Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:43:15 -0700
Reply-To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: censorship
Where are those bikini clad women??? And if they look like some bikini clad
women I've seen, you're damned right I'll complain.
Come to think of it, if they look good in bikinis, I may just complain that
they are wearing said bikinis!
Karl
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Beierl" <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: censorship
> I really hate to prolong this thread, but I haven't the discipline to
> leave this lying...
>
> At 11:44 AM 6/19/2001, Bill N wrote:
> >You open a can of worms that the courts have recently refused to
> >touch. There is no generally accepted definition of
> >pornography. Everyone thinks they know what it is, but nobody can define
> >it or agree on a definition.
>
> Curiously enough nobody seems to have had the slightest trouble
recognizing
> this sample. "Pornography" is undoubtedly a word with situational
> definitions -- in this case it's been defined as "what the list admin says
> it is" and in context it's quite clear that overt sexual activity with the
> intention to titillate meets his definition as well as that of some
> noticeable percentage of the list. It's also clear that...
>
> >
> >To many religious groups, a woman in a bikini is pornography, and some
> >only require the face or ankles to be uncovered. I guess this means no
> >more links to photos of campouts, unless your intention is to enforce the
> >views of some moralistic groups and discriminate against those of other
groups.
>
> ...does not fall into his definition, nor have list members complained
> about them.
>
> > I hope not, because that would be bigotry. No particular religion's
> > beliefs should be favored here. If you want to ban things offensive to
> > the born-again Christian crowd, you should certainly ban things
offensive
> > to Moslems, Hindus, Wiccans, or any other religion.
>
> This is by no means only or even primarily a religious issue -- I think
> that questions of civility, courtesy, politeness and good taste as
> exemplified in the society at large enter in as well. This list has
always
> had a sense implied or otherwise of the spectrum of desirable / acceptable
> / unwise but tolerable / really pushing it / unacceptable. All that has
> happened here is that one of the boundaries of unacceptable has been made
> explicit. This is not Liberty Hall -- we are not free to "spit on the mat
> and call the cat a bastard."
>
> >
> >Censorship always starts because some well-meaning person thinks they
know
> >what is best for the group. It happens because some person or group
feels
> >morally justified in imposing their view of how things should be on
> >everyone. The people who do this think they are right, but they are
> >not. I know you mean well, but your attitude is more dangerous to our
> >freedoms than any outside enemy.
>
> I'm sorry, this is not a free-speech venue, and therefore not a
free-speech
> issue. Tom is imposing his views on members of this list *writing to this
> list.* He is at perfect liberty to ban use of the word "blue" if he so
> chooses, if he thinks it would benefit the list or merely if it suits his
> own taste. People who disagree with his taste are reminded of the old
> Maine story of the Moose-Turd Pie...
>
> david
>
>
> David Beierl - Providence, RI
> http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
> '84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
> '85 GL "Poor Relation"
|