Date:         Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:44:55 -0700
Reply-To:     Bill N <freeholder@STARBAND.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Bill N <freeholder@STARBAND.NET>
Subject:      Re: censorship
Comments: To: Tom Carrington <tcarrington@RELITECH.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

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.

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.  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.

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.

Bill Nolan
Willcox, Arizona



[text/html]