From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: I can't believe it!
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:41:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1993Jan6.144803.62497@cc.usu.edu> slt22@cc.usu.edu writes:

>     Get this, I was reading alt.feminism to see what the women were 
>squaking about and I came across a conversation about pornography.

No, you were reading soc.feminism.  Alt.feminism is unmoderated.
If you wanted to win my sympathy that you were unfairly judged on
soc.feminism, the "what the women were squawking about" line is
a poor way to start.

>See, I don't mind pornography.  Hell, I even have a few mags.  

Yeah, ok, me too...

>They were saying that pornography was hurting the female spirit and 
>bitching about some other things about it.  My argument was that if you
>ban pornography just because you don't like it then you might as well
>ban nature shows on TV and magazines like National Geographic.  We, as 
>humans, seem to get this god-complex that everything that is so-called
>"Immoral" should be banned.  How far is this going to go?

I've been following the thread you are talking about, evidently better
than you have.  The only poster openly complaining about pornography
is Janis Maria Cortese, and she has repeatedly stated that she is not
in favor of banning or censorship.  She just thinks the dangers she
perceives are something to think about, and wants to discuss them.  I
find nothing unreasonable in this.  And I certainly haven't seen any
"squawking" about it.

>     But today, I log in and find that I had a new mail message.  Low and
>behold it was my post.  The response was "I found your letter to be 
>unsuitable for soc.feminism."  This surprised the hell out of me.  Talk
>about a censor!   I wrote a letter back to the moderator, who's name is 
>Cindy, and told her that this shows me how transparent feminism is.  They
>only want to hear their side of the story and no other.  Now I ask you, 
>is this a free country or what?  

Your statement is false.  They have repeatedly posted letters from both
men and women which claim that the dangers of censorship are greater 
than the dangers of pornography.  At least one of the moderators (Muffy
Barkocy) has made no secret of her opposition to any kind of censorship,
and as far as I know, Cindy Tittle-Moore, the moderator you refer to,
is also opposed to censorship.  If I'm mistaken about Cindy's attitude
I'm sure someone will correct me....

>     We should learn to be more open minded and to stop trying to force
>"morals" on everyone.  As soon as one thing is banned, someone will find
>something else to complain about.  Pretty soon that will be banned.
>Besides, what someone calls "moral", someone else might consider it 
>offending and "immoral".  I think that it is time that the B.S. stopped
>and reinstate some freedom back in society without bans or complaints.
>You know what I mean?

Yes, I agree, censorship is wrong.  But I think you are shooting at the
wrong target if you level this accusation at soc.feminism.  I read it
consistently and my opinion is that it is one of the most fairly moderated
newgroups on the net.  Personally, I have only entered two postings there,
one was accepted and one was rejected.  The first was a posting in about
a "power-myth" for men which roughly equates to the concept of the "beauty
myth" for women.  I'm not sure it was a well written as I would have
liked for it to have been, but it was important to me.  It was accepted.
The second was a knockoff post in response to some postings about
neuro-chemical causes for violent acts by men.  I wrote it at the end
of the day and it was (a) terse and (b) misinterpreted the intent of
the article I was responding too.  It was rejected.  I am convinced that
the moderators made the correct decision in each case.

Indeed, if I have any complaint with the moderation of soc.feminism, it
is that the moderators allow *too many* anti-feminist postings.  Too
much of the content consists of feminists defending their own existence.
I can see the existence of feminism attacked anywhere.  I would like to
see more discussion of the tenets.  The pornography thread has been
one of the better ones.

As for your posting being rejected unfairly, it's possible, but I would
be surprised if this were the case.  My impression has been that the
moderators are doing what moderators *should*, separating well-thought
out and meaningful postings from knock-off flames, regardless of their
own agreement with the point of the posting.  Why don't you post the
rejected message here, and we'll see what we think?  Mind you, we
don't have to worry about moderators, so we may tell you that your
posting seems like mindless squawking.  It's your risk.

Joe