HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us (Mark Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.sex.stories.d,comp.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted: Public Domain Erotica/Censored Material for
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:06:02 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington


  Is there a list of books that Project Gutenberg has not transcribed 
because of "sensitive" material?  I would like to eventually see 
everything possible digitized, but some books are more important than 
others...  Huck Finn is definately high on the list.
 
 - Mark Hughes (Caves of Steel 509-624-2078)  mhughes@comtch.spk.wa.us
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: FAQ me baby
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:16:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I am looking for the FAQ file. I cannot use FTP from where
I am ......

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8022 alt.politics.elections:15979 uiuc.civil-liberty:74 alt.sex:32529
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:06:42 GMT
	<1992Oct7.071431.17466@nwnexus.WA.COM>
	<1992Oct7.165817.29077@news.iastate.edu>
	<1992Oct9.030607.12512@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Jude" == Jude G Federspiel (jfed@athena.mit.edu)

Jude> Like what you want, but laws are made to protect the nation and
Jude> its people, and if the state, representing the people, decides
Jude> something is harmful, (theft, murder, fraud, pornography) they
Jude> can outlaw it (usually with some form of popular consent :)

But outlawing pornography is not intended to protect people. It is
intended to protect something as intangible as "public morals", a
vague concept defined so that it can be used to outlaw whatever
government does not like. You support Iran in outlawing the works of
Rushdie, too?

Jude> So it's okay with you if your (hypothetical) daughter decides it
Jude> looks like fun, and she goes acting in pornographic films,
Jude> having sex with actors she's never met before, etc.  (She's
Jude> still a pacifist, wouldn't hurt a fly :) That okay with you,
Jude> pop?

Sure, why not? I'll advise here that it's not the best possible line
of business, that the physical and psychological stress is hard (as it
is for a waitress, say), that she will have to take care of herself,
etc. etc. But if it's her choice, well, so be it. No worse or better
that so many other things people do.

Jude> If you can do an unbiased study, and show a causal relationship,
Jude> then saying that seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I don't know
Jude> if this has ever been done, but I can understand that
Jude> relationship myself, even if I can't prove/show it beyond a
Jude> shadow of a doubt.

There have been lots of investigations and they always fail to find a
causal relationship. Interesting, many people such as yourself fail to
get a clue from this and believe the relationship to be there anyway
"we just have to look harder".

If you value an "unbiased study" you must be prepared to accept the
results even if they do not support your point of view.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:15:26 GMT


In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz>, 
sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) said:

> I would be prepared to forego some minor entertainment to prevent
> women getting raped - how about you?

Now *that's* what I call a loaded question!  Sort of like "Are you
still beating you wife?" updated...  I think a more relevant question
-- especially to alt.censorship -- is "Would you be prepared to force
someone else to forego an action which harms no one in order to lower
the probability of a different person doing something bad of his own
free will?"

> > Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
> > 
> Oh, probably someone who has been looking at some evidence, rather
> than just supporting one's self-interest.

Plase cite your evidence.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: [alt.sex] [republicans] on porn
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:17:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.sex
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.sex
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Subject: [republicans] on porn
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:44:14 EST

to: elf@halcyon.com

ES>   "Art provides the people of the state with a moral guidance and
ES>direction of purpose.  No artist should be allowed to exhibit his works
ES>in our libraries, museums, and public squares, if they do not extoll
ES>and support the virtues of The Fatherland."  - Adolph Hitler.

Great quote! I have added it to my archives.

    STEPHEN
    ^^^^^^^
 stephen.dawson@canrem.com
 Entered 10-08-92 at 9:04pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * Sex is too important to take seriously.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,alt.sex,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:57:17 GMT

In article <axolotl.718598500@syzygy>, axolotl@socs (Iain Sinclair) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >[Michael Lax has posted the Republican Platform to
> >alt.politics.elections. Here are the excerpts related to pornography,
> >arts funding, and censorship. - Carl]
>
>If Carl is going to crosspost any more "Republicans on Pornography"-type
>articles to rec.arts.fine, could he please ensure that Followup-To
>is somewhere other than rec.arts.fine?   The ensuing responses are
>usually completely irrelevant to r.a.f.
>
>Better still, post them to somewhere like usa.censorship, usa.liberty,
>or whatever.  If no such group exists, it's high time one did.

