NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/3895

Text File | 1993-01-11 | 9.0 KB | 192 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!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 07:45:23 GMT
Lines: 178

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: [e-mail] (Hulk Hogan)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:15:52 GMT

[e-mail] writes:
>The Internet newsgroup, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, is just a forum for
>pornographic images to be exchanged worldwide.

Gee. With a name like  alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, I had expected it
to be for the exchange of crochet patterns...

>Since pornography is demeaning to women, I believe the AarNet and any other
>Australian network, should not be subscribing to such rubbish.

Err.  Let me get this right.. "Since porn is demeaning to women" ???
This is an accepted fact, like the Earth goes around the sun and
COBOL sucks?

Sounds vaguely similar to the radical US feminist Andrew Dworkin, who
insists that all porn is demeaning to women, and I *think*, got state
legislation passed to that effect...  That's right, even gay porn with
only men in it is demeaning to women.  I must have been away the day God
announced that porn is demeaning to women.

>Recently, images of nude women chained up and tied up have graced the pages of
>this 'news'group. This does not, in my opinion, fall within the usage
>guidelines of AarNet.

Much of what goes on on the net doesn't fall within the guidelines.
AARNet is supposed to be for research. Ever send email that wasn't 100%
business?  Ever had a talk session which had any frivolous content?
Ever read rec.humo[u]r.funny?  Ever used a smilie on the net?  Tut tut tut.
Shame on you. Let's ban it all.  Gee. Even your atricle was not strictly
for research, and so isn't within the guidelines.

>There are at least three reasons to remove this newsgroup and any others which
>are similarly demeaning to women:

>    1) The images are pornographic, not 'erotic': consult any of your
>female colleagues for their opinions

Gee. It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so black and
white... No. On second thoughts, I don't think it is...

A number of women I know read and enjoy it and other sex oriented
newsgroups, engage in flirty/sexy talk/email/irc sessions, and so on.
And of course, there are females I know who would find the material
offensive.  Not all women are alike.  Not all women think alike. Not
all women have the same tastes.

You say it's pornography, not eroticism. Just what *is* "pornography"?
I expect we would all agree that the word has negative connotations,
but who can agree on what exactly *is* pornography and what is erotica?
Are .gif's [pictures] of Cindy Crawford or Elle in bikini's, scanned
in from Sports Illustrated or Vogue or wherever, and posted in say
alt.supermodels, "porn"?  Are topless pictures of Sam Fox or La Ciccolina
"porn"?  How about topless picture of Fergie having her toes sucked?
Are the stories in rec.arts.erotica porn? Who decides what is porn, what
is erotica?   "I read erotica.  You read porn.  They look at smut."

Different people have different ideas of where erotica stops and porn
starts. In case you are interested, mine is when the people involved
are underaged, don't/can't consent, or if there are violent overtones.
So that I think stills from an X-rated movie are fine, but the Fergie
pics aren't. Strange world huh?

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

The images on a.b.p.e overwhelmingly come from Bulletin Boards. They
have information in them detailing the name and the phone numbers of
the originating BBS.  Where the material being scanned in *originally*
comes from, I don't know, though I do know some places hire photographers
and models and produce their own. Regardless, there is ample opportunity
for the holders of copyright to pursue the BBS's where the pictures
originate.

You are asking that AARNet monitor, investigate the legality of, and
censor traffic on a.b.p.e.  This sets a dangerous precedent.  They would
have to scan all the other groups, and ftp traffic and personal email...
for illegal pictures, copyright articles, commercial software, and so on...

AARNet should provide the network for traffic to flow through, and leave
the police to play policeman.  It's impractical to ask AARNet to do this
sort of monitoring, I suspect that Geoff and Peter don't want to..

Do we REALLY want a network where people are paid to actively monitor
our traffic?  I say "No".

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

But aus.jokes, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, misc.fitness, alt.personals,
comp.sources.games etc etc *are* ??  Who wants to cast the first stone?

>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

Hopefully AARNet would stand up and say,  'if we were to censor this, we
would need to be consistent, and monitor and censor all groups, ...
and scan personal email and ...  This sort of scanning would be extremely
costly in terms of manpower and money, and we have better things to spend
it on, aside from the fact that we don't WANT to be that sort of Big Brother
network. In a choice between freedom of speech, which allows this sort of
expression, and overbeaurocracy, we have no compunctions in choosing the
former.'

I don't believe we should cower and hide, or sacrifice a free and open
network and replace it with some Orwellian nightmare, to try to appease
a potential publicity stunt from the noisy Fred Nile's and Derryn Hinch's
of this world.

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

System administrators are responsible for their own disk space. They can
control which groups they wish to be fed, and how long to keep them around
before expiring them. I don't tell you how to manage your disk, or tell
other admins how to manage theirs. Why dont you do the same?

>    * 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.

See my previous comments.  If you think this is logical and believe
this, I don't know if you are capable of understanding the issue.
Simple suggestions to complex issues indicate to me a lack of understanding.

>If you are not aware of what I am talking about, take a look at the newsgroup.

I've been observing the group since it was created.

>If you _are_ aware of this newsgroup and agree with me, please write or email
>your nearest Aarnet representative expressing your disgust at this 'news'group.

>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.

Once again, NOT ALL WOMEN ARE THE SAME. I personally know a good number
who read this group, and I've shown it and pictures to some of my female
users who have asked to see what it was about.  If they wish to go to the
trouble of collecting the atricles, unpacking them, downloading to their
PCs/Macs and viewing them, then fine by me. Just so long as they don't use
up too much of the disk space used for all the home directories...

Neither I nor anyone else is FORCING anyone, yourself included to read
or view material they do not wish to. It's not sexual harassment to know
of the existence of such a group, any more than it is to know that the
local newsagent has "Playboy" and "Penthouse" with similar materials.

>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.

Depends on your definition of morality of course, but I could never see
how someone who wants to censor and restrict freedom of speech, impose
their morals on others and espouse trendy PC views could ever believe they
had the moral high ground.

The Moral Majority are neither.

/\ndy
--
Andrew M. Jones,  Systems Programmer,     Email: {root,andy}@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au
Centre for Lang. Teaching & Research,     UUCP: uunet!lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au!andy
University of Queensland,  St. Lucia,     Phone: [phone] (Use 07 in Oz)
Brisbane,  Qld. AUSTRALIA  4072        Fax: [phone]    IRC: HulkHogan

"No matter what hits the fan, it's never distributed evenly....."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =