HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Snuff films that don't exist
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:21:32 GMT

In article <GREG.92Dec14172007@dd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca> greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Greg James) writes:
>The Canadian police apparently found possible evidence of such a film. They
>raided a mom&pop illegal pornography importation organization, and found a
>whole bunch of stuff illegal in Canada: child porn, violence, etc. One customs
>agent apparently said that their stuff was way worse than anything else he had
>ever seen, including a film of a woman being violated with a large knife, and
>apparently dying at the end of the film.

     Emphasis on the "apparently".
    The thing about snuff films is that it seems inevitable that one should
appear eventually. I haven't heard that any have appeared. If you can find
a news article that clearly states that the movie in question was a snuff
film (not 'apparently'), and that it was for sale, then I'll believe they
have appeared.

    There are several cases where people have vidoetaped sex crimes. But
as far as I can figure they have never reached any market, or been sold.
A man named Ng was charged in 1985(?) for multiple murders. It is said
that he raped some of his victims before killing them, and videotaped the
crime.
    There was a case in Australia recently (reported on clarinet) where two
men kipnapped a woman and forced her to have sex while they videotaped it.
They then intended to use the tape to blackmail her. She agreed, but went
to the police rather than the bank. :-)

   These are two cases that I know of. I'm sure there are more. The point
is, of course, that the tapes never got any distribution.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: castillo@media.mit.edu (Brian Anderson)
Subject: Re: Gay rights, etc.
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:42:08 GMT

In article <1gj12tINN156@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:

>...An interesting book out of late is called "The Nation of Victims"
>(author I unfortunately forgot here)...

The Book is "A Nation of Victims - The Decline of American Character" by
Charles Sykes.  This is the same author who penned the enlightening (and
often hilarious) expose "Profscam - Professors and the Decline of Higher
Education."  He also wrote "The Hollow Men," an analysis of the PC
phenomenon at Dartmouth.  Of the three, "Profscam" is the best.  It
should be required reading for any college bound senior.



-- 
"make lots of money",  "enjoy the work",  "operate within the law":  choose 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Anderson                    | "It's hard to work in a group when you're
castillo@media-lab.media.mit.edu  |  omnipotent." - Q, ST-tng  "Deja-Q"
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Snuff films that don't exist
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:47:50 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec16.043956.7415@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>       I vaguely remember that controversy.  I think "Time" or "Newsweek"
>did a story about it.  I remembered seeing it on the shelf of a local video
>store, so I looked there this evening, and there it was, in the
>"Horror" section: "Snuff", copyright 1986 by Video Warehouse Inc, Neptune, NJ.
>80 minutes, color.  The box reads "Banned in 32 states." "The rumor was 
>that a woman was actually killed during the filming of this picture 
>- WAS SHE?"
>
>       I didn't rent it, so I don't know what it really contains, but
>it sounds like a low-budget horror flick with a wierd promotional angle.

Well, for an odd-ball reason, I actually have some information on this
film. One of my colleagues at a former job is related to a Hollywood
schlock-meister, one Joe Zito (it's been quite a few years, so I
may not remember the name so well). Mr. Zito did the direction on
a film about the Patty Hearst abduction and also one of the
Friday the 13th "chapters," among others. In this case he was hired
to do a publicity campaign for the film you are now discussing. The
film was an abysmal piece of trash that had been consigned to the
dumpster by its own makers. It was a stupid film that was situated in
Brazil (I think) and contained a graphic murder scene involving a model
at its end.

When the "snuff" film controversy first drew public attention, the
film maker figured that he might cash in on the controversy. He
dug the film out of storage and renamed it "Snuff." Zito's contribution
(and I once again use the disclaimer that my memory might be rusty
about who did what) was the advertising campaign slogan "The film
that could only be made in Latin America, where life is cheap." As
you might expect, even in this guise, the film was a disaster,
although for all I know, they might have made back something on their
investment.

