erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (05/15/88)
In article <3628@gryphon.CTS.COM>, richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > In article <50798@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Interesting thought. Since there's no way to guarantee that something like > >soc.sex would be restricted from minors, do you suppose that USENET (and/or > >the sites where the minors were reading this stuff....) would be liable > >under the delinquency of a minor laws. THAT would be an interesting thought. > > > >(it'd also be enough of a worry for me to make sure it never showed up on > >my machine.....) As I remember it from class, you (collective) wouldn't have to worry about whether minors got it unless it was "obscene" (there's a fun one :-), or "pornographic". For instance: Reference books on sex, and reading materials *about* sex are readily available to anyone of just about any age in most libraries and bookstores. "Pornography", that is, pictures, discriptions, drawings or other representations of "sex or nudity" are not. As I read the laws then, if you were appealing to the "prurient" intrests of an individual, then you were "pornographic". Another big hitch with all of this, is that we are being pushed into a "everything associated with the body and sex is bad" mode of thought by many large corporations. The company that owns the "Randall's" chain of grocery stores had "Cosmopolitan" pulled from its shelves. Wal-Mart won't carry "Tiger-Beat" because it "pushes sex and satan worship at our children". Tiger-Beat? Cosmopolitan? What's next? Also, please remember that there is a 1st Amendment right to free speach, *especially* when your speach applies to social, political, educational, scientific, fields or just about any other topic, for that matter. If your primary message is not sex (god forbid some of us would want to talk about sex for the sake of sex), but rather about sex, then you are basically safe. Basically. Again, the above definitions for "obscene" and "pornographic" may seem rather loose. Well, they are. In North Carolina, the state government pulled the educational and scientific clauses from it's obscenity laws. Fine arts classes could no longer show slides of nudes, and a couple of law schools have had to stop teaching classes on obscenity. Pretty scary, huh? (Personally, I think the people that stopped soc.sex were a bunch of weenies, unwilling to take a chance and willing to let themselves be pushed around by a bunch or low-grade morons using religion to subjugate others.) And just remember: Sex is *not* a crime. -- Know Future Another journalist with too many spare MIPS. J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/18/88)
> (Personally, I think the people that stopped soc.sex were a bunch of weenies, > unwilling to take a chance and willing to let themselves be pushed around > by a bunch or low-grade morons using religion to subjugate others.) Some of us prefer to pick and choose our battles rather than blindly charging in. In particular, some of us prefer to fight only battles that appear to be winnable and worth winning. For some reason, soc.sex didn't seem to qualify. > And just remember: Sex is *not* a crime. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with you. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
richard@gryphon.UUCP (05/20/88)
In article <2695@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >In article <1988May17.190459.14827@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> -- >> NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >> the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry > >All U.S. readers of NEWS.ADMIN who think Henry's ungracious swipe in >NEWS.ADMIN has gone on too long (being as it is from a Canadian, who should >talk considering Canada's marvelous space program, and that this is carried on >U.S.-funded computers across the nation, and that this isn't a space newsgroup): > >Please do us all a big favor and send him email (see address above) urging him >to cut it out. Argue as strongly and persuasively as you can, since he is >very opinionated and stubborn. > >For those who say that NASA sucks dead turkey gizzard: I wouldn't argue >very much with you about that so don't bother flaming me. The merit (or >demerit) of NASA isn't the issue. Henry's unmitigated, undecorous, >inappropriate, gratuitous, just plain rude gall is. > >FELLOW AMERICANS, DON'T SIT STILL FOR THIS!!!! Gosh Dan, were you born without a sense of humor, or was it reposessed ? Now Dan, maybe you should apologize to Henry or he'll take back his sotware. And if you say "what software", that explains everything. FELLOW CANADIANS LIVING IN AMERICA, DON'T SIT STILL FOR THIS. Go get another brew instead, eh? -- Have a nice day or Klortho will rip your nuts off. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/22/88)
An amusing sidelight on this .signature business is that Mr. Levy, living
in a country whose Constitution (as I recall it) says that it's the right
of the accused to be told the charges against him and to confront his
accusers face to face, restricted the distribution of his article to the
US and didn't bother sending me a copy. I knew he was steamed up about
the subject since we'd exchanged some private mail about it, but it was
a bit surprising to start getting letters of support without having seen
the posting that provoked them.
(Out of a considerable volume of mail, the only negative comment I've had
from anyone but Mr. Levy was one letter that said roughly "well, it's true,
but being reminded of it too often is annoying". Several letters have
accused me of being unfair to the Post Office...)
--
NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henryhaugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (05/25/88)
In article <1988May22.081555.21137@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > An amusing sidelight on this .signature business is that Mr. Levy, living > in a country whose Constitution (as I recall it) says that it's the right > of the accused to be told the charges against him and to confront his > accusers face to face, restricted the distribution of his article to the > US and didn't bother sending me a copy. I knew he was steamed up about > the subject since we'd exchanged some private mail about it, but it was > a bit surprising to start getting letters of support without having seen > the posting that provoked them. Henry, all this time I thought you were comparing NASA to the Canadian Post Office. Now it makes perfect sense. And I agree with you 100%. I was thinking last night that if nothing was wrong with the postal service then how come right next to the Federal Express drop box I had just dropped a package into was there a USPO Express Mail drop box. Perhaps it has something to do with the quality of service from the post office. As for NASA, I think you were being far to kind to them. - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :SMAILERS "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune