NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/3892

Text File | 1993-01-11 | 7.6 KB | 151 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!kadie
From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:44:53 GMT
Lines: 137

[A repost - Carl]

From: [e-mail] (David Clunie)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 24 Dec 1992 10:57:58 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Ah yet another person who wants to inflict his morality on others ...

To give my opinion in response to your opinion ...

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] () writes:
>
>The Internet newsgroup, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, is just a forum for
>pornographic images to be exchanged worldwide.
>
>    1) The images are pornographic, not 'erotic': consult any of your
>female colleagues for their opinions

So what ? This distinction has proven to be a difficult one for courts to deal
with in may countries depending on how draconian the laws are, but
regardless, I believe that the net should be a forum for free speech, and if
someone wants to exercise such a right they should be encouraged to do so. If
this is against the law in this country then the laws need to be changed.

I do not buy this "pornography promotes violence to women" argument that is
frequently promulgated. There is no good evidence that this is the case that
I am aware of. Men's attitudes to women in this country are so bad anyway that
I doubt that pornography plays much of a role.

>    2) The images are largely _illegally_ scanned-in images from
>pornographic magazines (so that there is copyright infringement)

If this is in fact the case, as it often is I gather, then it is up to those
copyright holders to seek redemption, and demonstrate that a breach has
occurred and who is responsible for it ... no easy task I am sure, and of
very dubious financial benefit. In some countries, such as in Australia I
understand, some copyright violations are a crime. Finding an offender to
pinpoint in this situation may be a bit difficult though. A local legal
opinion on this would be interesting to hear.

>    3) The usage of these images is NOT one of the uses of AarNet that our
>employers want to be paying for

Speak for your own employer. You may well be right on this score. I dare say most
couldn't care less unless it directly interferes with their profitability. On the
other hand it may well breach the AARNet acceptable use policy, which probably
exists just in case some enterprising and bored reporter chooses to focus
their attention, rather than to seriously limit bandwidth consumption. This
media problem has occasionally arisen in the US and Canada (the latter having
seriously fascist laws about this sort of thing similar to Australia and
New Zealand), but usually blows over pretty soon, and the status quo is restored.

>Other reasons to remove the group (and any similar groups):
>
>    * the scandal that would be attached to Aarnet and the Internet more
>generally if this were to reach the conventional media

What's life without a scandal or two ? Who appointed you moral guardian of the
AARNet ? Besides, a bit of scandal might make more people aware of the existence
and value of a network like AARNet and increase the available funding.

>       * there are better things to spend multi-megabytes of storage space on

Then don't get the group. I don't tell you what to do with your disk space. Don't
tell me what to do with mine.

>    * women are badly enough represented on computer networks without
>further turning them away with the sexual harassment implicit in the
>promulgation of such pornographic images.

Give us a break. If women are badly represented on the net, and I dispute this
assertion, then it is because they are badly represented in the workforce
that uses the net. Besides, I know plenty of female news readers who like these
groups. Women have a sex life too believe it or not, though few are aroused by
the same visual "erotica" aka "pornography" that men are, those with more extreme
tastes do seem to find a lot of the pictures worthwhile (one of the largest
recent series was posted by a woman in germany). There are also plenty of male
pictures for the gay males. I suppose you want these removed on the grounds they
are demeaning to men or perhaps because you think homosexuals should be wiped
off the face of the earth (a common attitude among censorship oriented types).

>If you think that the newsgroup is 'harmless fun': see what your female
>colleagues, friends, wives, secretaries think ===== particularly in light of
>the fact that your employer is paying for it. Legally, it is a clear case of
>sexual harassment.

I think you may find that the definition of sexual harassment, morally and
legally is not that clearcut. Furthermore there seems to be great debate
recently that some contemporary legislation in this regard has gone a bit
overboard. Again, as always, if they don't want to see it, they don't need to
look at it. Anyone who goes to the trouble of entering a group called
"alt.binaries.pictures.erotica" and then downloading, concatenating, uudecoding
and displaying a picture clearly described as "two pregnant hamsters go down on
each other" is asking for what they get ! These pictures certainly don't just
pop up on the screen. Intersetingly most of the cases I have heard of in US
and Canadian universities have arisen when juvenile undergraduates have
deliberately caused such images to pop up on screens where women are working or
studying ... even I agree that this is despicable behaviour, but hardly a
direct consequence of the carraige of the groups by the net. It's not the
gun, it is the person behind it, that is the problem.

>nb: I am _not_ talking from a moral 'high ground'. I am _not_ a card-carrying
>member of the Moral Majority. However, pornography generally is demeaning to
>women, and I believe that it is particularly poor in the present context.

Perhaps you think of yourself as a well meaning liberal, but whenever you seek
to curb the behaviour of others you are inflicting your morals on another person.
In a society such as ours, presumed intolerable evils such as murder and child
abuse and rape are prohibited, as I believe they should be. To go further though
and attempt to censor one's thoughts and reading material, be they on paper or
electronically, is to me repulsive. The burgeoning network should be the forefront
of liberalization as it is so difficult to exercise control over, and well-
meaning but in my humble opinion overzealous would-be censor like yourself
should be reviled.

If I seem a bit aggressive or excessively personal in my remarks about this
subject, it is because I feel very strongly about this subject. I am sure
everyone is tired of this issue, but whenever someone threatens to censor or
control what I read or watch I will leap up to defend my belief that I have the
right to free speech whether it is legal in this country or not.

If you want to defend women, then ask yourself why we buy oil and sell sheep to
a country like Saudi Arabia where women are regularly abused, mutilated, and
murdered by their fathers for simple offenses like driving a car, stoned to
death for committing adultery. If you want to do some good for women, get a
perspective on reality ! Needless to say there is not much free speech in Saudi.

Merry Christmas.

david


--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =