rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/21/85)
In article <870@utcs.uucp> flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >Do you think that there should be censorship of neo-nazi propaganda? Anti-gay >propaganda? >Pornography is anti-woman propaganda. I don't believe in government-controlled It is not obvious to me how pornography is anti-woman. After all, some pornography has only male-male sex depicted. It's certainly less anti-woman that a tv show or commercial that depicts woman as housewives. It seems to me that the discussion of whether pornography is anti-female avoids an important distinction between a medium and its contents. "Pornography" refers to both. It refers to a medium (pictures, writing) and to content (sex with the intent to arouse). I think those who argue agin' porn need to demonstrate how the content is anti-female. It's just not obvious to a whole bunch of us. And Alan, you are using propoganda above in a metaphoric sense; that just reduces the discussion to the emotional rather than to the substantial. >Pornography is anti-woman propaganda. I don't believe in government-controlled >censorship but I do believe in people-controlled censorship. I think that >the people must do what they can to prevent the distribution of pornography, >nazi literature, and so on. More important than the right to free speech is Could you specify what you mean by people-controlled censorship? Does it involve private citizens interfering with legally guaranteed rights? Does it involve some other sort of illegal activity? Or just something legal like boycotting porn stores? >nazi literature, and so on. More important than the right to free speech is >the right to any kind of meaningful life at all, the right not to have people >preaching hatred of you. More important to whom? Certainly not to the person whose free speech is being denied. I never heard of this "right not to have people preaching hatred of you". Is this a right you WISH you had, or did I miss it in the constitution?
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/21/85)
>>nazi literature, and so on. More important than the right to free speech is >>the right to any kind of meaningful life at all, the right not to have people >>preaching hatred of you. >More important to whom? Certainly not to the person whose free speech is being >denied. I never heard of this "right not to have people preaching hatred of >you". Is this a right you WISH you had, or did I miss it in the constitution? Alan Rosenthal is posting from Canada, a country which, until recently, had no "Bill of Rights" analogous to that in the U.S. Constitution. Civil Rights were the province of the individual provinces. In any event, there is certainly Canadian precedent for laws against hate propaganda, and also for harassment of gay publications under the hazy definition of "pornography." Only recently did Toronto's "The Body Politic", an excellent monthly newspaper, have the case brought against it by the government dropped after almost five years. This was harassment of the worst form for a low/no budget operation. I think his comments are a good example of the meaningless hyperbole which is being bandied around by this "anti-pornography" movement, and the experience of "TBP" a good example of how similar statutes can be misused. By the way, the Cambridge (Mass., USA) City Council recently voted to exclude a version of the Dworkin civil rights statute from the November ballot, despite it having received a sufficient number of signatures. Interestingly, the council split between liberal/conservative lines, but in a completely unexpected way: liberals voted FOR the referendum, conservatives AGAINST the referendum. Apparently, the conservative members, all of whom claimed to support the statute, knew that such a ballot item would be certain to attract progressive voters of all persuasions, and such a turn-out would be damaging to their candidacy! :-) -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (09/26/85)
>Could you specify what you mean by people-controlled censorship? Does it >involve private citizens interfering with legally guaranteed rights? I suppose so. I don't believe at all in the existing legal system. I think it protects big horrible corporations etc etc. >>More important than the right to free speech is >>the right to any kind of meaningful life at all, the right not to have people >>preaching hatred of you. >More important to whom? ... >I never heard of this "right not to have people preaching hatred of >you". Well I don't know what the legal situation is in U.S.A... in Canada there are certainly laws against racist literature etc. The idea of free speech is silly to me. Would you think it was reasonable for someone to start telling hundreds of people that YOU personally should be killed? Deny them the right to do this and you deny them free speech. But allow them to do this and there is a legal way to murder. Which do you choose? To me the choice is obvious. Any reasonable society has to put limits on so-called "free speech".
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/30/85)
> The idea of free speech > is silly to me. Would you think it was reasonable for someone to start > telling hundreds of people that YOU personally should be killed? Deny > them the right to do this and you deny them free speech. But allow them > to do this and there is a legal way to murder. Which do you choose? To > me the choice is obvious. Any reasonable society has to put limits on > so-called "free speech". Would you kill someone because I told you to? If you did, do you think I should be charged with the killing? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "I know what you are. Nut. Screwball. Flake. Lunatic. Fruitcake. Bats in the attic. Psycho. All your dogs aren't barking." "Are too! Are too! Woof! Woof!"
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/01/85)
In article <886@utcs.uucp> flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >>Could you specify what you mean by people-controlled censorship? Does it >>involve private citizens interfering with legally guaranteed rights? >I suppose so. I don't believe at all in the existing legal system. I >think it protects big horrible corporations etc etc. Yeah, it does, but then it also protects individuals sometimes. If you condone the illegal interference by private citizens into other citizens' guaranteed rights, then you are condoning activities you might not approve of, such as harrassment of women who are entering abortion clinics, harassment of people because of their sexual orientations and so on, who knows? Civil disobedience is a two-edged sword. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/04/85)
In article <40400021@uiucdcs> mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> The idea of free speech >> is silly to me. Would you think it was reasonable for someone to start >> telling hundreds of people that YOU personally should be killed? Deny >> them the right to do this and you deny them free speech. But allow them >> to do this and there is a legal way to murder. Which do you choose? To >> me the choice is obvious. Any reasonable society has to put limits on >> so-called "free speech". > >Would you kill someone because I told you to? If you did, do you think I should >be charged with the killing? If someone is of the temperament to kill me, it is more likely that they will kill me if you encourage them to, then if you didn't. If they kill me with your encouragement, then there are various arguments about which of they and you are MORE responsible, but I don't think that there is much doubt that both of you are responsible to some extent.
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (10/16/85)
In article <898@utcs.uucp> flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: > >Would you kill someone because I told you to? If you did, do you think I should > >be charged with the killing? > >If someone is of the temperament to kill me, it is more likely that they will >kill me if you encourage them to, then if you didn't. >If they kill me with your encouragement, then there are various arguments about >which of they and you are MORE responsible, but I don't think that there is >much doubt that both of you are responsible to some extent. No, no, and again no! One is responsible for one's own actions and no others. If I tell you to do something and you do it, I am only responsible if I am your guardian. (The preceding is an opinion.) Ever since I can remember, it seems our society has been diluting personal responsiblity. Ever hear of the Harvey Milk/George Moscone murder? The killer, Dan White, partially beat the rap by pleading insanity: he had just eaten Twinkies and was, therefore, not responsible for his actions. If I take a gun and shoot you, I am responsible. Not my mother or my guru or my fourth grade english teacher or my deprived background. Mr. Rosenthal claims that both the actor and the instigator are responsible. This is an unjustifiable broadening of the already over-broad concept of "conspiracy to commit". Of course, everything above is opinion and deserves to be labeled thusly. In particular, it is not the policy of my company or of any computer or communications device through which this message has passed. Um, should this discussion be moved to another group? If so, which? MOTSS has nothing to do with pornography (except that gay porn is, in general, photographed better than straight stuff. [I hear hackles rising.])
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/19/85)
HEY! I didn't say AT ALL that I am diminishing the responsibility of the direct murderer. I am just pointing out the ADDITIONAL responsibility of the indirect murderer. The Harvey Milk case has nothing to do with this, I am not saying that the fellow who shot him is less responsible because of twinkies (besides the fact that this is a totally absurd idea anyway, that a militant-conservative-anti-gay type needed to be under the influence of twinkies to kill a very outspoken gay man, but anyway), I am just saying that anyone else who TOLD him to kill Harvey Milk is somewhat guilty as well. Yes you are responsible for your own actions. This INCLUDES being responsible for your influence on the actions of others.