Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-lcc!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!theory.cs.cmu.edu!dld
From: dld@theory.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: GNU and sex
Message-ID: <1026@theory.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 24-Mar-87 18:19:28 EST
Article-I.D.: theory.1026
Posted: Tue Mar 24 18:19:28 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Mar-87 05:48:26 EST
References: <1028@rpics.RPI.EDU> <1049@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 24
Keywords: emacs sex


I find the current "anti-censorship" backlash to be a little extreme.  I
really didn't see any of the people who posted complaining about the (to
them) offensive content of the release to be advocating censorship, per se
(except maybe for the system administrator who deleted the offending file
from his site's gnu-emacs installation.)  Instead, their posts could be
seen as their exercising their right of free speech in an attempt to affect
the opinions of their peers.  What's wrong with their complaining that
"hey guys, don't you think that this stuff you sent out is kind of
offensive?  Maybe you could leave it out in the future?"  No-one can very
well compel someone to do something throught a netnews post, so I don't see
how anyone can claim that any censorship could be accomplished.

The distinction is the same as that between anti-pornography groups trying
to convince people that they should not go to see such films, which I have
no objection to, versus their lobbying for anti-pornography legislation,
which I do find objectionable.

That said, let me add that I found the various options kind of crude,
especially the rape and pedophilia ones.  (Bestiality too, if the
beast is unwilling.)  As well as offensive, I found it unprofessional
as well.  There are plenty of outlets for humor in this electronic
playground, and I daresay that there would have been no objections to sex.1
if posted on net.humor -- only complaints that it wasn't funny.