(rec.arts.fine omitted from newsgroups list, a.p.usa.misc and t.p.misc added)

Well, I think alt.censorship (or alt.society.civil-liberty etc.) is
fine also for US-only material, though this republican thread might
feel more at home in something like alt.politics.usa.{misc,elections}.

I think what happens in USA re freedom is important to the rest of the
world.  For one part, USA has a good Constitution - for another, the
U.S. government has lots of political and military power over the
world.  Look at the international drug prohibion, for example.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8059 alt.sex:32831 alt.politics.elections:16445
From: rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 13 Oct 1992 12:58:39 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct11.130305.5741@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <BvuDE4.EDv@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
>>
>>The government did an unbiased study.  The results didn't come out the
>>way the people who were doing the study wanted them to, so they didn't
>>get a lot of publicity.  While pornographic films which included
>>violence did incite people to more violence, pornographic films which
>>did not include violence didn't have any effect on violent attitudes,
>>including rape, et al.  So the discovery came out that yes, violence can
>>cause violence, but pornography does not cause violence (perhaps it
>>simply causes more pornography?)  I don't remember where I read the
>>study, I think I was doing a paper for a class.
>
>This sounds much stronger than any other claims (attributed to a reputable
>study) I have heard.  A few years ago I recall hearing of a study (that
>
--------
You don't need to hunt up anything obscure. All the papers of the
times had it on the front page when Nixon et alia tried to prove
the link between pornography and sexual offenses or violence.
These were carefully chosen republicans, twice! And both times
they could not bring forward what Nixon wanted to hear. The first
commission he disbanded and didn't publish, but it escaped
anyway, as all things do in a free society. The second committee
was even more conservative than the first. They wanted to find a
link, but they were forced not only to deny a link but to affirm
a reverse causality, namely that pornography seems to cause a
cathartic action among those who are devotees, and that in the
societies and countries of the world, as well as in the prisons
of the world, the availability of pornography had a calming
influence on the inmates. It was also noted that sex crime
statistics were lower everywhere that pornography was legal in
the U.S. There are several more administrations that couldn't
come up with anything new in the past 50 years. The LaGuardia
commission in New York had wanted to find marijuana horrible too,
but instead, after speaking with medical professionals, Mayor
LaGuardia could find nothing wrong with it.
- Steve
 
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:28:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz>, sma@waikato (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>opinion of women, or to rape, kill etc.  But there are a large number of men
>out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
>the standards by which women are treated, and there are a very small number
>who will be lead to violence by pornography.  I would be prepared to forego
>some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?

Hmm - having seen some Usonian stuff about naked women/sex (Playboy,
some others) on our national TV I might just be able to accept your
claim, as the stuff is so boring, silly, stereotypical and insulting
to anyone who's got half a brain it might well be enough to cause
severe brain damage and thus be dangerous.

But why is the answer to prohibit such stuff?  Prohibitions generally
don't seem to work on alcohol, other drugs, etc. - why would it work
with expressions of sex?  Why not just say "if you can't beat them,
join'em", and turn sex into a friendly, cozy, thing people will feel
happy with instead of getting a guilt trip which might cause violence?
Perhaps just start showing people making love in the place of each
commercial (which generally do _hint_ at sex, but with careful
connotations that it is evil) - just some ordinary people.

I mean what's the big deal?  Is sex in itself violent or bad?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex,rec
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: [Republicans] On Pornography
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:14:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.211740.30378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
     kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

[ Quoting the Republican Platform]

>But if hard- core pornography does not cheapen the human spirit, then
>neither does Shakespeare elevate it.

   But what is The Republican Party that it should feel the right to
dictate what someone does with their "spirit," a concept the United
States Government doesn't even recognize?

>especially since the Commission on Pornography, in 1986, found a
>direct link between pornography and violent crimes committed against
>women and children.

   The Commission found no such link.  In fact, their statement on the
matter concludes: "Even though no visible link between pornography and
violence was demonstrable in the material presented, COMMON SENSE
DICTATES that there is a link, yet to be found."  (Emphasis Mine).
"Common sense."  Horseshit.

   We must remember that the Commission on Pornography was the laughing
stock of ever major newspaper in the country, that it was given, in
numerical dollars, just 7% of what the 1972 Commission of Pornography
was given ($780,000 vs $11 million), and that the 1972 Comission on
Pornography recommended _the decriminialization of pornography_ because
no such link between pornography and violence could be demonstrated
then, either!  Of course, the Republicans through out that Comission's
work, too...

>However, no
>artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
>private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
>basis on which our society is founded.

   "Art provides the people of the state with a moral guidance and
direction of purpose.  No artist should be allowed to exhibit his works
in our libraries, museums, and public squares, if they do not extoll
and support the virtues of The Fatherland."  - Adolph Hitler.

            Elf !!!

<> Only utopian liberals could be surprised that the Nazis were art
<> connoisseurs.  -- Camille Paglia

-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8076 alt.politics.elections:17034
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:45:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct9.173731.28309@samba.oit.unc.edu>
  <1992Oct15.225000.11428@waikato.ac.nz>
  <1992Oct15.133842.6331@scic.intel.com>

In article <1992Oct15.225000.11428@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen An
derson) writes:
> But, I guess, my whole point is that these other items (handguns, knives) hav
e
>other, legimate, uses.  What do you really lose by forgoing pornography?

Liberty.

Once the precedent is set, any asshole with a good lobbying and publicity
campaign gets his/her puritanical bigotries enforced by the guns of the State.

Only in a police state does the burden of proof fall on those who engage in
private, voluntary behavior to show that it is "legitimate".  


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:41:29 GMT

In <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.165817.29077@news.iastate.edu>, tarjan@iastate.edu (Scot 'ONE T!' Kight) writes:

>>I myself am a pacifist, I dont hurt anything (except maybe playing football..)

>> I coud never Kill anything or abuse any one, I have friends who have been
>> abused and every time I hear of it it sickens me, But I also like 'Porn'
>> I have no problem with it and I appreciate it, Who are you to tell me what
>> I may like and not like.I dont care about what you feel should be my family's
>> values, I know my own values and will teach those to my children.

>Fine.  I (and I hope most others) do not care what your personal values are,
>provided that it does not impact on anyone else.  You are probably like many
>people for whom porn is pure entertainment and will not be lead to lower your
>opinion of women, or to rape, kill etc.  But there are a large number of men
>out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
>the standards by which women are treated, and there are a very small number

Been reading too much Catherine MacKinnon, I see...

>who will be lead to violence by pornography.  I would be prepared to forego
>some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?

>> Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
 
>Oh, probably someone who has been looking at some evidence, rather than just
>supporting one's self-interest.

Really?  You've got evidence that has never been published anywhere?
Neat.  Please share it with us.  Because *published* studies do NOT
support your accusation.  There *may* be a correlation between seeing
*VIOLENCE* and committing rape, but there is NO evidence for what you
suggest.  As a start, you may want to look at the Netherlands.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: anonymous
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 02:38:05 GMT

There is a difference between sexually explicitness and pornography,  and  
obscenity is yet a different term. Confusing the three leads to the  
mistakes the american authorities and people are making.

Things can be sexually explicit or show nudity (not the same thing) and  
not be obscene or pornographic.  I might say things that are less sexually  
explicit than others can be more pornographic or obscene than them.

