Table of Contents |
|
|
Subject: Re: FEDS EXPAND U.S. Child-Porn Laws Path:
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:02:11 GMT
Interesting--I am interested in this area. Not being a voyeur, etc., the cultural differences on what is taboo and what is not interesteests me. I am even more interested in what religion has to do with the psyche of the individuals and the masses regarding behavior, etc.: please comment. Note: all disclaimers accepted and understood.
Speaking of kiddie porn - - - I was talking with a colleague of mine after a local man was arrested for molesting two first graders and she made the off-hand comment that many advertisements portray children in what could be considered a pornographic way. It lead into a whole discussion on sexual deviancy involving children.. Is not, she asked, the ideal female image presented in the media characteristic of a young prepubescent girl? The lack of body hair, youthful thinness, undeveloped physical features, etc ... it's almost as if that is what men are supposed to want.
Child eroticism is the most interesting dichotomy in America today. On the one hand, sex involving children, be it actual (molestation), or fantasy (pornography), is punishable to the harshest degree. A man convicted of just possessing child po rnograhy is usually sentenced to a longer term than a mugger, rapist, or even a murderer.
And yet, if a major newspaper is faced with a choice of two stories: one a violent murder, even a prominent murder, and the other, any sexual crime involving children, (either fantasy or reality), tomorrow's headlines will be about the sex crime.
Why is that ?
I believe it is because the public is secretly titillated by the thought of children being erotic. Just as you said, most models today give the appearance of being pre pubescent, (Kate Moss, et al). And keep in mind, in most other countries, child eroticism is much more accepted than in the good old USA.
I think this also why TV shows like Jerry Springer, etc., who portray sexual deviancy as entertainment, are so popular.
We, as Americans, decry sex on one hand, while masturbating with the other hand. We just love hypocrisy.
Comment:
This was the first article that caught my eye. The author of it was rather intelligent and used Vortex869's article to voice his own views. I felt like this was an effective way to get a point across. It preserved the continuity of the subject. Because he posted a response to another article the history of the argument can be readily seen by others. His concern for the subject is apparent in this article.
The statement is made to provoke thought. It does this effectively by using graphic language and expressing the disgust of the author at the same time. As seen in the last tag line we see that he views our laws on censorship and pornography as hypocrisy. He supports the view that pornography laws are relative. I think that the author feels that pornography is mostly popular for shock value. He cites the Jerry Springer show which became popular depicting participants as sexual deviants. Yet the subject of child pornography is skillfully avoided by the production crew. They often depict participants who claim to be 16 years old who are having sexual relations with men who are much older. Or like the Mary J. Laterno case in which a school teacher slept with her 13 year old student.
But what prompted this contributor to this newsgroup to post such an article? The answer lies within the personality of the contributor. We see that at first he was very serious with his reply to the original article but then invalidated his previous comments with a humorous ending line. Though his thoughts were effective and stimulating the ending line showed his na•ve understanding of the issue. He tried to encapsulate the basic idea of what American's want by stating that they, "decry sex with one hand, while masturbating with the other". This statement is rather cliche. I felt that this author wanted to leave his mark by entering a catchy tag line. It would have been more effective it his post had been an original idea and concept. But it seems that the entire article was just restating previously read material. It did not contain any deep information, it just contained observations that anyone could see.
Subject: Re: I need Information on censorship
Date: 20 Feb 1999 15:28:33 GMT
For all the information on censorship there are a number of areas you can search:
1. Newspapers, large city type. 2. News programs on TV, radio 3. This newsgroup and others available
It surprises me that a high school would allow this subject to be discussed in this day and age.
Comment:
In this article we see that a previous posting is being responded to by EasyMortga. Here advice is being given as to how one could obtain information concerning censorship. We also can glean from this article that censorship is a hot topic in schools. It also shows that students also use this resource for their projects.
This author had a duel purpose for posting this reply to the original article. First off she was helpful in suggesting possible venues to be explored for further information about censorship. One could guess tha tthe student did not find much information about censorship from this newsgroup. If you look at the date in which this article was posted not much was happening in terms of news about censorship. As you will read later there was breaking news in which an ISP shut down a site that contained material that violated its policies. But as we learned, ISPs are the first line of defense in protecting the content of the web and its pages.
But then there is the question on whether or not they should have the power to regulate what is on their servers. The reply to the original article only gave a broad overview of the possible sources for information. She only cites newspapers, newsgroups, TV and radio. She said nothing about web pages or term paper services which make money from providing information. It is very troubling for me to hear that books were not mentioned in the list of possible sources. This person is obviously technologically competent and confident in the information found in such superficial sources. Newspapers and newsgroups do not go in depth as much as book on the topic do. They just cover the surface and give broad information on the subject. The same hold true for TV and radio since their audiences have short attention spans.
The second purpose for posting this article was to pose a question that the author had about censorship. She could not believe that a school project would cover censorship. "It surprises me that a high school would allow this subject to be discussed in this day and age." This statement shows that this author could be very old or very young. The statement seems naive in the understanding of today's high schools. I could not say for the mainland but speaking about Hawaii, my high school often encouraged such topics.
Topics such as euthanasia, censorship, genetic engineering and nuclear weapons were common. I think that now with the expansion of the internet, censorship is one of the hottest topics in the schools. I think that it is good that we are getting our young people thinking about these sorts of topics at an early age. As long as their thoughts are not shaped by others I think that they will be able to contribute fresh and new ideas that just may have solutions to our current problems.
Subject: FEDS EXPAND U.S. Child-Porn Laws (non-nude) Path:
Date: 21 Feb 1999 08:19:50 GMT
Non-nude pictures of children and "minor-looking" adults now mandated as "child porn" under U.S. federal law (Title 18 - Section 2256, U.S. Code). PARENTS BEWARE of "cute" non-nude pictures of your children which could potentially land you with a criminal indictment of producing "child pornography" and/or the potential loss of your children to state custody. Please take our polling survey featuring a picture of actress Brooke Shields at about age 12 wearing underwear, in WHAT USED TO BE considered contemporary child photography.
[ http://www.wedgenet.com ]
[ opk ]
Comment:
This author is trying to provoke a discussion on what he thinks is the increased government censorship and how it has changed over the years. Others posted articles in response to this one citing how Calvin Klein suddenly cancelled a magazine ad depicting his own children in their younger days wearing nothing but underwear. Others have stated that it is a sign of the times. Child pornography was a relatively unknown and rarely enforced except in high profile cases. So pedophiles and the such went along with their lives with little or no government persecution. Now with the advent of the internet, child pornography has become more accessible to a wider number of people. The rules have not changed. Child pornography is still illegal, but the definition had to be defined and redefined over and over again because the boundaries were not clearly drawn in the first place.
This posting serves several purposes. It seeks to educate readers that there are new laws that could possibly hurt the average American. Non-nude pictures could possibly considered child porn. This is a scary fact that could possibly have far reaching effects in the future. The second purpose of this post is to shock the reader and give startling information that is not publicly known. It could be a possible attempt to attack government. It shows the power of the internet and newsgroups. A single person can make their voice heard to a broad audience. Their views can be commented on and questions asked in replies. It gives people a new medium in which to communicate. IN this case I would have to say that this post was an effective use of newsgroup resources. It presents new information that is useful, at the same time warning the public about possible law violations on their part.b
Subject: Eraser Path:
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:51:46 GMT
I shall rant.
The movie "Eraser" was shown on NBC tonight. There was an interesting cut made in the name of Animal Rights.
In the Zoo Shoot Out scene, they left in most of the shots of people getting eaten and ripped apart by gators, but when it came time for Schwarzenegger to shoot the biggest gator and deliver the line, "You're luggage!", well, that part just _had_ to come out because, gee, we can't show poor little gators dying! Humans, they're fine, they can die in any horrible way.
This cut managed to completely screw up the scene. One second Arnold was fighting to keep out of the gator's mouth, the next he was just staring at something off screen.
The clincher is: In the previews for the movie which aired earlier that evening to lure people into watching it, they SHOWED THE EXACT SCENE THEY CUT, with gator cappin' and one- liner intact! ARRRGH!
Censorship is stupid. Censorship is crap.
S. Mathos is done ranting.
[ http://www.dejanews.com/ ]
Comment:
This is an article that a lot of people can relate to. It is a clear example of censorship and how it can be used for commercial purposes. This article also expresses the disgust of this particular author. I choose this article because it shows a real life situation in which everyone can relate. It also illustrates the dynamic personalities of this group. Censorship is such a broad topic that it encompasses issues that are petty and those that are in depth. But one can see from this article that everyone is involved in censorship.
The author is upset because a particular scene was cut out of a movie on network television. The networks succumbed to the power of special interest groups and cut the scene from their broadcast, yet they did not cut the scene for the trailer used to promote the television premier of the movie.
Subject: Re: Internet filtering or Censorship book, Does one exist.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:46:06
Hi, Does such a book exist that would tell me all about internet censorship and > or filtering ?
Why not look at censorship in the MEDIA?
If not a book, a journal. Or even a URL ?? I am against censorship, but I need to write a research paper on censorship, Well, chew on this:
The secular and religious media in this country and Israel have been suppressing the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead", as explained further at:
[ http://www.geocities.com:80/Athens/Rhodes/7031/deadsea.html ]
This is a crucial determining factor in both the conflict in Kosovo and the conflict over the city of Jerusalem.
I suggest you HURRY your research. And how it can help schools, mainly the under 18s, to protect them from what is on the internet, such as porn etc.
The Truth about the "resurrection of the dead" is even MORE censored than pornography.
[ M. Cecil ]
Comment:
This response for this post was totally off the mark. This writer often post doctrines and personal writings on the troubles in Kosovo. Here Cecil takes one person's ask for information and twists it so that it fits his own purposes
Subject: Re: I need Information on censorship
Date: 24 Feb 1999 08:29:43 GMT
[1] The lawsuit was about speech which was not only threatening, but went beyond anything considered "unintentional". Already speech threatening the President, for example, is EXTREMELY illegal. Claiming someone IS a murderer,
It shouldn't be. Those who expose themselves so far as by making threats, obviously aren't real assassins. The only people being victimized here are people like the Chicago resident whose wife yelled, "You suck - those boys died because of you!" and who was arrested and carted off with her based on some unfathomable concept of "threat" mostly related to the sense of "threatening to suggest a real political discord". Took months for the SS to admit it was all bogus, but they don't care. Their object is harassment and financial mayhem, so they don't have to go to the court in the end, it causes too many problems.
Remember the propaganda stories on the mass media about the "exploding heads" site where animation was shown of various famous peoples' heads exploding? Once it got popular enough they claimed it was a threat to Dole, and so that propaganda television broadcasts said, "look at this free country where you can say 'EVEN' that and get away with it", WHILE, the site had already been shut down by jack booted thugs from the SS who threatened the company where the person worked until they had to fire him, and hence got the site shut down.
So while it might be illegal, that doesn't mean that we should tolerate such a state of affairs.
without due process proving that said person is a murderer, and then posting that person's full name, telephone number, home address, work address, ROUTE TO AND FROM WORK, and other information useful to an assassin, goes beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and enters into threats of criminal action.
I don't remember the "route to and from work" part. As for calling him a "murderer", it's a logical corollary of calling abortion "murder". Yeah, I know, you want that outlawed too... doesn't mean I have to stand for it, though. What you have left is stuff out the phone book and/or the local AMA or Planned Parenthood directory. Plus some political rhetoric.
Sorry, but I don't think ANYONE should lose all rights to publish ORDINARY information that ANYONE ELSE can publish, just because of his political beliefs. You might as well start handing out yellow stars.
[2] His ISP claimed his website did not fall within the "fair use" guidelines of the ISP. Anyone who claims that Horsely is permitted to do anything he wants with another "person's" (in a dictionary, the only definition of "person" which applies to fetuses also applies to corporations) property without following that "person's" rules regarding use of their property, needs to realize that your freedom of speech ends when you attempt to exercise that right by violating the personal property rights of others.
