From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.39 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:04:16 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 39


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

From: emr@eff.org (Elizabeth M. Reid)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.39

[Week ending August 9th, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

Notes 1 to 6 discuss the censorship of pornographic material. This
discussion stems from the decision of some Canadian universities to
stop receiving the alt.sex.* newsgroups because they offend some and
are allegedly illegal.

1. To claim that human beings are forced to become criminal in their
actions merely by exposure to depictions of criminal activity is
clearly false, and to argue in favour of the censorship of certain
material on that basis is equally false.
    <1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu>

2. "If the [alt.sex.bondage] community could bring itself to cancel the illegal
articles, and put them in another newsgroup which Canada could block,
then there would be no reason to block a.s.b, and the universities
would feel freer to get it back."
    <1992Aug5.001511.27836@cs.sfu.ca>

3. "I find it odd that people can't see a distinction between [the
Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational debate of ideas], and the
kind of censorship of socially undesirable non-rhetorical material
which has been practised for centuries all over the world -- including
the US under the Constitution and the First Amendment."
    <1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca>

4. "What right is being defended when my speech [is] banned because of
your mores. The 'right' not to have other people violate your mores?
If there is such a right then there is no room for other rights...
Here is some of the history of government suppression of sexual
materials..."
    <1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org>

5. Here is a list of some studies which have investigated the
relationship between pornography and violence.
    <1992Aug7.151709.9915@eff.org>

6. "I am not concerned with harm. I have no doubt at all that [some
books have had] a mainly pernicious influence on the world. But I know
that the way to counter lies is with truth, not suppression.
Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes freedom with the very
tyranny we claim to oppose."
    <xczmsjg.barry@netcom.com>


Notes 7 to 9 are on issues related to the censorship of material based
on content.

7. The president of the University of British Columbia, in Canada,
recently circulated a letter in which he described his intention to
ensure that "university property is not being used to access, create
or store pornographic material on university computing equipment."
    <DALTON.92Jul31231305@oligo.Geop.UBC.CA>

8. "There are _many_ newsgroups which are offensive to various
religious bodies - ranging from soc.bi to alt.atheism to alt.drugs.
In _each_ of these cases, one or more religions could make as valid a
case for removing the group as could be made for the removal of
alt.moslem.wanted.gay. Yet, _none_ of those cases would justify their
removal. If Usenet is to have any value as a tool of communications,
it _must_ be totally free of any form of censorship. This includes
censorship based on political, moral, OR religious grounds."
    <30smyck.adamsr@netcom.com>

9. People at the University of Massachusetts at Boston are permitted
 to store any material they wish in private files, make any of their
files publicly readable, create any mailing list, and post anything to
Usenet. What they may not do is display, for instance on a publicly
visible X-terminal, material that could not be given a `PG-13' rating.
    <BETSYS.92Aug3155829@ra.cs.umb.edu>

- Elizabeth]


In this issue:

Mike Percy       75  >"Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Jamie Andrews    53  >
Jamie Andrews   178  >
Carl M. Kadie   188  >
Carl M. Kadie   690  >
Kenn Barry      286  >
                 52  Usenet censorship in Canadian universities
Rick Adams       53  >Offensive Newsgroup
E Schwartz       40  >putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file


Computers and Academic Freedom News

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (sheehan@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

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

From caf-talk Caf Aug  3 08:31:22 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Article 1--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 12:27:57 GMT

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:


>     Look.  There are three main questions here, and I seem to
>disagree with most people on these newsgroups (though not with
>most people in the world) about their answers.  Most of the rest
>is just hot air.
 
Of course, most people in the world would love to have the freedom to
actually discuss such touchy matters openly, but that's a differenet
problem. 

>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
>  would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
>  child sexual abuse?

(1) Is there violent material that, if it were readily available,
  would make some people more prone to commit acts of violence and
  child abuse?

or

(1) Is there material depicting drug abuse that, if it were readily available,
  would make some people more prone to commit acts of drug abuse and
  push child drug abuse?

or

>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
>  rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
>  allow it to be available anyway?
 
