Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:45:42 -0400
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: censorship
In-Reply-To: <001b01c0f8d6$cf4b9220$0200a8c0@Bill>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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"
