Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Re^2: New Communicational Morality Message-ID: <3703@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 9 Apr 89 20:26:12 GMT References: <784@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 28 From article <784@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, by foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier): " " In his message of Wed Apr 5, Jeff Daiell comments ... " > ... To be perfectly -- well, " > "frank", about it, Just Say No To Censorship. " " I could not agree more to your last sentence, and I am sure so would " prof. Frank. I am a little in doubt about the "option of whether to " watch TV ..." -- I am, e.g., somewhat concerned about those channels that " broadcast cartoons all day long -- are you sure all parents resist " the temptation to leave their children in front of the TV set when " they are busy? You're fooling yourself. You say you're against censorship, then in the next sentence say that you're uncertain as to whether censorship ought to be imposed on TV cartoons. Do you think censorship is ok just so long as one does not mention the word? " ... so-called "obtrusive" information. No -- as I read further I see you think that censorship is ok for public information, you're just against censorship of information passed between consenting adults. Right? A plausible extension of many people's views about obscenity. But let's do call things by their right names. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu