Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!shelby!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!amelia!prabhu
From: prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Censorship and soc.religion.eastern - Opinions(1)
Message-ID: <1990Nov10.095048.5988@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 10 Nov 90 09:50:48 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.074140.20304@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 90
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


From: Ken_Blackman.INTEGRATION@gateway.qm.apple.com (Ken Blackman)

As you probably know, censorship has been a topic of much discussion in 
the entertainment world recently, and one to which I have devoted a great 
deal of thought.   I do have opinions about it in that context, but I view 
this medium in such a different light that I feel I must completely 
reconsider the question before answering, rather than simply applying to 
it any previously arrived at conclusions regarding records and movies and 
the like.

I am prompted to ask, Why are you censoring at all?   Let me add 
immediately that I don't mean to imply that I think you shouldn't, or that 
censorship is wrong, etc.   I just think it's important to find out what 
YOUR reasons for censoring the posts to this group are, rather than 
assuming I already know what they are.   I think the motivations of the 
individual actually charged with the task must have some bearing on WHAT 
ultimately gets censored.   I'm also interested in how that task fits into 
the scope of the net as a whole:  what is our usual policy?   To what 
degree, and under what conditions, is censorship customary?  Or required?  
Or prohibited?

I would like to make one comment about the statement of yours which I 
quoted above.   It seems to me that whether you alter an article or reject 
it, in either case this is still censorship.   Again, I'm not saying that 
this is bad or unwarrented, etc.   (You know, the word censorship has such 
negative connotations, I feel I must appologize each time I use it. :-)  
This for me is part of the dilemma.)   I mention all of this because I 
believe that in order to discuss this controversy in any real depth, we 
need to be real about what we're talking about, what our actions are and 
what we hope to accomplish thereby.   In other words, lets get things 
straight here:  this IS censorship, whatever method we choose, so if we 
agree on that, and we decide to do it, then lets choose a policy that is 
in line with our reasons for doing it.

That said, let me voice some of my own feelings on this subject.   My 
reasons for supporting the moderator in exercising his/her authority in 
this area are as follows:

1) I personally wish not to offend anyone.
2) It is my understanding that some sites will not carry a group that 
contains obscenities.
3) I have seen irresponsible posts in other groups which I personally felt 
added little or nothing, and heightened tensions for many posts thereafter.

Note that there are other possible reasons, for example, someone may feel 
that the topics discussed in this group make the presence of obscenities 
particularly inappropriate, or there may simply exist some policy 
requiring that the contents of this group be clean.

My reasons for objecting to this type of moderation are as follows:

1) I personally wish not to offend anyone.
2) I have found that language conveys tremendous amounts of information 
beyond the obvious meanings of the individual words.
3) I feel the net's purpose is best served when moderators' presence is, 
in general, felt as little as possible.

Again, there may be other reasons, such as a strong belief in the concept 
of freedom of speech, or perhaps a policy prohibiting censorship.   Hey, 
what do I know?

Thus, with the understanding that I have critical questions as yet 
unanswered, let me offer this suggestion.   In general, obscenities will 
occur infrequently, right?   When an article arrives which contains 
material with which you, as moderator, feel uncomfortable:

1) tell the poster this,
2) tell them why, 
3) ask if they feel the material carries a meaning that's crucial to the 
essense of their post, and 
4) ask if they can re-write it to be less potentially offensive.

If they answer that the article cannot be rewritten without loosing the 
substance of what they wished to convey, and I don't think this will 
happen very often in this group but when it does, then I submit to you 
that you have a duty to allow it to be posted as is.  The poster has been 
notified of the way their article may be interpreted;  they've 
demonstrated that they are aware of this, and that they nonetheless have 
something important which they're trying to convey to the other people on 
the net.   Unless it is wildly off the subject, or absolutely X-rated (or 
NC-17 rated :-) ), I say let it go through.  Let the readers react in 
whatever way they choose, rather than assuming you already know how they 
will react.   We may surprise you!

In any case, good wishes, and thank you for opening the topic for 
discussion.

--KB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------