I meant was that it's both. If you were confronted
>by empirical evidence that challenged your philosophy, surely
>that would shake your philosophy.
No. Apparently you fail to understand my position. I am not
concerned with harm. I have no doubt at all that, to cite one example,
Leni Riefenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL has had a mainly pernicious
influence on the world. But I know that the way to counter lies is with
truth, not suppression. Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes
freedom with the very tyranny we claim to oppose.
>> The essence of the
>>freedom of speech and press guaranteed in the US Constitution can be
>>expressed in the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty".
>
> Then how was it that _Playboy_ (which didn't even show
>pubic hair) was banned for so long, in so many places, under
>the US Constitution + First Amendment?
There are quite a variety of reasons, and most are identical to
the reasons nonsexual but controversial works got censored: they
offended someone who had the power to impose censorship. But the
distinctive feature of porn, in American law, is that the Supreme Court
carved out a special exception to 1st Amendment protection on the basis
of "obscenity", a word with a highly mutable definition, apparently,
judging by what has and has not been judged "obscene" at various times
and places in American history.
If, as you mentioned earlier, you want to be philosophical, you
should defend the philosophical basis of that exception. "Harm"
arguments are beside the point, in that if some vague, spread-out
social harm becomes the grounds for censorship, nothing is safe.
>I think everyone has always
>recognized that "freedom of speech" is subject to balance with
>other freedoms and rights that people enjoy; what gets banned
>depends on the mores of the time.
I don't see the relationship of what you wrote before and after
the semicolon. I agree that rights may conflict, and that such conflicts
could justify specific limitations on freedom of speech, but when you
admit that what in fact gets banned is a matter of the vagaries of
popular sentiment, you negate the very argument you raise. You need to
show how legalized "obscenity" actually infringes on anyone's recognized
legal rights, not just point out that some will be offended by it.
>But again, our position on censorship is a combination of
>empirical evidence and philosophy, and we can surely use the
>empirical evidence to whatever extent we find reasonable.
There is no empirical evidence, period. No one has even agreed
on what we need evidence _of_. This is a philosophical and ethical
question, Jamie. The right way to form an opinion is to apply one's
general philosophical and ethical principles to the specific question of
porn, not to pore over tail-chasing sociological studies. Neither of us
can prove the other wrong, it isn't that kind of question. But it is
possible that, when the dross and irrelevancy is cleared away, a person
might find that their specific position on porn is INconsistent with
their more general principles.
>tell me again why
>old censorship laws were upheld within the framework of the US
>Constitution.
Leaving aside that the authority of the Bill of Rights wasn't
extended over local government until the 14th Amendment was passed, the
reason is the exception carved out for obscenity. The theory behind the
exception goes like this: porn expresses no ideas; rather, it is akin to
a sideshow entertainment, whose only justification is titillation. The
intent of the 1st Amendment is read as protecting the free expression of
_ideas_, and since porn expresses no ideas, it is not under the
protection of the 1st Amendment.
That's the legal theory. In case it's not already obvious I
don't buy it, but there's a couple of points about it worth noting. One
is that it's a very different justification for censorship than that
which is most discussed today. The "harm" arguments directly contradict
it. They accuse porn of supporting and defending pernicious ideas:
sexism, the dehumanization of women, etc. Ironically enough, were that
actually true, it would vacate the logic of the traditional "obscenity"
exception, and give porn the same protection that any other work of
politics or philosophy enjoys.
Another irony: by focusing on the elements that are the _real_
target of the censors (mainly sex, plus some other bodily functions like
excretion), "obscenity" is a well-targeted exception, even if philosophically
wrong-headed. By making "obscenity" the deciding factor, it keeps the
logic of the censorship restricted to porn, and is useless for censoring
something like _Mein Kampf_ which, however offensive and harmful, is not
sexual and cannot be found obscene in that sense.
The logic of the "harm" arguments is dangerously broad because,
rather than specifically defining an exceptional form of speech and
declaring it special, it suggests a limit applicable to speech of _all_
types: will the effect of the speech on society at large be good or bad?
Once we accept the notion that something should be censored because its
effects are more negative than positive, there is no theoretical limit
on what may be censored. Indirect effects are always arguable, and any
attempt to weigh cases on such a scale will merely be weighing the
prejudices of the jury or tribunal who are making the decision.
> Since this is assuming that there is no experimental
>evidence, I can't really respond to it. I would be nervous if
>my lawmakers were censoring solely due to "bad feeling"; as far
>as I can tell, they aren't.
What evidence do you imagine exists? What evidence _could_
exist? What pro-censorship argument based on "harm" could there possibly
be which would not consign _Das Kapital_ to the scrapheap alongside
_Babes In Bondage_? If skin flicks should be censored because they're
demeaning to women, doesn't it follow that a well-written and persuasive
philosophical essay that argued the natural superiority of males must be
censored on the same grounds?
Think it through, Jamie. Leave aside the fictional nature of
the so-called "evidence", and imagine that the ability of porn to
encourage sexism and sexual violence is established. Now what? The
Declaration of Independence provoked a lot more violence and death, in
a far more immediate fashion. But, as conservatives are so fond of
pointing out, with freedom comes responsibility. The same logic that
makes an individual free to choose what he will read or see, makes him
_individually_ responsible for any behavior that results. The terrorist
(and his bosses) are responsible for blowing up the building, not Karl
Marx or Mao ZeDong or the authors of PLO manifestos; the rapist is
guilty of the rape, whether porn had a negative effect on his character
or not. That's the essence of freedom. The theory is that people have
free will. Junk that theory and you junk the philosophical basis for
_all_ human rights.
>All I was saying is that I thought the Manitoba and SFU
>ACS people did something perfectly reasonable, to avoid criminal
>charges in Canada. After all, they aren't forced by the
>Canadian constitution (much less the US constitution) to import
>everything on the net.
We're not arguing whether what they did was legal, we're arguing
about whether it was _right_. And you'd just finished saying that
censoring the kind of stuff _you_ had in mind wouldn't limit the
distribution of anything actually worthwhile. Yet out of the other side
of your mouth you compliment the constructive or harmless nature of the
majority of what is posted on alt.sex.bondage, the group that was
censored. You need to make up your mind. Maybe the censorship of what
was worthwhile in the group strikes you as a necessary and reasonable
price to pay to suppress the obscene stuff; if so, say so, don't claim
such a price won't have to be paid.
>If the newsgroups were set up
>differently, or if the alt.sex.bondage readership weren't so
>intransigent, there would be no reason to have to block the
>import of the legitimate debate that goes on there.
Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. No one presently has the
power to control what gets posted to the group. If you give someone that
power you've got censorship, and all that entails. You certainly _don't_
have Usenet any more.
>>... Yes, Jamie, the
>>censors have their own agenda; it is not yours. Give them the power to
>>dictate to you what you may read, say, and think, and you can't expect
>>them to do it your way.
>
> Again the association of censorship with total mind
>control. Believe me, if anyone who wants to suppress free
>debate of ideas gets into power, they'll have a hell of a fight
>on their hands.
I don't believe you - you've already indicated otherwise. You've
argued right along that porn is censorable because it demeans women and
encourages sexual violence against them. Well, I've decided to change my
name to John Norman and write a philosophical work arguing that the
natural role of women in society is as slaves to the men, and that a
firm hand (beat 'em up occasionally) is best.
Whatcha gonna do with my book, Jamie? Are you gonna censor it,
and _still_ claim you favor the free debate of ideas? And if you don't
censor it, what arguments will you then come up with for censoring porn?
Not your current ones, because you reject those if you fail to censor my
book.
>> At least my preference is simple in principle: no content-based
>>restrictions on speech or press.
>
> So if, say, someone were to produce a magazine called
>_RAPE_, with erotic stories involving women getting raped and
>loving it, pictorials of rapes (produced by consenting adults,
>of course), and features like "How to Convince People You're Not
>a Rapist Anymore", and if they were to distribute this magazine
>in prisons for convicted rapists, you would think that's OK?
One technical quibble: convicted felons don't have full legal
rights; temporarily depriving them of these rights is part of the
justice process. Not that it matters. When convicts have no trouble
getting drugs inside (and they don't), it's hardly going to be possible
to keep porn away from 'em.
>Sorry, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
You already do. Censorship has _never_ succeeded in suppressing
anything people want. If there's a problem with your hypothetical
magazine, you'd better figure out _why_ people want it, and what will
make 'em stop wanting it. Anything less is just covering the problem up,
not solving it.
>>.... Every proposed censorship standard I've ever seen
>>leaves the door wide open to censoring things the law's supporters
>>approve of.
>
> Well, IMHO, that's life, that's law. Sometimes, late at
>night, when there aren't any other cars around, I want to go
>through a red light. I can't. Tough.
We're not talking theory, here, but practise. Past US censorship
has fallen on _Ulysses_, on _Jurgen_, on _Tropic of Cancer_, on _Lady
Chatterley's Lover_; current Canadian censorship is falling on the
entirety of alt.sex.bondage, and perhaps alt.sex. And both of our
countries have strong traditions of individual liberty - we're the
_kindest_ examples of censorship. But no matter the law, "blue movies",
"French postcards" and the like have always been easily obtained, for
the same reason no one has trouble finding a hooker if they want one,
despite its being illegal.
>> The law can't draw sharp distinctions when no such
>>distinctions exist. Instead, censorship law is perforce vague, and the
>>net result is censorship by consensus and popularity.
>
> But while the edges aren't clearly defined (as with any
>law, including the "principle" you state above), at least we can
>be sure that the current censorship laws are not going to
>suppress party political debate, for instance.
Current American law, yes; the "harm" arguments leave the
Supreme Court unmoved, so far, for exactly the "so what" reasons I've
outlined. Not so in Canada, where censorship of political speech
(Nazis) is already in place. Canadian law allows the censorship of
things for being both harmful and untrue. Well, "untrue" is a
noise-word, political and religious ideas aren't provable or
disprovable. And "harm" is likewise noise, since the harm is
speculative: "what if people believed this and acted on it?" Thus the
test of censorability in Canada is the usual one: will censoring the
items in question be viable politically?
Sorry, I don't submit my reading tastes to a vote, nor
blame my misbehavior on books I've read or movies I've seen.
- Nothing fails like success - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: barry@netcom.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 02:36:42 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Aug 92 07:29:17 GMT
[ I tried to include sfu.general in the newsgroups header, but our site is
running losing B-news and refused it. ]
In article <1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
In general, people seem to be taking the attitude that
Absolute Freedom of Speech is a principle which is somehow
outside the normal give and take of the legal system.
Right. Freedom of Speech should be absolute and outside the normal give
and take of the legal system.
I think this may be because we usually associate suppression of freedom
of speech with Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational debate of
ideas.
Right.
I find it odd that people can't see a distinction between this, and the
kind of censorship of socially undesirable non-rhetorical material
which has been practised for centuries all over the world -- including
the US under the Constitution and the First Amendment.
There is no distinction. All censorship is evil.
--
Enjoy,
Joe Wells
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 09:48:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <24651.9208070912@uhura.aston.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 11:12:58 GMT
Yes, but only if the source is outside of the UK.
How long the the cabinet table?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 11:15:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.32
Message-ID: <1992Aug8.151453.24751@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 15:14:53 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n32".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n32
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending July 5th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 4, while not directly addressing the subject of rights in
electronic circumstances, are of interest as they discuss the
historical background of and present political attitudes toward the
United States' Bill of Rights.
1. The Bill of Rights does not contain cast-iron guarantees. The
American Founders believed in a strong yet limited central government
and so were careful to keep to phraseology which allowed of individual
states' own interpretations.
<1992Jun30.162510.22754@anasazi.com>
2. There is no conspiracy to quash teaching of the "correct
interpretation of the Constitution and the natural rights of man" due
to its supposedly being "antithetical to big government and the
liberal agenda." At the most there is evidence of the inadequacy of
the American schooling system.
<1992Jul1.211845.13410@amhux2.amherst.edu>
3. The Federalist Papers, while not being "the preamble to the
Constitution," are cited by Supreme Court Justices since they an
insight into the arguments of some influential and important thinkers.
4. The Framers of the Bill of Rights were not far-sighted saints. They
were willing and able to accept slavery, did not advocate the
enfranchisement of women and non-whites, and did nothing to protect
people from the excesses of state governments as well as the federal
government.
<1992Jul2.114549.13751@athena.mit.edu>
Notes 5 and 6 support the deletion of the NSFNet's Acceptable Use
Policy in the interests of free trade and the avoidance of commercial
monopolies.
5. The solution to the problem of the NSF "essentially providing free
rides to direct [commercial] competitors via government subsidy" is to
scrap the AUP entirely. This would "open up a world of competition,"
eliminate any chance of a monopoly position on commercial traffic, and
generally be a ">good thing<."
6. While the goal of only subsidizing academic or research use of the
network was laudable in its early days, it is inappropriate now that
the government seems to be adopting the goal of a nation-wide network
structure.
<9207011437.AA26039@feldspar.bbn.com>
Notes 7 to 10 are on miscellaneous subjects.
7. The US Senator Gore has just announced a bill that would "ensure
the widest possible application of high performance computing and
networking." While I applaud the goals of the Bill I am somewhat
pessimistic about its chances of being more than an election promise.
<9207012156.AA00183@pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
8. USENET is not as isolated as some people seem to think. For
instance, during the attempted coup in Moscow the information posted
to USENET was used by Voice of America and CNN.
<130dp3INNeo@rodan.UU.NET>
9. "In the US, people are trying to stamp out speech they find
offensive. So they label it "harassment", claim that it
"discriminates", and ban it from the workplace, schools, housing,
etc." A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this
problem, and is here reprinted with the permission of the WSJ.
<1992Jul3.221144.20089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
10. "Since virtually every place where people associate is a workplace
for someone, even if it's just the people who maintain the
establishment, prohibiting "offensive work environments" requires
suppressing free speech in almost any place people could gather to
discuss issues."
<1992Jul3.232416.23672@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
- Elizabeth]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 16:26:13 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 20:37:23 GMT
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
[...]
> If skin flicks should be censored because they're
>demeaning to women, doesn't it follow that a well-written and persuasive
>philosophical essay that argued the natural superiority of males must be
>censored on the same grounds?
[...]
>Well, I've decided to change my
>name to John Norman and write a philosophical work arguing that the
>natural role of women in society is as slaves to the men, and that a
>firm hand (beat 'em up occasionally) is best.
> Whatcha gonna do with my book, Jamie? Are you gonna censor it,
>and _still_ claim you favor the free debate of ideas? And if you don't
>censor it, what arguments will you then come up with for censoring porn?
>Not your current ones, because you reject those if you fail to censor my
>book.
Well said!
I usually feel "I agree!" -type posts are unnecessary, but this is
_the_ main issue here as I see it, and I fear the length of Barry's
article might've scared some from reading it. (If you missed it, look
it up. It's worth reading in full.) And I would really like to see
if Jamie or anyone can come up with and answer to that last question.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 18:43:59 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.censorship,rec.arts.fine,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Message-ID: <1992Aug8.224012.14673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 22:40:12 GMT
StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
[...]
>I personally don't see anything wrong with the University's removing
>the art in question from Levis. I think the University is entitled
>to choose to "decorate" public areas in a manner it sees fit. If these
>pieces of art (alleged art, perhaps?) were being removed from an art
>gallery, then I would question the University's actions. However,
>as I understand it, that section of Levis really couldn't be considered
>a real gallery.
[...]
Academic freedom and artistic expression are not limited (morally or
legally) to a few special zones on campus called "real galleries".
Here is the first paragraph of a statement by the American Association
of University Professors' committee on academic freedom. [From ACADEME
July-August 1990, p. 13]
'Academic Freedom and Artistic Expression
Attempts to curtail artistic presentations at academic institutions on
grounds that the works are offensive to some members of the campus
community and general public occur with disturbing frequency. Those
who support restrictions argue that works presented to the public
rather than in the classroom or other entirely intramural settings
should conform to their view of the prevailing community standard
rather than to standards of academic freedom. We believe that
"essential as freedom is for the relation and judgment of facts, it is
even more indispensable to the imagination."[1] In our judgment
academic freedom in the creation and presentation of works in the
visual and performing arts, by ensuring greater opportunity for
imaginative exploration and expression, best serves the public and the
academy.'
--
[1] Helen C. White, "Our Most Urgent Professional Task," AAUP
Bulletin 45 (March 1959), 282.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