I don't even have to change the words here.

>(3) Where do you draw the line?

People must draw their own lines -- for themselves and their families.

Given the above, virtually no movie, book, comic, would play,and
especially not the Bible.  Any category you can come up with will have
some classic novel or film that would be banned under such things.
Under my first counter-question, we would have to ban all Sherlock
Holmes and Agatha Cristie novels, virtually every American film of the
last two decades, including Apocolypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July,
Mississippi Burning, all monster and sci-fi movies like T2 and Star
Trek.  Or should we only ban depictions of certain kinds of violence?
And what kinds?  The problem would still remain.

Under the second counter-questions, movies like Days of Wine and Roses,
Clean & Sober, Bright Lights, Big City and books like Wired, and other
autobiographies from Hollywood would necessarily be banned.

You argue from a point which states that human beings are forced to
become criminal in their actions merely by exposure to depictions of
criminal activity.  This is clearly not so, otherwise everyone who's
ever seen one of the above works would be a violent maniac or a
drug-abuser, or by your thinking, a rapist.  Everyone on the Meese
commission must be locked up -- surely no one can view as much filthy
pornography as they did without being driven to rape and child
molestation or worse.

Just because some people are unstable enough to be triggered by
pornography to rape, and some people are unstable enough to be triggered
by Freddy Kruger to go out an kill people with razors, and some people
see others using drugs are compelled to also use drugs is no reason to
bring society as a whole down to their level.  Some people are unable to
keep themselves from becoming obese, should we ban chocolate cake?

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)


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

From caf-talk Caf Aug  5 06:58:21 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Article 2--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 00:15:11 GMT

In article <hurd.712717031@sfu.ca> hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd) writes:
>...  The whole point to a.s.b. was to make the giving of
>consent, and the open questioning of "normal" power relations inherant
>in sex appear in the foreground as something to step back and question.
>...  Like abortion,
>it will be done, the question is only how much information and safety
>will be available to those who decide to do it.

     I agree with you entirely.  I have been reading
alt.sex.bondage since last September, and have been reading
articles from it since it was created in 1989.  As many people
point out, most of the material on it is very helpful.

     However, the direct cause of the censoring of a.s.b, at
Manitoba and SFU ACS, was "Farmer Bob" and stories like that.
Someone in the Winnipeg police department saw "Farmer Bob", an
article which was clearly illegal, and the universities in
question covered their asses the best way they could.

     Of course, "Farmer Bob" can be sent out on, say, sci.logic;
but in that case it would probably be cancelled and/or removed
from individual machines.  But alt.sex.bondage is a newsgroup
where such articles come across regularly, and its readership
is against cancelling such articles.  It's very difficult to
defend a university against charges of wilfully importing
illegal material in those circumstances.

[DISCLAIMER:  I am speaking *only* for myself in this article,
and all of my articles in fact; in particular, I have *no*
connection with SFU Academic Computing Services.]

     If the a.s.b community could bring itself to cancel the
illegal articles, and put them in another newsgroup which Canada
could block, then there would be no reason to block a.s.b, and
the universities would feel freer to get it back.  But proposing
such things in a.s.b gets you compared to Chamberlain appeasing
Hitler (this is first-hand knowledge!).

[some good points about other disturbing things in mass media]
>...I wish you to realize that a.s.b. was NOT about such things, and such
>things are still on the net, and that a group explicity about consensual
>activities was removed in the guise of dealing with such material....

     I would say that a.s.b is not *primarily* about such
things, but it does crop up there and is never going to go away
unless the views of the readership change.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168


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

From caf-talk Caf Aug  7 07:41:27 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Article 3--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 18:52:05 GMT

     Every posting I make seems to generate 5 responses, so I'd
better not respond to all of them or I'll be doing it all day.
I'll just respond to Kenn's, which as usual is very articulate.

     In general, people seem to be taking the attitude that
Absolute Freedom of Speech is a principle which is somehow
outside the normal give and take of the legal system.  I think
this may be because we usually associate suppression of freedom
of speech with Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational
debate of ideas.  I find it odd that people can't see a
distinction between this, and the kind of censorship of socially
undesirable non-rhetorical material which has been practised for
centuries all over the world -- including the US under the
Constitution and the First Amendment.

In article <wywm4bc.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>> The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
>>material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
>>decision to ban.
>
>	No, it's not, it's a philosophical decision.

     What I meant was that it's both.  If you were confronted
by empirical evidence that challenged your philosophy, surely
that would shake your philosophy.  My point was that at some
point we have to break off experimenting (before the experiments
become too Mengele-like, presumably) and start philosophizing,
which is your point too.

> The essence of the
>freedom of speech and press guaranteed in the US Constitution can be
>expressed in the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty".

     Then how was it that _Playboy_ (which didn't even show
pubic hair) was banned for so long, in so many places, under
the US Constitution + First Amendment?  And that so much other
material was banned for decades before that, under the same
US Constutition + First Amendment?  I think everyone has always
recognized that "freedom of speech" is subject to balance with
other freedoms and rights that people enjoy; what gets banned
depends on the mores of the time.

>>... I defy anyone to still say,
>>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>>adversely.
>
>	Nonsense. Donnerstein, himself, has demurred from such a
>position.

     Donnerstein has pointed out that his experiments do not
"prove" anything about real life situations.  That's clear.
But again, our position on censorship is a combination of
empirical evidence and philosophy, and we can surely use the
empirical evidence to whatever extent we find reasonable.

> In fact, when you admit [sic] that the harm from such material can't
>be "proven", you understate the problem: no one has even found serious
>_evidence_ for such a conclusion.

     I would have to disagree with you, and so, apparently,
would the Canadian lawmakers.  I do agree that more study is
needed to deal with objections to the current evidence, but
the current evidence isn't enough to cause us to tear down
current censorship laws.

>>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
>>  rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
>>  allow it to be available anyway?
>	The US Constitution also says "no". Read your John Stuart Mill
>if you want to understand why it's important.

     Presumably you mean it says "yes"... but tell me again why
old censorship laws were upheld within the framework of the US
Constitution.

     (By the way, I must say at this point that I find it
difficult to understand why people keep dragging the US
Constitution into a debate which was sparked (at least in this
incarnation) by Canadian law.  But that's beside the point.)

>	You're assuming your conclusion, Jamie. What you, personally,
>have "no doubt" about is irrelevant to anyone but you. It remains the
>case that there is no evidence for your position, and that censoring on
>the grounds of distaste or having a "bad feeling" is a dangerous
>business, with no built-in limits on what is censorable.

     Since this is assuming that there is no experimental
evidence, I can't really respond to it.  I would be nervous if
my lawmakers were censoring solely due to "bad feeling"; as far
as I can tell, they aren't.

>>     The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
>
>	"I'm so average and normal, they'll never come after me".

     A government could come into power tomorrow that would
change the laws and throw me in jail for being blond and
driving my mother's car.  I would object to that law, but I
wouldn't object to the principle of being able to pass traffic
laws.

     A government could come into power tomorrow that would
change the laws and throw me in jail for possessing a copy of
_Lolita_.  I would object to that law, but I wouldn't object
to the principle of being able to censor some things.

>You've already conceded [sic] the
>legitimacy of most of what gets posted there, but with typical censor's
>logic, you feel that suppressing the entire group is justified in order
>to suppress the specific articles which you feel should be censored.

     You make it sound like I'm personally in charge of all the
traffic on Usenet, suppressing newsgroups here and there on a
whim.  All I was saying is that I thought the Manitoba and SFU
ACS people did something perfectly reasonable, to avoid criminal
charges in Canada.  After all, they aren't forced by the
Canadian constitution (much less the US constitution) to import
everything on the net.  If the newsgroups were set up
differently, or if the alt.sex.bondage readership weren't so
intransigent, there would be no reason to have to block the
import of the legitimate debate that goes on there.

>... Yes, Jamie, the
>censors have their own agenda; it is not yours. Give them the power to
>dictate to you what you may read, say, and think, and you can't expect
>them to do it your way.