Oh, spare me this Corporate Fundamentalist litany. First, his provider obviously did NOT object to his site. They kept it and kept it and kept it running, until the suits and the threats of suits started coming in. They didn't throw him off because he violated a rule, they threw him off because things got too hot for them to handle. I know it, they know it, you know it, so what is the point of the pretending? You're not seeing the exercise of the ISP's private property rights, but their retreat away from them out of fear.
Furthermore, I don't care. I want sites that offer ABSOLUTE free speech. Such sites should exist, since there is a BIG market for it. But they don't, because it's legally forbidden for them to do so. Which means it's not private property, it's not personal business decision, it's government enforced censorship with the coward censors hiding behind the veil of the average American's religious reverence for Capital.
[3] Note that the defendants in the case bragged they had made themselves free of any possible damage award against themselves, by making themselves bereft of any property (gave it to spouses, children, etc.) thus limiting the pity anyone should feel for them. If they aren't going to be hurt by the ruling, why should anyone feel pity for them?
Losing the right to hold property in America is no small thing, even if they managed to save some of it from immediate confiscation (which I doubt, the civil suit process has ways around the obvious responses like this). The fact that they are trying their best to resist does not make their resistance unnecessary.
If sincere, and I mean REALLY sincere, look up the Horsely case, then look up criminal law on threats made in ANY medium. Note for your paper that in some cases, threatening speech is in fact a criminal act, and that these limits on the First Amendment were agreed to be Constitutional.
By who? The ACLU doesn't agree that this lawsuit was constitutional, and I don't believe there's another organization in the U.S. qualified to have any opinion on the topic at all. The rest of them, don't care.
Comment:
The person who wrote this article is obviously well informed and follows this subject closely. It is evident that they wish to provoke stimulating discussion on this subject and wish others to contribute ideas or comments to their own ideas. This article did spark some discussion within the group but most of it turned into a flaming war. Nothing written in response was substantial, mostly stating whether they agreed or disagreed with the author. With this article the author made a statement as to what they believed. I found it interesting that this person was willing to lay all of thier beliefs on the line and to essentially publish them to this newsgroup. Strong statements were made here and they were responded to in turn. But the responses lacked a lot of dignity that this author brought to his or her posting (gender is but a title in this virtual universe). Tommy the Terrorist, the name itself brings flames to my mind. His grand title in this newgroup has made him somewhat of a superstar. He is everywhere and responds to everything. This is one of the only pertinent and informed postings by this participant.
Subject: CONTROVERSIAL ANTI-ABORTION SITE RESURRECTED
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:20:23 GMT
CONTROVERSIAL ANTI-ABORTION SITE RESURRECTED
By Courtney Macavinta CNET News.com February 23, 1999
Despite her proabortion stance, a Dutch free-speech advocate is mirroring the controversial Nuremberg Files Web site after a federal jury ruled that the site threatened the lives of abortion providers and MindSpring subsequently shut it down.
But Karin Spaink, a writer based in Amsterdam, hasn't simply resurrected the controversial site--visitors to her home page have to first read her commentary targeted at the creators of the site as well as the U.S. court system.
"While I strongly hold that every woman should have an abortion if she needs one, I do not think that other opinions about the subject should be outlawed or fined, no matter how harshly they are put," she stated on the site. "I hope that my mirroring this page teaches [the site's creators] a lesson in tolerance, too."
Earlier this month, a jury in the U.S. District Court in Oregon found antiabortion activists liable for inciting violence against doctors by posting on the Net a list of physicians' names that reads like a "wanted" poster. In a victory for Planned Parenthood, the defendants--who were members of the American Coalition of Life Activists and Advocates for Life Ministries--were ordered to pay more than $100 million in damages to abortion clinics and doctors.
The defendants maintain that paper "wanted" posters and Net sites such as the Nuremberg Files were created in case doctors one day can be put on trial for "crimes against humanity."
The Nuremberg Files' creator, Neal Horsley, was not a defendant in the case, but his site was highlighted as the prime example of antiabortion rhetoric that allegedly incites violence against doctors and clinic workers. The site lists contact information for more than 200 doctors and workers from abortion clinics around the country and calls for the "baby butchers" to be "brought to justice." Some of the names were crossed out after doctors were murdered by abortion foes.
When the verdict was handed down, MindSpring said the site violated its "appropriate use policy" and shut it down. As of today, however, the Nuremberg Files is live again thanks to a new service provider as well as Spaink's mirror site.
A self-described "pro-abortion, pro-speech, bisexual, slightly perverted, smoking, cursing, atheist writer," Spaink admits that she and the Nuremberg publishers are "strange bedfellows." Still, her move capsulated the controversy over the Portland ruling, which pitted privacy and abortion rights supporters against their own free-speech camp.
"According the First Amendment, there is a very strong distinction between speech and deeds. Somehow it seems that on the Net, both courts and juries are far more lax in keeping up this distinction, which I think is very important to maintain," Spaink told CNET News.com today.
"The nasty bit about free speech is that it also all applies to the people you hate," she added. "While defending my own right to free speech, I sometimes need to support people I think are bastards, politically dense, conservative, or perhaps even dangerous."
U.S. activists say that like debates over hate speech, the ruling put a strain on First Amendment watchdogs.
"It's one of the most difficult cases that we've seen and there hasn't been any consensus on what the right outcome should be," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Ultimately the individuals who commit the actual acts need to be held responsible."
The rekindling of the Nuremberg Files site also proves that stifling speech on the Net is virtually impossible, Sobel added.
"It shows the futility of attempting to remove material from the Net," he said. "But the way in which [Spaink] includes her own commentary is what the Net is about. Allowing more speech is the antidote to so-called bad speech."
The creators of the Nuremberg Files welcomed Spaink's free-speech support today and seemed unruffled by their strong philosophical differences.
"I'm glad she mirrored it, and I don't think her views do us any harm because it's a vote of confidence of the First Amendment," said Jonathan O'Toole, spokesman for the Creators Rights Party, which put together the Nuremberg Files.
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
Comment:
Here we see how people voice their own views of censorship. They also choose what to say and what not to say. ISP was ultimately responsible for shutting down the original Nuremburg Files site. So this is a direct attack on institutions that try to dampen the voices of the people. We also see that one attack by institutions on the public and their attempts to censor content on the internet we see the outrage that ensues.
THis posting is a call for help and a personal statement that is consistent with the views and feelings of others who are advocates for the free speech of the internet. We can see that censorship is a flag that rallys people together and compells them to speak out. But one must ask the question as to why the censorship issue is such a big issue? Why is censorship being imposed upon the author of web pages from so many angles? Because the internet may be the only venue left for free speech, I thinkt hat people are very feverently protecting it. And their following is growing. With the aid of the internet, infractions on the rights of people under free speech can reach global audiences because of the net.
Subject: ISPs as common carriers
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:27:17 GMT
As soon as a service provider imposes limits on the medium, then they are no longer a common carrier. This includes stuff like disallowing certain usernames, or limiting access to certain sites. If someone makes a harassing phone call, the phone company doesn't get sued because they couldn't stop the person from making the call.
Of course, this means that certain providers will be able to keep their common carrier satus, while others won't, and will be liable for anything that appears from someone using their service.
[ http://www.dejanews.com ]
Comment:
Here we see the discussion continues as to what should the
Subject: What is Polyamory?
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:23:17 +0100
(if you are interested in knowing more about polyamory, and to meet people online who are polyamorous and who openly share their experiences, visit the newsgroup 'alt.polyamory'. All viewpoints are welcome there, so long as such viewpoints are presented cordially and with respect for others.)
Q: What is Polyamory?
A: The word polyamory means "many loves" - having more than one loving person in your life at the same time. It has also been called responsible non-monogamy. It is not about having affairs or cheating on the people you love; everything is in the open and mutually agreed on, there are no secrets or lies. Polyamory is about loving people in a committed, ethical and consensual way.
Q: Isn't that the same as swinging?
A: No. As a rule, swinging is friendly sex in a controlled environment where emotional attachment is discouraged. It used to be called "wife swapping". In contrast, polyamorous relationships might not be sexual, but they are loving. Swinging is to polyamory as a one-night stand is to falling in love. Polyamory is not primarily about sex, it's about freedom of choice in loving relationships. Some swingers drift into polyamory over time.
Q: What kinds of relationships do polys have?
A: One common pattern is the open marriage where both partners date other people, sometimes the same people. Another common theme is the group marriage - like a typical monogamous marriage, but with more than two people. Triads (three people) are also fairly widespread. Many of these relationships become true families with long-term commitments, children, etc.
Q: What about Jealousy?
A: Most polys experience some jealousy now and then, but they don't let it control their lives. Jealousy is like fear or any other unwanted emotion: something to be dealt with and put behind you. When dealt with honestly and unflinchingly, jealousy loses much of its power. Many see jealousy as a signal that something needs investigation and care, much as they would regard depression or pain.
Q: Are there any disadvantages to being poly?
A: There are a few: you have to unlearn a lot of conditioning, you may have to learn how to deal with jealousy, you have to be very honest with yourself and other people, you may have to work on your communication skills, you become a social and sexual deviant in the eyes of many people and of course, having more lovers mean longer good-byes (it can take you 15 minutes to get out the door).
Most of these disadvantages are also advantages.
Q: What sort of people are polyamorous?
A: People of different ages, backgrounds and from all walks of life are polyamorous. In general, there seems to be a higher than average representation of people with advanced degrees, science fiction fans, computer and health care professionals, pagans and bisexuals. Some people fall into none of these groups. Polys are a pretty diverse bunch, but there are a few common traits and beliefs.
Common Traits: - not terribly insecure or needy or possessive - good communication skills - a love of honesty - an uncommon degree of self-knowledge - a high priority on personal growth - take responsibility for their own happiness - darn good cooks, judging by our potlucks
Common Beliefs: - strict lifetime monogamy is a myth - people are not property and can't be owned - people have a right to freedom in their choice of relationships and families - relationships exist to serve us; not the other way around - no one can meet all your needs for a lifetime
Q: How do polys feel about monogamy?
A: Most polys have a "live and let live" attitude. They are happy for those people who have found happiness in monogamous relationships. However, most polys are impressed by the fact that the divorce and adultery statistics indicate that monogamy fails a good deal more than it succeeds.
"60% of men and 40% of women have extra-marital affairs. More than 50% of marriages now end in divorce."
Polys tend to see the modern American nuclear family as a recent aberration in the course of human history and believe that larger, more complex extended families or tribes have been the natural human family structure. Polys frequently believe that children are better off when they have a broad range of adult role models to relate to, instead of a single, monogamously married couple. Polys do tend to object to our culture's idealization of monogamy and suppression of alternative lifestyles.
Comment:
This particular article sparked great controversy in the group.
Subject: Re: Comics and other stuff...
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:42:59 -0500
I personally think that things like the Comics Code Authority just goes along with the lines of parents not taking an interest into what their kids are reading. I mean if the parents just flipped through a few pages, than it would > be okay, right? No. I don't think so. While I'm not a parent, and as being a six teen year old, I know that my elders think that I need their guidance every step of the way. I think this is not true. I need to be able to read whatever I want when I want simply so I may learn more than my parents might like. My mother has always been along the lines that I can read just about whatever I like, but when it comes to television and movies, she still relies on the ratings (at times).
My parents are the same way (my mom more so than my dad, I suppose). But I have a pretty good idea what sort of things they'll approve or disapprove of, and if I want to read something or watch something I don't think they'll approve of, I just don't tell them. I guess that's kind of sad, really, having to hide things from them, but they seem incapable of having a rational discussion of the subject. Which makes sense; I was reading alt.polyamory some time ago, just out of interest (I'd just finished reading "Stranger in a Strange Land") and my mom completely freaked out. She wouldn't even let me explain, just ordered me not to read it anymore. Sigh.
How am I supposed to prosper and move forward with out seeking out some of the information myself?
Agreed. I think it's important for young people to be exposed to information. I mean, my school has a "filter" program to keep students from accessing "questionable" material. This basically means anything which even mentions sex or has more than maybe a PG rating for violence (and yes, that includes most news websites, annoyingly enough). Result? We spent about two weeks figuring out how to get around the filters. Trying to restrict information access is silly and doesn't usually work in any case.