IMHO, the closest things that exist to true snuff movies are the
various "Faces of Death" flicks and their clones.

-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
From: russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Sexual Orientation Rights
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:21:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <athos-121292123645@kip2-17.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>Things I *am* against:
>
>* Forcing churches to hire homosexuals (since the majority of the religions
>  out there are against homosexuality).

Do you feel differently about forcing churches to hire blacks (there
was recently a related case involving a church-run school which refused
to admit blacks)? There are some churches that are against "race mixing". 

>* Forcing people to rent rooms in their homes to homosexuals (I would view
>that
>  as an invasion of privacy and property) -- This only includes homes where
>the
>  landlord lives too.  That means if I rent my guest room out, I should be
>able
>  to discriminate against anyone for any reason (it's my house).

Both of these questions address the difference between 
private and public situations. In general, the law prohibits discrimination
in public situations and protects freedom of association in private
situations. I'm not sure what the correct dividing line should be, but I
believe the standards of non-discrimination should be the same for
various categories. The same kinds of discriminatory acts should be legal
or illegal whether the discrimination is based on gender, religion,
race, or sexual orientation.  While I believe that renting apartments
or separate housing falls on the "public, discrimination prohibited"
side of the line, I agree with you that renting a room in your home
falls on the "private, freedom of association protected" side.
-- 
Russell Williams
Not speaking for Apple Computer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks)
Subject: Re: Musings
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:26:31 GMT
Reply-To: hicks@dg-rtp.dg.com
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Dec14.164811.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, moranc@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> But aren't we "supposodly" free to be as stupis as we want to be without
|> being assaulted or raped?

Summarizing what has already been said here ---

Sure, in an ideal world you should be able to act however you wish.
The fact is, your actions have consequences and you should be prepared
for those consequences. If you put yourself in a situation where you
are in potential danger and don't take steps to avoid that danger, you
are not acting in a responsible manner. That's not illegal, and if
someone else commits an illegal act against you, they should be punished,
but the bottom line is that you could have avoided becoming a victim.
If you want to become a victim, go right ahead and ignore the danger.
You can buy insurance for almost anything these days so you can
absolve yourself of responsibility to a large degree, but if that is
the road you choose to travel, you also give up certain freedoms.

Linus
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Gay rights, etc.
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:43:27 GMT

      I want to explain a little something about we are so desperately
trying to get sexual orientation clauses passed.  (I say we, although I can
only speak for myself and those people whom I have spoken with on the subject.)
You see, I don't believe in Affirmative Action.  I don't believe in the
quota system.  And I don't believe in preferential treatment.
      That is why I oppose the classification of homosexuals as minorities.
I oppose the classification of any group as a "legal minority".  However,
when the "majority" or society systematically restricts the equal rights
of any group on the basis of a characteristic of *the group* then legal
protection is necessary.
      In Lafayette, the Cracker Barrel restaurant dismissed two employees
who admitted to being gay (actually, one was gay, the other bi-sexual--but
that is splitting hairs).  They were exemplary employees who left their
sex lives (although not their sexuality) at home.  They did not discuss sex
at work (the same cannot be said of many of their co-workers) and did not
attempt to use the workplace as a social network.  They were dismissed solely
on the basis of their being gay.
      The law does not protect theser individuals as it is currently written.
I favor sexual orientation legislation because there is currently in society a
general approval of using sexual orientation as a justification for action.
Employers may dismiss emnployees on the basis of their status, regardless or
(I mean of) their activity.
      Those who oppose the language in "gay rights" legislation are correct.
Gays should not be given minority status.  I would strongly oppose any
"gay- scholarships" or gay quotas.  But without sexual orientation 
legislation, there is no legal recourse for gays when their rights are
infringed upon on the basis of their being gay.
      Fire a gay, and the gay cannot do anything but file for unemployment.
Fire a gay for using the workplace as a social "pickup" site is not going
to be affected by the legislation.  Firing the gay simply because he or she is
gay will.  Housing and employment are the areas where gays are being
unjustifiably denied their rights.  Without the legislation, they can do nothing
about it.
      I do not support gay rights.  I support sexual orientation rights.  I want
to get a job as easily as anyone, so long as I am qualified.  Until a few
individuals in society can get their heads out of the sand, we need to pass
sexual orientation clauses to our non-discrimination clauses.

                                                Karen


Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton)
Subject: Re: Should Packwood be pardoned?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:50:20 GMT

Steve:

> He said (as I recall) that he was sorry and did not understand the full
> gravity of his actions.  After consulting with various people he has
> realized his mistake and now "gets it" (in reference to the silly
> admonition occasionally banded about - Men just don't get it.

I read that too. IMO, it makes him look worse than any of the allegations.
It's blatant, *ss-kissing, manipulative, hypocritical horse-pudding. (Not to
use adjectives or anything... }:)  )

WRT to the allegations, they seem credible, but they also seem trivial.
Suddenly when the limelight is there, stuff that wasn't important enough to
mention before becomes fit for a national scandal.

America has really lost all sense of proportion in this subject. Or more
pointedly, we've been *intimidated* out of having a sense of proportion.

        Tom

-- 
The Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings and soars into the wild sky...      
up...       up...     out of sight...   (tob@world.std.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexual Orientation Rights
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:07:55 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <athos-121292123645@kip2-17.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>
>I cannot reproduce *any* law since I haven't really followed it.  My point
>was simply that I would oppose any law that assigned minority status to
>homosexuals subject to the same protection that minority groups get.  

    An interesting view, considering that gays *are* an oppressed minority
group.  Your opposition doesn't change that.

>Anyway, I would like to see the text of the amendment in Colorado.  From
>what I heard it simply states that they will not grant special privs to
>homosexuals.  If so, I don't see much problem with it.  I admit, however,
>that I am ignorant since I haven't read the actual text.

    One would hope that you wouldn't vote for something you hadn't read.
Here it is:

Colorado #2:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of Section
30, which shall state as follows:

NO PROTECTION STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN, OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor
any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or
policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices
or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any
person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota
preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.  This Section of the
Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.sex:447 alt.flame:16308 talk.bizarre:41280
From: robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: The ultimate perversion
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:05:36 GMT
Organization: No, thanks......
NNTP-Posting-Host: itro7s.aero.org

In article <Bz4C76.865@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
|
|>fyi:  The founder of Society for Cutting UP men is Valerie (?) something--
|>whjatever her name is, she was the person who tre (oops) tried to assassinate
|>Andy Warhol in the late 60's.  The name fails me.
|
|Valerie Solanas: The man is a "genetically inferior animal" resulting from
|a "biological accident...an incomplete female...an emotional cripple...
|suffering from 'pussy envy'" ... from the _SCUM Manifesto_

I see yet another CFV: alt.valerie-solanas.semen-receptacle

			R.S.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.sex:500 alt.politics.usa.misc:657 alt.save.the.earth:1430
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Sexual Orientation Rights
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:37:39 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.sex

In article <75507@apple.apple.COM>, russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams)
wrote:
> I'm not aware of any bill in which such status has been proposed, nor
> am I aware of any gay rghts group that has publicly advocated such
> status (apparently neither has the staff of NPR news). Can you quote
> the language of any bill introduced into the U.S. congress or any
> state legislature or any official statement from any major gay
> organization that has proposed "protected class" status or
> affirmative action for gays? 

I cannot reproduce *any* law since I haven't really followed it.  My point
was simply that I would oppose any law that assigned minority status to
homosexuals subject to the same protection that minority groups get.  

Things I *am* against:

* Forcing churches to hire homosexuals (since the majority of the religions
  out there are against homosexuality).
* Forcing people to rent rooms in their homes to homosexuals (I would view
that
  as an invasion of privacy and property) -- This only includes homes where
the
  landlord lives too.  That means if I rent my guest room out, I should be
able
  to discriminate against anyone for any reason (it's my house).

Anyway, I would like to see the text of the amendment in Colorado.  From
what I heard it simply states that they will not grant special privs to
homosexuals.  If so, I don't see much problem with it.  I admit, however,
that I am ignorant since I haven't read the actual text.

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Obscenity law (US)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:57:41 GMT


    Would anyone support a rewriting of the obscenity law in the US? As I
understand it, the test for obscenity has three parts.
1) Must appeal to the prurient nature.
2) Must show sex in a patently offensive manner.
3) Must lack serious scientific, literary, or artistic value.

   (corrections to this are welcome. I'm sure I haven't got the wording
right.)

   This seems to me to be a mess. To take the parts in order:

1) What does 'prurient' mean. The best I can figure is that it means 'good'
in terms of pornography. If it turns you on, it appeals to your prurient
nature. If it fails to turn you on, it doesn't. So it seems to me that the
letter of the law illegalizes only quality porn. If it fails this test 
due to lack of talent, or through violence or grossness, it is legal.

2) Of course 'offensive' brought in the concept of community standards.
A work can only be ruled obscene in a particular locality. This is a 
disaster not only from the standpoint of enforcement, but also from the
point of view that you don't know what is illegal until you are arrested.

3) The social value test was added as a check to the power of society to
control thinking. Although neccessary, it doesn't add to the definition of
obscenity.  Indeed, it puts the responsability on judges and juries to
decide the utility and purpose of an object for all time.

   I think obscenity law has outstayed it's usefulness. It is obviously a
holdover from when all pornography was hidden.
   What do we want obscenity law to do? We might say that we want it to
stop snuff films (which don't exist) and child porn (which should be
opposed vigorously). But recently child porn was moved out of the sphere
of obscenity when it was decided that child porn was illegal even if it
wasn't obscene. So child porn should rest now where it belongs: in the
child abuse laws.
    What does that leave for obscenity? Only one thing I can see. Noone
wants a red-light district in thier backyard. Obscenity law with it's 
community standards test can be used to oppose this. So I suggest that
the law should concentrate on regulation and zoning rather than on
illegality.
   Let local authorities decide where porn can be sold, rather than
threaten distributers with criminal prosecution. If the law is written
correctly, it would allow local video stores to carry porn, and 7-11 to
carry Playboy, but also provide security for those who want to keep
red-light districts in check.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: robert@aero.org (R. S. Statsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: The ultimate perversion
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:10:11 GMT
Organization: None to Speak of......
NNTP-Posting-Host: itro7s.aero.org

In article <15DEC199216054374@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
|> 
|>In case you don't know it, Valerie Solanis is dead.

We can all be thankful......

|BTW, how did she die?  Police shootout?  Crazed lover?
|The net-male-revenge-organization?

After reading the Usenet group alt.valerie-solanis.semen-receptacle,
she had a coronary......

		R.S.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Liberal males a problem?
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Dec6.182007.1429@athena.mit.edu>
	<7DEC199202202523@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>
	<1g0cjnINNpi3@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
	<11DEC199222363057@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:33:15 GMT

In article <11DEC199222363057@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
   Empowerment as you define it needs a certain environment to flourish
   does it not?

   How does this environment come about, and how does it contribute to
   empowerment?

   It seems to me that you can bat your head against the wall all you
   want but if the powers that be don't give you the power to manage
   your life as they do theirs you are not empowered.

Yuck.  If you need someone else's permission to become empowered, you
aren't.  Empowerment is the flowering of the self *in opposition to*
others.  There is a constant amount of power in the world; you get
some only by extracting it from others.  They are not going to give it
up willingly.

As long as individual women keep looking for some outside person or
group to "empower" them, they will be oppressed.  Once they say to
those around them "I *will have* more than you schmucks.  Get out of my
way!" they will have power.

Yes, a proper and supporting environment helps.  But the esence of the
acquisition of power is the will to possess it.  Everything else is
details.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex