From: peter@cujo.curtin.edu.au (Peter N Lewis)
Subject: Re: CFD: newgroup "aus.censorship", was Re:
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:59:51 GMT

Someone create that group quick, this is an interesting discussion, but
definitely the wrong place for it!

bambi@bu.oz.au (David J. Hughes) writes:

>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 ?

>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.

While this is true, what I (and presumable at least some others) object
to is people using ulterior reasons (does that make sense? :-) like
"Academic and Research" activities, and "bandwidth" to justify forcing
their moral views on the rest of us.  Arguing the apbe should be removed
because it is not an "Academic and Research" activity is not valid,
because on that grounds you must advocate teh removal of 90+% of all
news groups (definitely 99% of alt, rec, talk, & soc).  While I would
disagree with this view, I wouldn't argue that it was a case of
censorship.

Phil Ryan (I think :-) writes:
>You are living in a fairytale world where people are equal, and yet women
>_still_ prefer to be seen draping cars, being topless barmaids, being
>prostitutes, being used in pornography. It is garbage: women are doing
>these things because our society is constructed such that we don't let them
>do much else - except be mothers to ourseleves and our children.

So you'd say that women don't want to be models or actresses?  We must
be living in different worlds, last time I checked this was a strong
favorite in choice of professions.  But of course, only "good looking"
women/men can make it in those professions.  I consider that to be a bad
thing, but its got very little to do with pornography.  My personal
suspicion is that its brought about by the mass media, in particular by
the "women's" magazines, which continually tell women how they should look
(much more so than "men's" magazines).

>Interestingly, I was expecting to get many pro-porn postings, but it turned
>out that it was about 50/50 onthe question that I put in my original note.)

That doesn't strike me as particulary strange.  Pornography/censorship
is never a clear cut issue. Few people would advocate no censorship
(eg, I have no objections to censoring child pornography), and few
people would advocate censoring all pictures of men/women.

The devision here is caused by some of us believing that the censorship
of any of the material in abpe would help any social ills, as well
as a fair number of us who are opposed to the whole concept of
censorship in most forms.

The net is a powerful tool for free speech.  If you don't want
somethings in abpe, then why not post to the discussion group abpe.d and
complain there instead.

Personally, I'd like to see an aus.white-australia group created for
the white-australian advocates, so they can post their "we represent 90%
of all australians" messages, and the rest of us can follow up saying
"no you dont!" :-).  The same would be true for a nazi group, or any
other group that people might think represses anyone.  If it really
does, and if people really think that, they will say so.  Censorship
is like burning books - once you start, it doesn't end til their all
done...

Have fun all,
   Peter.
PS: Someone create that group hey :)

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
Peter N Lewis <peter@ncrpda.curtin.edu.au>           Ph: +61 9 368 2055