     Again the association of censorship with total mind
control.  Believe me, if anyone who wants to suppress free
debate of ideas gets into power, they'll have a hell of a fight
on their hands.

>        At least my preference is simple in principle: no content-based
>restrictions on speech or press.

     So if, say, someone were to produce a magazine called
_RAPE_, with erotic stories involving women getting raped and
loving it, pictorials of rapes (produced by consenting adults,
of course), and features like "How to Convince People You're Not
a Rapist Anymore", and if they were to distribute this magazine
in prisons for convicted rapists, you would think that's OK?
Sorry, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.

>.... Every proposed censorship standard I've ever seen
>leaves the door wide open to censoring things the law's supporters
>approve of.

     Well, IMHO, that's life, that's law.  Sometimes, late at
night, when there aren't any other cars around, I want to go
through a red light.  I can't.  Tough.

> The law can't draw sharp distinctions when no such
>distinctions exist. Instead, censorship law is perforce vague, and the
>net result is censorship by consensus and popularity.

     But while the edges aren't clearly defined (as with any
law, including the "principle" you state above), at least we can
be sure that the current censorship laws are not going to
suppress party political debate, for instance.

>I read a.s.b.... You have a right to disapprove, you have a
>right to _support_ laws that would restrict access, but, in the
>philosophical sense, I concede to no one and nothing the right to make
>such decisions for me.

     You sound like you are a reasonable person.  I wish I could
say that about everyone.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168


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

From caf-talk Caf Aug  7 11:13:25 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 4--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 15:13:18 GMT

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
[...]
>     Then how was it that _Playboy_ (which didn't even show
>pubic hair) was banned for so long, in so many places, under
>the US Constitution + First Amendment?  And that so much other
>material was banned for decades before that, under the same
>US Constitutional + First Amendment?  I think everyone has always
>recognized that "freedom of speech" is subject to balance with
>other freedoms and rights that people enjoy; what gets banned
>depends on the mores of the time.
[...]

What right is being defended when my speech banned because of your
mores. The "right" not to have other people violate your mores? If
there is such a right then there is no room for other rights.

Censors often claim that they are balancing the right not to be raped
or the right of equality against the right of free expression. If so,
they have their thumb on the scale.

Here is some of the history of government [U.S., U.K., Canada]
suppression of sexual materials. I think history shows
that such suppression is relatively new and that it exists in spite
of, not because of, scientific evidence. I'll follow this up in a
second article that lists some of the scientific evidence.

[Sources:
 
   ACLU Handbook: The Rights of Authors and Artists by Kenneth
       P. Norwick and Jerry Simon Chasen
 
   The First Amendment Book by Robert J. Wagman]

"[T]he suppression of explicit sexual materials is little more than a
hundred years old. Although government censorship has existed
throughout record history, it has mostly been direct toward political
and religious heresy rather than obscenity. In Greek and Roman times,
and indeed until a few centuries ago, sexual explicitness was widely
accepted in popular literature, drama, and ballads." [Norwick, p. 148]

In the U.S. "explicit sexual materials were very much in circulation
through out the colonies, only Massachusetts had any law addressed to
them and it was not until 1821 -- 110 years after its enactment --
that anyone was prosecuted for violation of the statute." [Norwick, p.
149]

In the first half of the last century, "[b]ooks and pamphlets that
would be considered hard-core pornography today circulated freely in
England; if they lacked anti-religious content they apparently
violated no law" [Norwick, p. 149]

"No obscenity legislation was enacted in England until 1824 ... By
1857 ...  what was called Lord Campbell's Act generally prohibited the
dessemission of obscene materials in England." [Norwick, p. 149]

In Britain, in 1868, the most important obscenity prosecution of the
period occurred. In _Regina v. Hicklin_, the judge said that "a
publication may be considered obscene if _any_ part of it (even a
single paragraph or illustration in a thousand-page book) can be
adjudged to have a _tendency_ to "deprave and corrupt" even the most
sensitive and susceptible mind -- such as a young child into whose
hands the publication might accidently fall." [Wagman, p. 202] This
definition (the Hicklin Rule) was adopted by judges in the U.S.

