Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: pornography, censorship
Message-ID: <31366@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 12:33:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.31366
Posted: Thu Oct  3 12:33:44 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 05:49:38 EDT
References: <2529@watcgl.UUCP> <1153@ames.UUCP> <2564@watcgl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 89

> If it's legal then society has said - "yes it is acceptable to us".  

I'm sorry; I can't agree with this.  When it's legal, society has said
"it is *not* unacceptable to us" or "we don't care one way or the
other about this".

Not the same thing at all.

> > that we all should have the right to do as we please, as long as we don't harm
> > others in our pursuit of happiness.
> 
> However some of these attitudes do harm others.

One must be very careful about (even suggesting) banning attitudes.

Have, and express, whatever opinion you like about these "attitudes"
but remember that your opinion is, itself, the result of your
attitude.  Remember that legal intervention is *always* a two edged
sword.  Today you may support a legal ban on certain attitudes that
you find offensive; tomorrow it may be *your* attitudes that are
banned by that same law.

> > >   I do find it impossible to believe that this legitimization of
> > >   hatred/violence towards a particular group *does not* encourage
> > >   a similar attitude/behaviour among it's fans.
> > 
> > 	But what you believe is irrelevant; what *facts* do you have to
> > justify the *imposition* of your belief on others?
> 
> Why is it irrelevant - it's based on a lifetime of experience and some
> considerable thought on the matter.  This type of attitude is quite
> frequently found on the net - if you can't quantize something then
> you can't legitimately comment on it - if people really ran their
> lives this way and refused to make decisions unless they had hard
> numbers then I don't think much would get done.

If I may put words in the mouth of the person at the second level of
quotation (based upon observation of the progression of this "debate")
"what you believe is irrelevant" from the viewpoint of whether certain
*attitudes* should be banned.  Had you read the second half of the
sentence in question, that should have been obvious.

Does the fact that you believe in a certain god, or that there is
none, give you the right to impose that belief on others?  The very
same principles apply.

> > 
> > >5. As for those who worry about censoring porn opening the floodgates
> > >   of censorship I reiterate we already have some forms of censorship,
> > >   this will not be a first.  Should we worry about censorship getting
> > >   out of hand?  You bet; I don't trust the government anymore than
> > >   anyone else - but instead of putting so much  energy into protecting
> > >   porn why not save it to protect something worth protecting if and
> > >   when it comes under attack from censors?
> > 
> > 	If you only wish to protect ideas you agree with from censorship, then
> > you do not, by my definition, believe in freedom of speech.
> 
> I don't.  I fully expect and accept that other people will have different
> ideas and that they have the right to express them. I don't however think
> this is some sort of god-given right.  I think the right to expression
> ends when what is being said is wilfully false, encourages violence, or
> promotes hatred and divisiveness.

Perhaps it wasn't given by god but it certainly is by our constitution.

How easily some people dismiss a document that is the very foundation
of our nation.  The very document that *gives* ***them*** *the* *right* to
express these opinions!

> > -  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry

> 	John Chapman

John, when I reached the signature line I was reminded that you are
not from the USA and, hence, the segment above about our (US)
constitution doesn't apply to you and I don't know enough about *your*
constitution to comment.

I'm going to leave it in, however, for those US citizens who would
dismiss our constitution out of hand.


-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com