From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Minneapolis Hate Speech Ordinance
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:56:44 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Sep28.194124.26838@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>A distinction CAN be drawn.  The distinction WAS drawn in the St Paul
>statute, and in the MacKinnon antiporn statutes.  But because this
>distinction was drawn by the relatively disempowered, it was ignored and
>said to be unconstitutional.

You know, it's funny.  I've been saying for five years that if anti-
pornography legislation were enacted, the first speech suppressed
would be that of feminist and homosexual erotica.  Fortunately, a
growing number of feminists have come to realize the same danger,
which is why NOW has taken the stance of remaining neutral, even
though it alienated a lot of NOW members.  Yete there are some who
persist in insisting that this is another smokescreen intended to
protect conservative values.  That by cloaking this in free speech
talk we are blinding ourselves to the facts.

Here is a repost you might find interesting, Ed....
~~~~~~~~~
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
Subject:  Censorship is never safe
Date: 8 Sep 1992 17:19:48 -0500

-*----
In recent years there has been a spate of censorship attempts
from the left, in particular, attempts to forbid "hate" speech,
and to curtail pornography, which from the left is viewed as
media that "oppresses" women.  Libertarians -- both civil and
general -- oppose all such censorship, urging that liberal views
must be defended in a liberal fashion, and warning that laws
giving the government the power to censor are inevitably turned
to the purpose of those in power, whose views change with the
wind.  The blurb below is one example of this.

Begin excerpt from On Our Backs, Sept/Oct 1992:

   Canada's largest lesbian/gay bookstore, Glad Day in Toronto,
   has been raided and charged with selling obscene material --
   namely, an issue of the lesbian erotic magazine Bad Attitude.
   The magazine, which depicted penetration and bondage, was the
   first casualty of a Canadian Supreme Court decision redefining
   obscenity to include materials that are "degrading and
   dehumanizing," primarily to women or children.  The decision
   had been applauded by Canadian and American anti-porn
   feminists: Ms.  called it "a stunning victory" in a country
   "where the free-speech tradition is not as dominant as it is
   in the U.S." (!!)  These misguided "feminists" have never
   understood that when the "free speech tradition" is not
   upheld, the first to be gagged are minorities.  That means
   lesbians.  That means feminists.  That means women.

End excerpt.

If the Canadian Government thinks that Bad Attitude deserves
censorship, then I think the magazine deserves support.  Does
anyone know what a subscription costs, and where I send the
check?

Russell
~~~~~~~~~~

The Canadian Supreme Court decision was championed by a Canadian
lawyer named Catherined MacKinnon.  Comments, Ed?

Joe





Newsgroups: alt.censorship