Basically the idea to stick by in my opinion, is that it is non of the  
government's business, and none of any authorities' business.  It is up to  
the individual, the parent or whoever.

Decide what your morals, the general morals of the country/state are  
first,  then only can you think about government, laws, bullshit, etc...
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:09:11 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
>Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
>Date: 8 Oct 92 10:31:39 +1300
>
 
> But there are a large number of men
>out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
>the standards by which women are treated, and there are a very small number
>who will be lead to violence by pornography.  I would be prepared to forego
>some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?

There are more issues here than most of the debate following this posting 
allows.

- Firstly why should pornography not lower the respect of women for 
men?  I would consider my esteem condsiderably lowered by anyone's thinking 
of me as some neanderthal with a five word vocabulary and a single minded 
fixation with intercourse.

- Secondly why should the explicit portrayal of sexual behavior lower 
anybody's respect for anything?  `Merchant of Venice' portrays anti-
semitism, `Look Who's Coming to Dinner?' portrays racism.  There is no 
reason at all for the mere *fact* of sexual content in any medium to attract 
any form of criticism.  (No more, perhaps, than *mere* ownsership of a gun, (
as opposed to actually killing somebody) although I am not sure that the 
analogy fits completely)

There appears to be no correlation between exposure to pornography and 
inclination to commit sexual crimes, and there does appear to be a link 
between exposure to representaions of violence and incliniation to violent 
behaviour.  The question seems, therefore, (if we confine ourselves to 
the evidence) to settle itself thus:  We should try to establish ways of 
dealing with the violence issue on its own.  We should leave pornography 
alone.  We should consider the extent to which some (quite a lot, 
depending on how you define `violent') pornography is also violent.  In 
cases where both combine the violence should be the primary issue.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Dave Spurrett                       |                              |
| Department of Philosophy            |   "I have seen the truth,    |
| University of Natal                 |    and it makes no sense."   |
| Email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za |                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7966 alt.politics.elections:15649 talk.politics.misc:50320
From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:45:54 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

David Marc Nieporent writes:
> 
> Really?  You've got evidence that has never been published anywhere?
> Neat.  Please share it with us.  Because *published* studies do NOT
> support your accusation.  There *may* be a correlation between seeing
> *VIOLENCE* and committing rape, but there is NO evidence for what you
> suggest.  As a start, you may want to look at the Netherlands.

You may have a point.  But a few years ago, on NZ Television, a programme
featured a rather nasty rape scene.  In the early hours of the following
morning, in an Auckland suburb, a young women was raped in a practically
identical manner.  Mere coincidence?
Someone brought up the Gun analogy.  I wouldn't want to legislate against the
right to bear arms (US Constitution), but neither would I wish to allow the
keeping of an arsenal to rival Desert Storm.  Similarly, I wouldn't want to
legislate against every naked breast or exposed buttock, but there is some
pornography that I would like to censor.

Stephen..
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7999 alt.politics.elections:15811 talk.politics.misc:50530
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:57:19 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <1992Oct9.094554.11326@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz 
(Stephen Anderson) writes:

> You may have a point.  But a few years ago, on NZ Television, a programme
> featured a rather nasty rape scene.  In the early hours of the following
> morning, in an Auckland suburb, a young women was raped in a practically
> identical manner.  Mere coincidence?

But if the TV program hadn't aired would the young woman not have been 
raped (perhaps not in the exact manner, but in some manner)?  Is it that 
pornography creates sick minds (rapists) or do sick minds (rapists) just 
happen to also like pornography?

If the goal is to reduce rape, then let's work on that.  Censorship never 
cures anything; it may only hide sickness.

As another example, all the furror over the rap song that "encouraged" 
killing police was in my opinion mis-directed.  Instead of trying to bury 
the song, let's find out why inner-city youths are so disconnected that 
they identify with this song.  The problem isn't the song, it's the 
disconnection.

(my opinion of course)

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8007 alt.politics.elections:15899