jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/19/85)
I'd like to make a few points about the ongoing porn/censorship
debate.
{ pre-point : when I say porn below I am not talking about films
books etc. showing consenting adults enjoying themselves.
}
1. Everyone seems to operate under the assumption that freedom of
speech is a yes/no situation - it' either there or it isn't.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that in
the US the publication of anything that counsels sedition is
censored and/or prohibited. Assuming this is true it seems
a reasonable proposition - at least there don't seem to be
many people arguing for the right to publish seditious material
- it protects the general welfare. Is the publication of what
is generally considered "classified" material not censored or
prohibited. Is not the correspondence of inmates in various
institiutions censored? It seems to me we are not talking
about whether or not to introduce censorship into our society
but rather whether or not it should be extended to a very
particular/limited form of publication.
Why do people think that the interests of such a complex "thing"
as our society are best, or even adequately, served by simplistic
black and white rules? Life is much more complex so why should
our laws be so simpleminded and inflexible?
2. Freedoms generally also entail responsibilities as well. We,
for example, have freedom of movement but not the freedom to
move by vehicle while intoxicated. If we are to have freedom
of speech should we not also have commeasurate responsibilities
as to it's use? Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to
promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group
(e.g. women)?
Here in Canada there have recently been convictions of individuals
on the basis of their publishing material which they knew to be
false and which was designed to encourage hatred of an identifiable
group.
3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not
enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that
any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both
lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus
is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not
therefore enjoy constitiutional protection?
4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link
of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and
rape". Maybe there isn't. I don't know. What I do know is
that the very toleration/existence of porn by society lends
it an air of legitimacy and thereby associates the same air of
legitimacy and acceptance with the attitudes and ideas it promotes.
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.
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?
--
John Chapman
...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman
Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me
and they may not even be mine.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (09/21/85)
> John Chapman: > 1. Everyone seems to operate under the assumption that freedom of > speech is a yes/no situation - it' either there or it isn't. > Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that in > the US the publication of anything that counsels sedition is > censored and/or prohibited.... > ... Is the publication of what > is generally considered "classified" material not censored or > prohibited.... > Why do people think that the interests of such a complex "thing" > as our society are best, or even adequately, served by simplistic > black and white rules? Life is much more complex so why should > our laws be so simpleminded and inflexible? You are right, it is not that simple, to wit: The government attempted to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers on the grounds that it was classified information whose publication would endanger national security. That its publication also exposed wrongdoing on the part of Government (exposition of which is the press' job) was certainly not accidental. The classified designation is often used to hide incompetence or malfeasance that the public should know about. > ... Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to > promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group > (e.g. women)? > > 3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not > enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that > any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both > lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus > is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not > therefore enjoy constitiutional protection? > > 4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link > of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and > rape". Maybe there isn't. I don't know. What I do know is > that the very toleration/existence of porn by society lends > it an air of legitimacy and thereby associates the same air of > legitimacy and acceptance with the attitudes and ideas it promotes. > 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. > > 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? Fair enough. Let me throw some counter examples your way: 1- There is an organization that has been plastering Manhattan with posters that claim that a) the 1984 election was rigged and massive vote count fraud took place; b) that defense contractors have paid off Donald Regan to keep the President from getting real information; c) that Reagan has been providing > $1 billion of secret aid per year to the white minority government of South Africa; etc 2- There exists various organizations in America dedicated to a) "white people's rights", b) "ridding government of the Jewish influence", c) "silencing the corrupt media"; etc [the quotes are either direct or paraphrased from pamphlets I have been handed in the streets or in airports] 3- A Fundamentalist minister, when asked his opinion of women's rights, replied: "women who break up the nuclear family by entering the work place, who deface the miracle of birth by having abortions, should be made to return home and care for their families, by force if necessary, for that is the task God has appointed for them." I guess that's enough. Should any of these individuals/organizations be forcibly censored or banned under your "responsibility of speech" definition? If so, how would you write a law that does so? Marcel Simon
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/22/85)
In article <2529@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > I'd like to make a few points about the ongoing porn/censorship > debate. > > { pre-point : when I say porn below I am not talking about films > books etc. showing consenting adults enjoying themselves. > } When you recursively redefine pornograpy as "that subset of pornography of which I disapprove," you're not fooling anyone. > 1. Everyone seems to operate under the assumption that freedom of > speech is a yes/no situation - it' either there or it isn't. > Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that in > the US the publication of anything that counsels sedition is > censored and/or prohibited. Really? "Burn the Senate! Burn the Senate!"....looks like you're wrong. Assuming this is true it seems > a reasonable proposition - at least there don't seem to be > many people arguing for the right to publish seditious material > - it protects the general welfare. Is the publication of what > is generally considered "classified" material not censored or > prohibited. No, it isn't. Once classified information is out, it's out. Prosecution is generally for STEALING the documents. Not the same thing at all. > ...It seems to me we are not talking > about whether or not to introduce censorship into our society > but rather whether or not it should be extended to a very > particular/limited form of publication. > > Why do people think that the interests of such a complex "thing" > as our society are best, or even adequately, served by simplistic > black and white rules? Life is much more complex so why should > our laws be so simpleminded and inflexible? Rather than having these stupid laws rule us, we should have the rule of wise men, like you. You could guide us, protect us, invade Poland with us... > 2. Freedoms generally also entail responsibilities as well. We, > for example, have freedom of movement but not the freedom to > move by vehicle while intoxicated. If we are to have freedom > of speech should we not also have commeasurate responsibilities > as to it's use? Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to > promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group > (e.g. women)? Absolutely! The free flow of ideas is only beneficial when these ideas have been approved by the benevolent and wise people in our society. > Here in Canada there have recently been convictions of individuals > on the basis of their publishing material which they knew to be > false and which was designed to encourage hatred of an identifiable > group. How lovely for you. > 3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not > enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that > any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both > lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus > is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not > therefore enjoy constitiutional protection? Yes, my leader! To the concentration camps with the scoundrels! > 4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link > of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and > rape". Maybe there isn't. I don't know. ... But you're not the kind of person to let your lack of knowledge stop you from prescribing drastic action, are you? -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/23/85)
From John Chapman (watcgl!jchapman): > { pre-point : when I say porn below I am not talking about films > books etc. showing consenting adults enjoying themselves. > } > >1. Everyone seems to operate under the assumption that freedom of > speech is a yes/no situation - it' either there or it isn't. > Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that in > the US the publication of anything that counsels sedition is > censored and/or prohibited. Assuming this is true it seems > a reasonable proposition - at least there don't seem to be > many people arguing for the right to publish seditious material > - it protects the general welfare. Is the publication of what > is generally considered "classified" material not censored or > prohibited. Is not the correspondence of inmates in various > institiutions censored? It seems to me we are not talking > about whether or not to introduce censorship into our society > but rather whether or not it should be extended to a very > particular/limited form of publication. There is probably less censorship in the US than you suspect; it would not, for instance, be illegal for me to post a top-secret government document as long as I'd come by it innocently (found it lying in the street, say). But your point still stands; we do practice some limited forms of censorship, I suppose. Moreover, we also limit people's rights to engage in other, non-free-speech related activities, even though those activities are in some cases apparently harmless (e.g., prostitution). I would make two points. First, that I am opposed to all laws that prohibit activities which do not endanger innocent bystanders, or society at large. This would include laws against gambling, prostitution, drugs, "deviant" sexual practices, and porn. Second, I am in agreement with "censorship" of the sort that prohibits one from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater for no reason. But I cannot extend this principle to allowing the censorship of porn unless someone can show that porn presents the same kind of clear and present danger to innocent bystanders. >2. Freedoms generally also entail responsibilities as well. We, > for example, have freedom of movement but not the freedom to > move by vehicle while intoxicated. If we are to have freedom > of speech should we not also have commeasurate responsibilities > as to it's use? Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to > promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group > (e.g. women)? It is not the goverment's place to enforce responsible behavior in the broad sense, only to limit dangerously irresponsible behavior. Unless and until someone can show porn to be literally and directly dangerous, this kind of argument is simply subterfuge. > Here in Canada there have recently been convictions of individuals > on the basis of their publishing material which they knew to be > false and which was designed to encourage hatred of an identifiable > group. I'm aware of the case; it's a dangerous precedent, and it saddens me, even though I'm pretty sure that Canadians are too sensible to let this kind of repressiveness become a trend. >3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not > enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that > any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both > lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus > is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not > therefore enjoy constitiutional protection? Well, I consider Nazism and other extreme racist philosophies beneath contempt, too, but I don't want to censor them. I infer that you would. It is interesting to note that the more modern anti-porn rhetoric, the kind that condemns it as violent and hate-filled rather than as perverted and sinful, extends so easily to the censorship of other kinds of materials, like Nazi political tracts. >4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link > of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and > rape". Maybe there isn't. I don't know. What I do know is > that the very toleration/existence of porn by society lends > it an air of legitimacy and thereby associates the same air of > legitimacy and acceptance with the attitudes and ideas it promotes. Dangerous logic. Those who would outlaw homosexuality, or Communism, use the same reasoning. I believe the law's job is only to tell me what I ought *not* to do, not what I ought, and I don't see something's being legal as giving it any air of legitimacy. What's being given legitimacy is the idea 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. > 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? >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. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/26/85)
> From John Chapman (watcgl!jchapman): > > { pre-point : when I say porn below I am not talking about films > > books etc. showing consenting adults enjoying themselves. > > } . . . > > >2. Freedoms generally also entail responsibilities as well. We, > > for example, have freedom of movement but not the freedom to > > move by vehicle while intoxicated. If we are to have freedom > > of speech should we not also have commeasurate responsibilities > > as to it's use? Why should freedom of speech allow anyone to > > promulgate hatred and violence towards any identifiable group > > (e.g. women)? > > It is not the goverment's place to enforce responsible behavior in the > broad sense, only to limit dangerously irresponsible behavior. Unless and > until someone can show porn to be literally and directly dangerous, this kind > of argument is simply subterfuge. Where is it written that it is not the government's palce to enforce responsible behaviour? Why does the danger have to be direct - again life is not simple so why should we restrict ourselves to only dealing with simple relationships (although there are correlations between porn and violence)? > > > Here in Canada there have recently been convictions of individuals > > on the basis of their publishing material which they knew to be > > false and which was designed to encourage hatred of an identifiable > > group. > > I'm aware of the case; it's a dangerous precedent, and it saddens me, > even though I'm pretty sure that Canadians are too sensible to let this kind > of repressiveness become a trend. Why sould it sadden you? Why shouldn't an identifiable group be afforded the same protection against slander and the promotion of hatred that an individual is? > > >3. What is really so difficult about admitting that women do not > > enjoy being beaten, whipped, raped or killed and that > > any publication which promotes the idea that they do is both > > lying and promoting hatred and violence towards women and thus > > is beneath the contempt of civilized society and should not > > therefore enjoy constitiutional protection? > > Well, I consider Nazism and other extreme racist philosophies beneath > contempt, too, but I don't want to censor them. I infer that you would. It is > interesting to note that the more modern anti-porn rhetoric, the kind that > condemns it as violent and hate-filled rather than as perverted and sinful, > extends so easily to the censorship of other kinds of materials, like Nazi > political tracts. Why is "interesting"? I think it's rather obvious that they have something in common - the encouragement of irrational prejudices against some particular group. > > >4. Perhaps some people do not believe there is a direct causal link > > of the form "he read the book and it caused him to go out and > > rape". Maybe there isn't. I don't know. What I do know is > > that the very toleration/existence of porn by society lends > > it an air of legitimacy and thereby associates the same air of > > legitimacy and acceptance with the attitudes and ideas it promotes. > > Dangerous logic. Those who would outlaw homosexuality, or Communism, > use the same reasoning. I believe the law's job is only to tell me what I > ought *not* to do, not what I ought, and I don't see something's being legal Right! One ought *not* to encourage people to hate. > as giving it any air of legitimacy. What's being given legitimacy is the idea If it's legal then society has said - "yes it is acceptable to us". Certainly it has more of an air of legitimacy than if it were illegal. > 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. > > > 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. > > >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. > > - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center > Moffett Field, CA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/27/85)
{Robert Plamandon pushes his intellect to the fullest} > Really? "Burn the Senate! Burn the Senate!"....looks like you're > wrong. - > Rather than having these stupid laws rule us, we should have the rule > of wise men, like you. You could guide us, protect us, invade Poland > with us... - > Absolutely! The free flow of ideas is only beneficial when these > ideas have been approved by the benevolent and wise people in our > society. - > How lovely for you. - > Yes, my leader! To the concentration camps with the scoundrels! - > But you're not the kind of person to let your lack of knowledge stop > you from prescribing drastic action, are you? > -- > > Robert Plamondon > {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert Ahhh, free speech - I say something you don't like so I'm a communist, is that it? Very fine reasoned reply you have there; informative, educational, enlightening; must have taken you hours. Did your mommy help with the spelling? -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/30/85)
> > If you only wish to protect ideas you agree with from censorship, then > > you do not, by my definition, believe in freedom of speech. [emphasis mine] John Chapman: > 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. ...to be determined by the ever-vigilant Ministry of Truth. Please, John, drop the other shoe. You've admitted that you don't believe in freedom of speech -- why not admit that you don't believe in free society, either? Your previous postings have shown a consistant belief that there should be an elite that dictates what the lowly serfs say, do, and believe, but you haven't quite said it outright. While you're at it, could you please explain how your position on state censorship differs from that of, say, South Africa. Is it that you would have different rulers? Different peasants? That your oligarchy would consist of people like you, but other oligarchies do not? You would censor seditious statements like mine if you were in charge, wouldn't you? -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/02/85)
From John Chapman (watcgl!jchapman): >> It is not the goverment's place to enforce responsible behavior in the >> broad sense, only to limit dangerously irresponsible behavior. Unless and >> until someone can show porn to be literally and directly dangerous, this kind >> of argument is simply subterfuge. > >Where is it written that it is not the government's palce to enforce >responsible behaviour? One could infer this general principle from the Bill of Rights, I think, but that's not necessary to my argument. Would you like a law requiring you to brush your teeth 3 times a day? Or a law forbidding overeating? Would you really want to live under a government that imposed *it's* standard of responsible behavior on *you*, or is it only a government that imposes *your* notion of responsible behavior on others that you find attractive? > Why does the danger have to be direct - again >life is not simple so why should we restrict ourselves to only dealing >with simple relationships (although there are correlations between >porn and violence)? If the danger's not direct, you'll not get everyone's agreement on the need for a law, for one thing. If the danger's not direct enough to be shown, all we have are some people's opinions that porn is dangerous; why should opinion be made into law? And there's another problem. To use one obvious example, the indirect harm from alcohol abuse is much easier to show than any putative harm from porn. Does this mean alcohol should be banned? Most people don't seem to think so, and I can give at least two good reasons for agreeing. First, banning it was tried, and didn't work; indeed, it made the problem worse. Second, most people don't abuse alcohol, only use it, and outlawing the stuff infringes on their freedom of choice. >Why shouldn't an identifiable group be afforded >the same protection against slander and the promotion of hatred that an >individual is? "Slander" is a legal term with a quite precise definition, and simply does not apply. But I'll attempt to answer the spirit of your question. Let's pass ourselves a hypothetical law which bans the promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. Here come our complainants: The American Nazi Party wants most of the movies about World War II banned, since they promote hatred of Nazis; some feminists are asking, not only for a ban on violent porn, but a ban on "slasher" films, and even on some respectable films, like "Tattoo", as dehumanizing and degrading women; a civil rights group is asking for action against HUCKLEBERRY FINN as they feel it promotes hatred of Blacks; the Sons of the South want a ban on "Easy Rider", and the Policeman's Benevolent Association supports them. Last in line (but you can see more on the way) is this big dude who claims to be a Philistine, and has a bone to pick with the Bible :-). Only one of the above is purely facetious. The HUCKLEBERRY FINN example has really occurred, many times. If you get your law, John, somebody will really be deciding such questions for all of us, and it probably won't be you. Ever consider you might not like their decisions? One other thing to consider: the impact on academic inquiry. You want to ban pro-racist propaganda, right? Well, MEIN KAMPF would *certainly* have to go, as would many Nazi documents. Inconvenient for historians, eh? And Nazi stuff is hardly the only racist literature. Anyone researching slavery in the antebellum South would certainly need to be aware of the racist writings of the time. Shall we, perhaps, set up a system whereby only "legitimate scholars" would be allowed to read such things? It seems a touch elitist to me, but perhaps you'd be one of those legitimate scholars :-). It hardly matters. Censorship is always elitist, in that one group (judges, censors, whoever) is given the right to decide for everyone else what they may read. The censors, one presumes, are immune to whatever vile influence the censored material would have on the rest of us, were we allowed free access. >> It is >> interesting to note that the more modern anti-porn rhetoric, the kind that >> condemns it as violent and hate-filled rather than as perverted and sinful, >> extends so easily to the censorship of other kinds of materials, like Nazi >> political tracts. > >Why is "interesting"? I think it's rather obvious that they have something >in common - the encouragement of irrational prejudices against some >particular group. It's not obvious to me, and apparently not even obvious to some of your fellow porn-haters. One of the arguments frequently used against porn is that it should not be considered as protected by the 1st Amendment because it is not an expression of ideas at all, but merely a lewd public display, as devoid of ideas as a carnival sideshow. In any case, if I correctly understand that the only porn you object to is porn which "degrades women", then can I assume you'd not object to even extremely violent, sadistic and raunchy porn that had no women in it? Such stuff exists in the gay community. >> > 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. Well, my beliefs are based on a lifetime of experience and considerable thought, too; should I have the right to restrain you from doing something because I believe it's harmful? We are discussing a question of public policy, here: whether there ought to be greater legal restrictions on what may be published. Are you really suggesting that your personal opinion, unsupported by facts, is a good reason to pass a law, or did you simply misunderstand my point? >> 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. A lot of things promote divisiveness. Both the civil rights and anti-war movements of the '60's were certainly divisive. But, somehow, all of us tend to see the Other Side as the ones who are being unreasonable. Why do you feel so confident that you would see more or less eye-to-eye with the people who would enforce the law you propose? Your last sentence in the quote above echoes almost precisely the kind of rhetoric that Spiro Agnew used against the anti-war movement in the '60's. The principles to which you appeal are dangerously general. Tell me, John, are you one of those who are sure that all Right Thinking People will inevitably agree on something because it seems basic and self-evident to you? If so, I encourage you to continue reading and posting to the net; you will find it's difficult to convince many otherwise sane people of your "obvious" beliefs. And if not, what makes you think that the kind of general arguments that you use in favor of censorship would only be used to ban all the stuff you dislike, and never to ban what you think should be allowed? I know I feel the chilly wind already in your proposals. If it's reasonable to ban Nazi propaganda, then perhaps it's reasonable to censor anyone who supports the Nazi's right to publish the stuff, as I do? You say you wouldn't do that? So what? *You* won't be the censor. Under the hypothetical law I modeled on your suggestions, above, I could see a censor concluding that I'm indirectly promoting hatred of identifiable groups by supporting the right of others to publish such stuff. This very article might be considered illegal! Think about it. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (10/02/85)
In article <2574@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > Ahhh, free speech - I say something you don't like so I'm a communist, > is that it? Not at all. There are people of all kinds of political persuations who say things I don't like. Why would I assume they're all communists? What bizarre thinking... Besides, I don't believe that you're a communist. The thought never crossed my mind. You don't have to be a communist to be an elitist. > Very fine reasoned reply you have there; informative, > educational, enlightening; must have taken you hours. Did your mommy > help with the spelling? You're too kind. No, I use a computer. -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/03/85)
> 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