HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:45:45 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:46:18 GMT

In article <11521@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
> I don't understand why whenever the word "pornographic" comes up
> everyone associates it with censorship and rights.  If you want
> to talk about the rights of people wanting to look at
> pornographic pictures then what about the rights of people who
> have to suffer as a consequence of those pictures.  Some argue
> the possibility is small and that there is no hard evidence
> linking rapes and sexual abuses with pornographic picture.  
> 
> I want to say forget about your hard evidence and look at your
> own instinct (here I am talking to males on the net).  Most
> people at one time or another is bombarded with pictures of naked
> females.  Even the recent Kentucky Fried Chicken ad on TV has
> pictures of nearly naked females.  Now can you tell me honestly
> that if you look at these pictures, you don't get turned on

Ah, so you have just asserted that 'naked females' are a 'community
accepted norm' and then ask that we accept from you assertions that
other images are 'pornographic'? Plus, just to ice the farce, a plea
to ignore any evidence!!

>   If you can't live with dirty pictures on your X-terminal
> then why don't you just buy a copy of Penthouse and scan the
> picture and have it as your background.
> 

Them you exort us to commit a criminal offence.

> Please try to think of this issue as a matter of protecting the
> rights of women and childern.  It is not a issue of big brother.
> 

I think of it as an issue of protecting my childrens rights from 'protectors'
such as your self.

Get a Usenet

~Paul

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.indian]  Re: Censorship and Internet (Re: Samit Banerjee and Ed Crick)
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.indian
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:55:04 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K Rao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject:  Re: Censorship and Internet (Re: Samit Banerjee and Ed Crick)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 22:27:34 -0500


I will go one up on Craig and remove all the material from the post I am
following up on:-)

Vulgarity used with the sole intent of provoking someone would/could be
construed as fighting words. They have never been protected by the
first amendment.

Any entity that allows its resources to used in this manner, and then
refuses to take action when such instances have been brought to its
notice is liable under the law. Show me a case or the specific law that
disproves this. 

To give a graphic instance: If you insist on calling one particular student,
say, "wop", and that student does not complain to the university but takes
legal action, then the university will not be held responsible. But, if the
student complains to university first, and the university refuses to take
action, the university is liable. In fact, according to the recent laws on
providing a workplace free of harassment and intimidation, theuniversity
may be crimially liable.

Of course, now Craig will edit out the last paragraph and then post a lot
of irrelevant material.
-- 
Vidhyanath Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu		the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341			[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:44:38 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: nick@cs.uwa.oz.au (Nick Lewins)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:13:21 GMT

In <1992Dec22.085300.1@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au> ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:

>Since pornography is demeaning to women, ...

>Recently, images of nude women chained up and tied up have graced the pages of
>this 'news'group. 

>There are at least three reasons to remove this newsgroup and any others which
>are similarly demeaning to women:

>	1) The images are pornographic, not 'erotic': consult any of your
>female colleagues for their opinions

>	* women are badly enough represented on computer networks without
>further turning them away with the sexual harassment implicit in the
>promulgation of such pornographic images.

>If you think that the newsgroup is 'harmless fun': see what your female
>colleagues, friends, wives, secretaries think ...

>pornography generally is demeaning to women, ...


I havn't looked, but I'm sure that there are pictures of men there
too.  Is pornograpgy not demeaning to men?  Do men not have an opinion
on what is 'erotic'?  Isn't it pornography in general that you are
complaining about, not just the pornography which depicts/demeans
women?

I don't want to get into the censorship issue;  I just want to point
out that your argument "Pornography is demeaning to women, therefore we
should ban it" seems one-eyed.  Perhaps it should be "Pornography is
demeaning to people, therefore we should ban it"?

Nick.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:47:13 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 07:03:11 GMT

In article 9737@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU, gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:
>In article <1hk002INNa1j@zikzak.apana.org.au> zik@zikzak.apana.org.au (Michael Saleeba) writes:
>>Censorship cannot fail but be offensive to people.
>
>But so few people in our western society are truely censored.
>They just whinge that things aren't paid for by others.

Are you serious ? You are an adult right ? Can you watch a movie in this country
that has not been approved by someone else ? They actually take bits out and say
"no I don't think the likes of Grenville should see this" and you never do. It
actually costs more to take the bit out, and support all those public servants
who make the decisions.

Of course I guess you are not truly censored.

I suppose you realize that there are probably still certain actions that you are
not allowed to perform with your wife in the privacy of your own bedroom ? Perhaps
not in this country, certainly not in many states in the US, and absolutely not
in Great Britain. These countries would seem to represent a considerable portion
of western society. But someone has said, "no Grenville should do this, even
though no-one is being harmed by his actions, regardless of whether they are
consensual or not".

Of course I guess this is not truly censorship. (Semantically I suppose it isn't).

My taxes pay for this network. So do yours. If control is exercised over content
because it is not within the charter of research then that is fine by me. I will
lobby to broaden the charter of the network.