Now I don't believe that everything has the right to be seen. If a document or other such things has information that it is obvious that would pose a possible danger to another one's life, it should not be printed. I think, for instance, pertaining to the Abortion case thing, that it would have been fine if they had not printed the doctors names, address's and such, but could spew as much "abortion is bad" and give you as many reasons as you want. As soon as it could harm another, one should have the common sense not to do it, simply because if you are trying to save lives, you don't try to kill others.
I whole heartily agree with the site being shut down, simply because it had personal information about others. The books that were published a few years ago when which gave detailed lessons towards killing people, the 'how to' books of assassination are different. They didn't focus on one or many particular persons. They were aimed at anyone. The people who bought these books could than do whatever they liked with the information. While there's no actual practical everyday use of these books, they still have, with in my ideas, the right to be published.
True. I wouldn't have much interest in reading something like that, but I wouldn't want it to be censored. Restricting things just makes more people want to read them anyway.
I remain... J. C. McAuliff Johinsa
Comment:
This was really surprising to me. This young (or supposedly young) person gives very good insights to a very fundamental paradox of the abortion issue. Those people who are pro-life are actually anti-abortion. They do not hold life sacred if they take life away from others. They are going against their cause.
Subject: Re: It's Incredible What The U.S. Government Allows
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:23:08
This is a paper I wrote for school. Any feedback is welcome. Morality in the Internet snip It appears the internet industry in incapable of adequately regulating content and in any event follows the lead of the U.S. government. At some level, the Mafia and the U.S. government are in cahoots with each other. Some form of government intervention and regulation is required.
I think you're right, bloodspear. Since the material on the internet spans the farthest reaches of the human psyche, it will be difficult to discern the evil from the merely titillating. Someone must make the decision as to what to ban.
I think it should be you. And, I believe, you also think it should be you.
As a practical matter, I think you should begin downloading as many obscene images as you possibly can. Start with the child pornography images. Amass as many as possible and send them in bulk to the U S Customs Service. Be sure to include your correct e-mail address, so they will know where to contact you.
Good luck, and God speed.
Comment:
This is a define flame dressed in irony. The humor of this article was very vague. This flame lacks intelligence. Here we have a response to a perfectly legitimate claim that there is little or no regulation on the internet because of the vastness of it all. In 1999 we have see a lot of new developments on the net, From the Nuremburg Files to the web sites of the Colombine High School killers and their Trench Coat Mafia. All of these things point to the internet as a place where these narrow views are expressed and criminal minds are free to wander. So where is the regulation on the internet?? This is the question posed by bloodspear.
The rules and regulations for net use were never established at the beginning. There is no big organization like the FCC to oversee the internet like it does radio and television. But should there be such an organization? The internet belongs to the people. No one person can claim ownership of the net. It is run by its users. It is a totally unique medium of which the world has never seen or experienced. It grows by the second and the possibilities are only limited by the imagination and download time.
The response to the original article is a flame. It is a if the author is taunting bloodspear and mocking him. To download child pornography is one such crime on the net that is being closely monitored by the government. So the author is daring bloodspear to violate this law which carries strict penalties by sending in those child pornography pictures into the US customs department. Here the author is acting very childish and it is this type of behavior which weakens the integrity of newsgroups as a whole. Those people who are not contributing but just criticise in a negative way.
Subject: Re: conundrum
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:55:52 -0800
A couple of weeks ago, Falwell was on the television show Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. On the program, Maher [the host] held up a Tinky Winky doll and asked Falwell "does this look gay to you?" Falwell's response was "I don't know what that is". On being told it was a Tellytubby, he said that "I've never seen the show, so I can't really comment". Comments were made in a newsletter he publishes. Therefore, he IS ultimately in control of what gets printed, but that does not mean that everything published in his magazine are his words.
True. I think Falwell's a sanctimonious boob, but I must say I actually found his statements on the show quite believable. Just like a military chain of command, he is indeed responsible for everything that his media empire puts out. However, it was (and is) just as irresponsible for the mainstream media to have picked up the story as "Jerry Falwell said..." and never bother to print his side of the story, but to propagate the original story instead, since it sells more papers that way.
Also, several gay groups have apparently claimed Tinky Winky as their 'role model'. This, in my opinion, is what started the whole controversy.
No, this happened after the fact. You must have been taking a leak when Falwell addressed that issue on PI. The editor that wrote the op-ed piece dissing Tinky Winky was responding to, of all things, a piece in the Washington Post. Every year on Jan. 1, they publish in the Style section a huge list of "Ins" and "Outs" (what's popular for the upcoming year vs. what's over the hill popularity-wise). The "Ins" and "Outs" balance each other (they're printed as big columns next to each other). So "Linux" might be In, and "Windows98" might be Out.
I forgot what the "Out" item was, but it was obviously a gay icon of some sorts (Ellen DeGeneres maybe? Bert and Ernie??), but they listed Tinky Winky as "In". Which Falwell's minion picked up on, and wrote a rabid anti-gay article in which he "outed" TW and said how horrible it was to have such an image be a children's idol. What is ironic and amusing is that if the Post really was insinuating that TW was gay by pairing him with another gay image, then they were really the ones that originally were (even tongue in cheek) "outing" TW. How hypocritical of mainstream media to point the finger of scorn and ridicule at someone when it was actually one of their own who made the reference! But then, that may be (as Heinlein says) making too much stew from one oyster...
What I would like to know, though, is why people make a bigger fuss over whether or not Falwell called Tinky Winky gay than over his position that gay people are evil. Do people not want to have to deal with their own prejudices?
This is an excellent point. Falwell's such a blithering idiot to begin with it's hard to dissect his opinions logically, but that's a point I hadn't thought of.
Anyway, just trying to set some facts straight (no pun intended... well, maybe...) -c
Flames cheerfully ignored
Comment:
This is an interesting article. Here we see the headlines invading upon the newsgroups. Tinkie-Winkie, who is part of the group know as TeleTubbies, a British kids show, is the focus of an attack by a magazine that is published by the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Because of this it has sparked wide outrage as to how religion is taking aim at homosexuals. This article is particualrly ironic since Falwell and his magazine speculate, without evidence to support their case, that gay children role models produce gay children and eventually gay adults. The question as to why people are focused upon the attack by Jerry Falwell on Tinkie-Winkie is an interesting one. I feel that it is easier for people to get excited over the direct discrimination over one individual rather than a whole group of people.
The fact is that people are willing to stick up for one person rather than a group of people. There is evidence of this in the pre-Civil War South. People were not concerned with the black population as a whole, but when the Dredd Scott descision was up held by the Supreme Court people in the North began their fight against the institution of slavery. What I am trying to say that, it is too abstact for people to think of all gay men and women as one community. They have diversity within the subculture. So an attack on gay rights hits farther from home than a direct assault on a chil's TV icon.
Conclusion:
What can one say about newsgroups? This project was hard enough as it was. To analyze other people's thoughts just from their postings on that particular newsgroup is a very difficult task. It comes with practice. That means that one should participate in newsgroups inorder to understand them. It is about newsgroups in particular that the phrase "It takes one to know one" has significant meaning. One cannot hope to understand the working of a newsgroup without participating and making connections with others who share the same newsgroup interests as yourself.
When participating in a newsgroup one must be careful what newsgroup they participate in. Pick one that had a lot of redeeming qualities. Be careful of Spam. That means that you need to filter what you are seeing in the newsgroups. Participate at least every week. Keep up to date with the news or any other pertinent information that pertains to your particular newsgroup. If you do contribute, post something worth reading and make it interesting so that others will want to read your writing. Be sure to remember that there are things that are detrimental when participating in newsgroups.
Others have ways of getting your email address resulting in more junk email. When you make your views known to others there are abound to be a whole lot of criticisms. Flaming is a part of newsgroups. You cannot take the good without taking the bad. If you only take one part of an experience then you are not experiencing anything at all. Take flaming as a sort of compliment. Someone somewhere found your article that you posted so stimulating, either in a good way or a bad way, that they had to respond to it. They took time out of their day to respond to your views.
One thing that could be improved upon in my report is that future students could look at a broader subject matter. But with the time constraints associated with this project it seems like an impossible task. But given the proper time and motivation I think that it could be done. This project could actually be an ongoing research project. Keep going, don't quit. Think before you write.