From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.212352.2293@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>>In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
>>>or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms
>>>a bit.  For example, _Playboy_ is "against censorship"
>>>when it comes to suppression of certain kinds of sexual
>>>material, but is probably "for censorship" when it comes
>>>to libel
>>
>>libel n.  1. A written, printed, oral, or pictoral statement that damages
>>             by defaming a persons character or reputation.
>>
>>Hmmm, don't see anything here about censorship. Libel is about reputations.
>>I'd like to point out that as far as I know, to win a lawsuit for libel, the
>>statements, etc... must be false. You can libel all day long. But you may
>>have to explain to some judge why you should not pay damages and print
>>some sort of retraction.
>
>The censorship part follows from this statement:  libel is illegal.
>That is, the law would like you not to say it.  That is, the law
>can punish you for saying it.  I'm wondering how that is different
>from censorship...  I must admit that I don't know.

Action taken after the fact is not censorship. To censor if to filter
and allow only PC material through. If porno was censored, then it would
not be legally printed or sold. That is, to sue for libel is not to
censor, because the libelous <whatever> has already gone into the
public domain. It's the difference between a while loop and an until
loop.
 
>>>copyright infringement
>>
>>copyright n.  The sole right to sell, publish, or distribute a literary
>>              or artistic work. adj - protected by copyright. -v To protect
>>              by copyright.
>>
>>No censorship here either, copyright is about theft of intellectual or
>>artistic property.
>
>Yes, which means if I want to say something (that someone else owns)
>I can get in trouble with the law.  Thus, it's not true that I can
>say *anything*.  Hence, I am a tad bit censored, no?

Same difference. If it was censored, copyright infringment could not have
occured to begin with (if the censors did their job anyway).
 
>>>and some forms of harassment.  
>>
>>What does harrasment have to do with playboy or censorship?
>
>Some forms of harassment, which could be considered forms of
>expression, are illegal.

These still happen after the fact.
 
>As I've said before, I'm against censorship of pornography, but
>I think Gordon has raised some points....  points I wish I 
>refute...  but I dunno...  (?)

Gorden Fitch's point seems to rest on the fact that he refuses to
figure out what censorship is, and therefore he feels that it is
an inappropriate topic for alt.feminism. But he is the only one
who has this mental block. I feel it would be more appropriate if
he would just stop talking about it till he figures things out and
let the rest of the net get some useful discussion on the topic.
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men