But if control is exercised because someone wants to tell me what I can read or
write or think then I will fight them with all due vigour.

There was I time when 1984 passed and I thought that George Orwell had been
mistaken. Now I realize that he just got the date wrong. It was about 40 years
too late.

david



-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:46:23 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 30 Dec 1992 05:18:03 GMT

In article 11521@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au, anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>
>I want to say forget about your hard evidence and look at your
>own instinct (here I am talking to males on the net).

Spoken like a true scientist. Did you really mean to say this ? I suppose
it was ok for the masses in Europe to "follow their instinct" and burn
witches. Or for the Muslim's and Christians to "follow their instinct" and
slaughter each other in the Crusades. Or the Klu-Klux-Klan to "follow
their instinct" that negroes were sub-human and treat them accordingly.

Males as a whole in this community still treat women like shit. No denying
that. But if you are on a crusade to improve the situation I think you
would be far better suggesting that males be forbidden from associating
with each other in groups of more than 2 or 3, and forbidden from consumming
alcohol. These measures might seem a little draconian (no more so than
restricting the right of free speech that I don't have in this country) but
would obviously be much more effective than your proposal.

Of course I don't need any evidence to make this suggestion. I just looked
at my instinct.


>Please try to think of this issue as a matter of protecting the
>rights of women and childern.  It is not a issue of big brother.

Utter bullshit.

Recognize yourself for what you are - a well meaning moralist who has no idea
what he is talking about, but still wants to tell me what to do.

david

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.]  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:49:11 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
From: skunz@iastate.edu (Steven L Kunz)
Subject:  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:48:56 GMT

In <1icf6mINN8r7@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:

>The poster flooding the net with copies of the same message in every newsgroup
>is being dealt with.  When I started seeing the messages, I sent mail to the
>News administrator at his site asking for something to be done about it, and I
>just got back this mail message (which I consider OK to post since it's a form
>letter that was sent out to anyone who wrote to the news administrator of the
>site about the problem):

>-----
> [form letter email reply about this topic from skunz@iastate.edu]

I really should have posted the email-reply I was sending out here (in
newsgroups news.admin.misc and news.admin.policy) to start with - sorry.

I promise you all it IS being handled.  He started an automatic posting
process for what was probably every newsgroup on the net.  He started it
from multiple machines and let it run.  The "postmaster" here had at least
50 email messages off the net regarding this, I (as news admin) had at least
that many (and they are still coming in).  What a waste of a lot of people's
time a resources ...  

Of course Mr. Babak Sehari had a "few" items in his mail-box, too.  Since I
was Cc'd to many mailings I KNOW he got a lot of "innovative ideas" on what
to do with his posts.    

-- 
Steven L. Kunz
Networked Applications | Usenet News Admin.
Iowa State University Computation Center, Iowa State University, Ames  IA
INET: skunz@iastate.edu     BITNET: gr.slk@isumvs.bitnet
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:45:55 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:09:17 GMT

In <1992Dec28.041650.17112@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> root@cltr.uq.oz.au (Hulk Hogan) writes:

>Just because knives are sharp doesn't mean no one should have them. 
>Someone said to me recently,"porn makes good poeple better, and bad
>people worse". I think she was right.

Ok, then why do we ban things like Heroin and Crack ?  I am sure
you and me can handle those things better so why ban them ?  

>Put simply, I believe it's better to remove the unstable people from the
>society, than to try remove all the items from the society that can
>provoke the unstable people.

Please reread my post, I didn't say ban all porn did I ?
Although, I would be happy if they were but then you would say it
is taking away our rights (male rights).  Did you know that porn
can be addictive and not only that it gets worse until it gets to
the stage of violent porn.  If some addictive drugs are banned
then why don't we ban porn.

Sorry I stray from the topic of discussion.  

--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:45:50 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: zik@zikzak.apana.org.au (Michael Saleeba)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 29 Dec 1992 10:14:53 +1100

anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:

>then to know that it could lead to acts of violence against
>females and even childern ?  Ok, the possiblity may be as low as

Anthony, I am normally a calm and placid fellow, but your post has
increased my chances of brutally attacking innocent women and
children. Of course this would only happen if I mistook them for
_you_. Ok, the possiblity may be low but...

I hereby propose that Anthony be banned for the good of mankind.

:-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|   zik@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au      |  "The stock exchange -   |
|        Michael Saleeba            |   a din of inequity"     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.]  Warning -- false complaint campaign about c.s.i posters
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:46:47 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject:  Warning -- false complaint campaign about c.s.i posters
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:41:22 GMT


Advance apologies for the murkiness of some of this, but I cannot
in good faith be too explicit about the people involved . . .

Recently I received a letter wherein the sender either neglected to
remove the original introductory paragraph or did not intend to send
it to me quite yet.  Heavily disguised and paraphrased, it reads:

	----------------------------------------------------------------

	From: YYY@somesite
	Subject: letter
	To: to@somesite root@iti.org XXX@othersite

	Dear XXX:

	Here is the letter I intend to send to root@iti.org about
	FOO@iti.org.  If you think it's OK, I'll send it from my
	accounts as A, B, and C.

	----------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the letter complained about a user at ITI who complained to
the site admins at somesite and othersite about the actions of XXX and
YYY.  It urges me to take action action against FOO for daring to
complain to XXXs and YYYs system administrators.

This letter was addressed to me as well as XXX, so it seems he either
sent it in error or neglected to re-edit it before sending.  In either
case, he clearly intends to make it appear that there are a number of
users complaining when in fact it is only one or two people perpetrating
a fraud.

On investigation, it became clear that this fraud is targeted at
several people at various sites, all of whom have dared complain about
XXX and/or YYY to their admins.  While it is of course the right of XXX
and YYY to complain in response, I most strongly object to the intended
fraud.  I am in the process of contacting the sysadmins at their sites.

If you are receiving mail complaining about the activities of users at
your site who participate in soc.culture.indian, I caution you to check
very carefully as to the identities of the senders.  Should you be
concerned that you are receiving fraudulent complaints, please contact
me with the names and email addresses of the complaintants and I will
advise you if they are XXX, YYY, A, B or C.

Steve Simmons
System Administrator
Industrial Technology Institute
scs@iti.org
-- 
	"You can't get here from here."
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.]  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:49:18 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
Subject:  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
From: jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 19:03:13 GMT

skunz@iastate.edu (Steven L Kunz) writes:

> I promise you all it IS being handled.  He started an automatic posting
> process for what was probably every newsgroup on the net.  He started it
> from multiple machines and let it run.  The "postmaster" here had at least
> 50 email messages off the net regarding this, I (as news admin) had at least
> that many (and they are still coming in).  What a waste of a lot of people's
> time a resources ...  
> 
 
 Thanks for the note. What indeed is being done to Mr Babak Sehari ?
 I trust he is being suitably dealt with?
 
 From one of the 50 email senders ...


 Jon Clarke                                                     Z*NET Pacific
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  jonc@status.gen.nz           GEnie: J.Clarke6        Hexagon: HSBC NZM EBD
  Phone: (+649) 358-5589       IFNA : 3/772:105        GEM    : NZM CABLES
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     "Practise safe computing ! Wear a write protect tab!" jc 1988
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.]  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:49:31 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
From: ses@sunSITE.unc.edu (Simon Spero)
Subject:  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:44:10 GMT

In article <3F2XwB5w165w@status.gen.nz> jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) writes:
>skunz@iastate.edu (Steven L Kunz) writes:
> 
> Thanks for the note. What indeed is being done to Mr Babak Sehari ?
> I trust he is being suitably dealt with?
> 
Think of something innovative...
 maybe a 40hr course on Turko-Greek relations taught by Mutulu?

Simon
-- 
Hackers Local 42- National Union of Computer Operatives, Chapel Hill section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Arise you users of compression, though the   | WAIS/Z39.50 spoken here
tarfiles hold you down" - The Internetworkale | DoD #612 | Tel: +1-919-962-9107
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: CFD: newgroup "aus.censorship", was Re:
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:48:29 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: bambi@bu.oz.au (David J. Hughes)
Subject:  Re: CFD: newgroup "aus.censorship", was Re:
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:09:35 GMT

dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) writes:

>Sure. But then who knows when it might come in handy ! How many times has
>this discussion gone around ?


Now that's an easy question.   Too Many!

Just the facts m'am  :-

	1.  Inclusion or exclusion of services provided by any given
	    service provider are operation decisions made with the aim
	    of providing the best *OVERALL* service possible.

	2.  The service provider in this case is the "owner and
	    operator" of the network  -  the AVCC.

	3.  Nothing is stopping you from negotiating a feed from an OS
	    site and calling them via UUCP to get your missing groups.
	    By doing this, you are directly responsible for *your*
	    expenses and the utilisation of what funding you have.


If I can't get everything I want from McDonalds, I don't expect them to
shuffle their operational funding and resources to cater for me (even if
"me" is a group of people, albeit the vast minority).  I pay them money for 
my burger in the same way institutions pay AARNet membership.  If I don't
like what the good old "Golden Arches" offers I guess I can go down the
road to H.J.'s (or directly fund the making of the "bambi burger").

Same applies here.  Are you generally happy with the services provided
by AARNet?  Would you prefer you didn't have access to the net?  Would
you prefer non-interactive access like the good old days?  Would you
like to put up the extra funding required to extend the service base to
cover your "requirements"?

In short, I, like the vast majority, am happy with the services provided
with the net particularly as the empasized focus of operations is 
legitimate "Academic and Research" activities.


bambi  -  End of soad box mode..
   ___                                 David J. Hughes     bambi@bu.oz.au
  /   \                /  /    /        
 /  __/ __   __   ____/  /    / __          Senior Network Programmer
/    \ /  \ /  \ /   /  /    / /  \  /    Comms Development & Operation
\____/ \__//   / \__/   \___/ /   / /       AUSTRALIA  (+61 75 951450)
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk