gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/29/90)
joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) wrote: > On a raised-hackles note, it seems that the official straw boogie man of > conversation about rights (and damned near everything else) nowadays is > the "child molester". The term seems to be used in very much the same way > that "communist" and "homosexual" and "witch" were used in the not too > distant past. . . > > Come to think of it, . . . > alt.child-abuser or similar mailing list might be a good idea; there > appear to be relatively few self-help groups for these people . . . I agree, and the National Man/Boy Love Association might also agree. Especially when self-help, like being an accused hacker or an accused homosexual, often means getting the goverment or other parts of society off your back for something harmless. The name is way off though; how useful would alt.drugs be if it was called "alt.drug-abusers"? Even Mr. Zitt, who thinks people who love children (and children who love adults -- who are even more victimized by society, since they are presumed unable to choose for themselves); anyway, even Mr. Zitt seems to think that child/adult love and sex is by definition "abuse". If you start from that point of view, the control freaks have already won the battle, simply by definition of terms. The question is, can a child and an adult voluntarily consent to love and make love with each other? Control freaks think this kind of voluntary activity should be banned. Happily, it's still legal to *talk about* the topic, despite the frothing of politicians and media. For those folks who like science fiction, I recommend a Theodore Sturgeon story, published in Harlan Ellison's original _Dangerous Visions_, entitled "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?". The story angle is more incest than adult/child love, but there are elements of both involved. For those who don't know his work, Sturgeon is one of the top SF writers, over many years, and well known for his perceptive understanding and presentation of deeply emotional issues. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Just say no to thugs. The ones who lock up innocent drug users come to mind.
joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) (10/29/90)
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) wrote: > > alt.child-abuser or similar mailing list might be a good idea; there > > appear to be relatively few self-help groups for these people . . . > > The name is way off though; how useful would alt.drugs be if it was > called "alt.drug-abusers"? Even Mr. Zitt, who thinks people who love > children (and children who love adults -- who are even more victimized > by society, since they are presumed unable to choose for themselves); > anyway, even Mr. Zitt seems to think that child/adult love and sex > is by definition "abuse". If you start from that point of view, the > control freaks have already won the battle, simply by definition of terms. You >may< have a valid point. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge in such matters to say whether either of us is way off the mark, though I sure flame-warriors from both sides of the question will soon be banging at our mailboxes. What do others think? OBEFF: This may be an interesting issue from the communications rights standpoint. What is the legality-standing of NAMBLA? (Much as I dislike them, I would tend to hope that their meetings are not outlawed.) How would this translate to newsgroup validity? How about the allowability of alt.child-abusers vs alt.child-lovers? Joe Zitt ...cs.utexas.edu!kvue!zitt!joe (512)450-1916
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/30/90)
In article <6Z0RR1w163w@zitt> joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) writes: > OBEFF: This may be an interesting issue from the communications rights > standpoint. What is the legality-standing of NAMBLA? (Much as I dislike > them, I would tend to hope that their meetings are not outlawed.) How > would this translate to newsgroup validity? How about the allowability of > alt.child-abusers vs alt.child-lovers? How about alt.org.nambla? This associates the group with a recognisable political organisation and divorces it from the alt.sex morass. And I think alt.child-abuse is a pretty reasonable group. I'm not talking about sexual stuff here, though. I'm talking about folks who beat up on their kids. Is there current discussion in some corne of usenet on this topic? Should I do a newgroup? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com