jj@alice.UUCP (12/27/84)
It's a curious note that the Minneappolis (sp?) ordinance bans a number of SF books. For starters, it bans anything that I know of (I don't claim much expertise) by John Norman. That's not surprising. It's also clear that it bans "Silverlock", and "The Moon's Fire-Eating Daughter" by John Myers Myers (which are hardly pornography), many PK Dick stories, quite a few Ron Goulart stories (so what?), and so many more that I'm not going to keep going. I wonder what will happen when someone gets their nose out of joint at the local B. Daltons and decides to have them arrested for selling "Silverlock". It should be interesting. Sigh. -- TEDDY BEARS AND PENGUINS ARE BOTH LOVABLE! "Can you say youthful music, boys and girls? FACIAL SURGERY! That's good, I KNEW you could say it!" (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (12/29/84)
Hmmmmm......come to think of it.......Many Heinlein, Leiber, Lin Carter, R.E. Howard, Farmer, (any more) also fall in this category. You mean I've been reading PORNOGRAPHY all this time?????? Oh No! What'll my preacher think????? David
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/07/85)
Come to think of it, there are a lot of things in the Bible that seem to suggest that women should be treated as property, subjected to the will of men, etc. Including sexually, as where it is commanded that a man whose brother dies childless should marry the brother's sister, in order to make sure that someone carries on the brother's line... no suggestion that the surviving brother should ASK first. It would be really interesting to see a Christian bookstore owner arrested for selling porn on these grounds -- I don't expect to see it happen, but I can dream. P.S. I agree with Tim; we're talking here about censorship, not about ``women's issues'' -- and I feel that restricting my right to read ``pornography'' is NOT a women's issue! Keep the discussion here. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/11/85)
Charlie, you, Tim and I may have a problem. (Actually, we're fine, it's the rest of the world that has a problem. :-) ) Since we doubt the claim that ``watching "pronography" (pick your definition of same) causes "violence" (another word which people are having fun defining, but one which is, in principle, eaiser to define)'' we see this as a censorship issue. If, however, you accept the premise, then you will see this as a ``woman's issue''. [Which brings up my belief that there are no ``woman's issues'' just ``people's issues'' and that by segregating some issues and making them ``of interest to women only'' you are doing more harm, then good. But you all got to hear this when I campaigned agaisnt the creation of net.women.only.] You get the same thing with other issues. If you accept the premise that ``mystical experiences can/should be a part of religious experience'' then you may find that discussions of same should be a valid topic of discussion in net.religion. Shall we try it some time? Hmm, I think that members of the atheist and religious readership of that list are going to make the counter claim that such experiences are reasons to be certain that your brain needs laundering by s shrink real soon because such things aren't real and therefore aren't religious issues at all. [And then there are some whom would say that we are all posessed by the devil, or assorted devils, and consider the matter settled at that...] I think that you and Tim and I would again be on the same side of the fence, but this time agreeing to accept the premise presented. Welcome to the definition game... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura