Xref: utzoo alt.sex.bondage:2398 ont.general:1279 news.groups:16769 Path: utzoo!censor!kink!hugh From: hugh@kink.UUCP (Hugh D. Gamble @ Phaedra V's Amiga 2500) Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,ont.general,news.groups Subject: alt.sex.bondage Keywords: alt.sex.bondage propagation Message-ID: <61722.AA61722@kink> Date: 23 Jan 90 06:13:37 GMT Followup-To: alt.sex.bondage, ont.general, news.groups Distribution: ont Lines: 87 In Message: maffray@richelieu.rutgers.edu (Frederic Maffray) writes: >Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.flame,news.groups >Subject: Censorship >Date: 22 Jan 90 21:16:03 GMT > >Surprise, this morning. > >"Newsgroup alt.sex.bondage does not have a spool directory!" > >... any longer at the University of Toronto. What is the impact of this on propagation of alt.sex.bondage? > >The following explains it: > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Article 1010 of ont.general: >Newsgroups: ont.general >From: brian@radio.astro.utoronto.ca (Brian Glendenning) >Subject: Objectionable article in alt.sex.bondage >Message-ID: >Distribution: ont >Date: 20 Jan 90 16:01:55 > >Recently there was a fantasy posted in alt.sex.bondage that involves >the rape and torture of an unwilling victim. I am rmgrouping this >newsgroup from our system. You may want to review the matter for >yourself. If nothing else, were the new media to find this story I >rather suspect that it would make the fuss over rec.humor.funny of a >while back look like small potatoes. The article in question is: > >Message-ID: <1447@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> > There definitely is a potential for a "media fuss". I'm reluctant to criticize system administrators who deem it prudent to remove the group. I would ask, however, that this be done with level headed thought, rather than out of spontaneous hysteria. And please, be considerate in informing any downstream sites of any action you decide to take. I hope that sites orphaned by an upstream decision not to carry a.s.b will be able to make alternate feeding arrangements, and ask that open minded (risk taking?) sites be generous in helping to smooth out any unwanted propagation disruptions that arise. Personally, I found the particular article in question distasteful. If all the articles in a.s.b were like that, I might not bother to carry it. As it is, I will continue to carry the group as long as I am able to do so, and endeavor to aid others who so wish, in doing so also. I personally distinguish between: i) Fiction incorporating illegal or unpopular acts. ii) Discussion about illegal or unpopular acts. iii) Discussion or conspiracy with intent to commit illegal acts. iv) The acts themselves. (carrying out actions described in i, ii, or iii) (I'm sure the law isn't always clear and simple, but I'm not a lawyer, just a good ol' layperson who tries to do right by other people.) I am not willing to condone or carry messages in category iii. I'm not sure how I would deal with news articles in category iii, but ceasing to carry a news group because some individual posts a message of that nature to the group would seem unwarranted. The posting at the root of this current batch of rmgroups is in category i, it doesn't give me any ethical trouble to know it has been at this site. This message you are reading now, could conceivably go in ii, I'm willing to defend it also. Let's not blow this out of proportion. I don't believe it's valid to cry censorship because any system administrator or organization decides not to carry a news group. When someone tells me what I may or may not do with my own time and resources, *then* I'll start crying censorship as loudly as anyone. >--- >Frederic Maffray, Toronto, Ontario. -- # Hugh D. Gamble No Disclaimers. # hugh@kink.UUCP # Burning the candle at both ends, or just a flaming ball of wax?