In the U.S., "[m]modern obscenity jurisprudence really began in 1934,
when [the courts were asked] to determine if author-poet James Joyce's
_Ulysses_ was obscene. The legal test started when the U.S.  Customs
Service refused to admit copies of the book under a law prohibited the
importation of obscene works." The [U.S. district] judge ruled that it
wasn't obscene.  "In doing so, three significant changes in the
Hicklin Rule. First, he ruled that a jury in determining obscenity
should judge the work in its entirety and not just isolated passages.
Second, he believe that works 'deprave' and 'corrupt', as used in the
Rule, too vague. He said the material must 'lead to sexually impure and
lustful thoughts."  Finally, he ruled that the jury must consider the
effect of the work in its entirety on a normal, average person -- a
person 'average sexual instincts' -- and not on a child or a person
with the most susceptible mind." [Wagner, p. 203] The decision was
upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and not appeals further.

"In September 1970 the [first] President's Commission on Obscenity,
which had been appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1967, released its
final report. ... At the hear of that report was the recommendation
that all government censorship be ended of materials aimed at
consenting adults ...  The report started a firestorm of criticisms
range from the Senate, which reject its finding 60 to 5, to Richard
Nixon in the White House, who called it 'morally bankrupt' and vowed
to continue appointing to the high court justices who believed that
'American morality is not to be trifled with.'" [Wagman, 210]

The U.S. Supreme Court's current definition of obscenity (the
so-called _Miller_ test) is:

1) must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person

2) must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive"
to community standards

and

3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value"

Note that only "patently offensiveness" is decided by community
standards and even here, as Rehnquist wrote in a later case, "it would
be a serious misunderstanding of Miller to conclude that juries have
unbridled discretion in determining what is 'patently offensive.'"

                        * * *

(This part of my response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the
ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)

On a related topic, is there a right to speech that goes beyond
fiction and actually advocates illegal acts or violence?

In 1919 the Court said no. Indeed, it said that any speech that had a
'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be punished. This
principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar
leaflets.

In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.

In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthrowing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).

In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. In the U.S.,
the Brandenberg test is the law today.

                          * * *

Canada, according to May/June 1992 _Ms. magazine, has a new definition
of obscenity that is based squarely in the "bad tenancy". The new
definition is based not on science, but on the political arguments
of U. of Michigan law professor Catherine A.  MacKinnon and writer
Andrea Dworkin.

In a decision given in February, Justice John Sopinka of the Canadian
Supreme Court wrote: "If true equality between male and female persons
is to be archived we cannot ignore the threat to equality resulting
from exposure to audiences of certain types of violent and degrading
material."

The _Ms._ article says: [...]  'The case provided the court with the
opportunity to clarify the weak and muddled obscenity law, which was
based on "undue exploitation of sex", violating undefined "community
standards." The court's more precise definitions of these terms no
longer include morality and taste,. But violence and degradation will
invariable push pornography over the line into illegal obscenity: "The
portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute
the undue exploitation of sex," said the court in its ruling.
"Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the
risk of harm is substantial."  [...]  '[T]he guidelines are now clear:
degradation, bondage, child pornography, and violence are out; adult
erotica, no matter how explicit, will not be considered obscene.'

According to the _Ms._ article: "The ruling has the support of most
women's groups in Canada, where the free-speech tradition is not a
dominant as it is in the U.S.; as a result, feminist debate on
pornography is less intense." Also: "'This is of world historic
importance,' proclaimed Catherine A. MacKinnon, the University of
Michigan law professor whose analysis of pornography and the law,
co-authored with writer Andrea Dworkin, helped form the basis of
LEAF's [Woman's Legal Education and Acuation Fund] argument.

I note that _Ms's._ prediction that "adult erotica, no matter how
explicit, will not be considered obscene" seems, as a practical matter
incorrect. If it were true, alt.sex would not have been banned.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news