HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:38:54 GMT


In article <1992Sep10.140834.15505@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A repost - Carl]
>
>From: jsdph@acad3.alaska.edu (Dennis P. Harris)
>Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.discrimination
>Subject:  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
>Message-ID: <10SEP199200020915@acad3.alaska.edu>
>Date: 10 Sep 92 08:02:00 GMT

<stuff deleted>
>
>i also got dumped on about defending employees who refuse to sell trash.  if
>more people refused employer requests to do things that promote racism, are in
>bad taste, or are dishonest and made a big stink about it when they got fired,
>emplouyers might straighten up.  employers do have the right to fire people for
>refusing stupid orders.  but employers who do should be willing to lose the
>business from those who disagree with how they run their business.
>
>no, i don't believe in censorship.  but when someone publishes something
>obnoxious, i think that it *should* generate some discussion.  and i would urge
>the publisher to publish something else instead.

Ok, people have tried to point this out but I'll try too.  Tell me
*who* decides what is obnoxious?  *Everyone* has something they
find obnoxious.  So, does everyone call publishers and demand
they quit publishing everything?  Do we end up with bland homogenized
pablum on the shelves?  (Hey, I find bland homogenized pablum
offensive.  Can I demand the publishers not publish that?)

For everything you find enjoyable and good, someone else will find
offensive, rude, obnoxious, or downright dangerous.  The only way
to protect *your* rights in what you read is to protect *everyone's*.
What happens when other bookstore employees find something you
like to be offensive?  You tell me what you like and I'll find you
a likely place where it will be offensive.

You say you don't believe in censorship.  But just what is pressuring
publishers to print something else?  And your comment about employees
refusing to sell "trash"?  Just who decides what is "trash"?  In this
case I agree, it sounds like what I would call trash but I will
not be so presumptous so say that no one else can read it.  I happen
to like science fiction/fantasy.  In some places it considered trash
or worse -- one step from satan worship. Tell me, because those
people find SF/fantasy to be trash or worse, should we ban it
everywhere?  Tell publishers to quit publishing it?

Julie
#include "std_disclaimer.h"
#include "witty_sig.h"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:52:11 GMT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep14180134@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>Why is it that many other groups across the country are engaged in civil
>disobedience of one form or another, and yet the only group against
>which courts place injunctions are pro-life people?

Can you name any other group which has been responsible for several bombings,
including loss of life (some pro-life attitude, huh?) I would be very 
interested.  The courts give special attention to "pro-life" groups simply
because they have attracted so many violent people.  Any other group with
a similar following gets similar attention.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: CS@cup.portal.com (Customer Portal Service)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Questionable posting from a Portal user
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 92 19:06:47 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world


Some of you may have noticed postings of questionable nature originating from
Portal from a user named "Jeff R Spangenberg".  This message was not posted
by Jeff Spangenberg but was posted maliciously by another user.

Jeff's account was compromised due to a problem at Portal.  We have taken
steps to assure that this problem will not happen again in the future. 

Thanks,
CS@portal.com
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:30:10 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <AULTJ.92Sep14173724@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>No, I want the right to have my child removed from such classes.

I don't know, it may be a state thing, but here in Indiana, you can do that.
I know several people who have opted to teach their children at home or
send them to Christian schools rather than the public school system, 
because they don't agree with the public school curriculum.  Are you 
saying that you can't do this?  What is it you are upset about?

>By the way, abstinence is still 100% effective.  Perhaps they could
>_mention_ that as one alternative among many?   If we have so many
>people campaigning to tell the kids "Just Say No to Drugs", why can't
>we even mention the _idea_ of "Just Say No to Sex"?

Oh come on.  That is ALWAYS the first thing they say.  Personally, I'm
not sure it should be, but it always is.  I can only conclude that you 
have either taken your idea of what is taught in sex ed from Pat Robertson,
or you are upset that they continue the sentence by saying, "... if you
don't abstain, then wear a condom."  I take you are against informing
kids who aren't going to abstain from how to practice safe sex.

>I have seen many groups which do this, from Animal Rights groups, to
>Environmental groups, to NOW.  Would like to go tell them to stop
>doing this too?

Why this repeated assumption that people who are opposed to censorship 
are only opposed to stifling speech they agree with.
That's YOUR technique, not mine, Jim.  Yes, I am definitely opposed to
boycotts by NOW, environmental groups, etc., even though I may agree
with their reason for the boycott.  I think Pat Robertson is psychotic
and dangerous.  I would still fight anyone who tried to stifle his
speech as readily as I would fight him for trying to stifle other 
speakers. 

As for your kids, if there is some law or something preventing you 
from taking your kids out of school and teaching them yourself, please
say so.  With the information I have now, I don't understand what
injustice you feel is being perpetrated against you.

Joe


Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7466 talk.religion.misc:16149
From: jamesh@netcom.com (James Hightower)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:07:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

>So if a country which has an established church doesn't feel the need
>to stick the word "God" onto its currency, why does a country
>whose constitution specifically prohibits an established church?

Perhaps a country with a constitutionally established church no longer feels
the need to mention god on it's money.
I think it took a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination for the 
Foundng Fathers (tm) to imagine a religon with more or less than one god, so
"In God we trust" may have sounded non-denominational at the time.

I think the British got a fair deal -- they kept their king, and we kept our
Puritans.

>And while we're on the subject, why are all American bills the same
>dull color anyway? ;-)
Because the people who print money here are all the same dull color.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hightower		jamesh@netcom.COM 	...Don't try this at home!
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.bizarre
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Non-sequiter of the month
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:05:58 GMT

Someone writes:

>>;Censorship and bookburning is obviously going to hurt the gender NOT in
>>;power more than it will hurt the one that IS.


TO WHICH gazits@cs.duke.edu responds:

>While it *sounds* true, I'm not sure it is.
>
>Think about two historical examples, and please give yes/no answers.
>
>1) Did the draft hurt women more than it hurt men?
>
>2) Did the Prohibition hurt women more than it hurt men?

Is it just me? 
Are these two examples actually related to the topic, and Im just missing
it?

Or is this one of the most heinous non-sequiters youve ever seen?

-rob

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.consumers, et al.]  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:41:13 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.books.technical,alt.discrimination
Subject:  Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:57:24 GMT

In article <5SEP199223305034@acad3.alaska.edu> jsdph@acad3.alaska.edu (Dennis P. Harris) writes:
>According to a story on today's NPR Morning Edition, Waldenbooks has fired the
>staff of its Georgetown store in Washington, DC for refusing to sell the
>"Joke-A-Date" appointment calendar, which contains racist and demeaning "jokes"
>for each day of 1993.  After hearing some examples in the story of some of the
>"jokes", I agree with the former WB employees that the publication (from St.
>Martins Press, which should know better) would offend a large number of
>bookstore customers.

Fine.  Then that "large number of bookstore customers" do not have to buy
the book and read it, thus avoiding the unpleasant prospect of being offended.
It is not for the staff of the bookstore to decide that certain books are
inappropriate; that is a decision which should be left to each individual
consumer, who should be free to buy and read whatever they wish.  The staff's
job descriptions and responsibilities do not include passing editorial
judgement on the contents of every book in the store, and supressing those
which they find personally unappealing.

This political correctness stuff is beginning to get on my nerves.

---Rsk
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 15:12:57 GMT

In <1686110778.NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu>, Wayne Aiken writes:

>I imagine that the founding fathers, champions of the separation of church
>and state, must have rolled over in their graves several times.

I wonder how many times this needs to be stated.  The doctrine of "separation
of church and state" is found *nowhere* in any of our founding documents.  The
First Amendment merely states that Congress shall not establish an official
religion.  It never said that the *states* couldn't, but I'm glad no state has
ever challenged this.  I'd hate for any state to try such a thing.  After all,
the states aren't Congress, and Congress can't establish the religion.  That
plus the 10th Amendment, and I'd think the states would have a good argument.
I'm glad we have 200 years of precedents to the contrary, though...

"Separation of church and state" was mentioned in a private letter by Thomas
Jefferson circa 1820.  That is it's entire history, and if one read the whole
letter, then they would see that the quote was taken a bit out of context.  It
was not designed for "freedom from religion," just religious freedom.

Just picking a few nits.  I agree that our founders would not like the things
going on today regarding religion.  I just like to make sure that when people
use the term "separation of church and state," they know the history of that
phrase and its lack of relevance in the nation's founding.

Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 of religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
From: Ken.Cusick@iphase.UUCP (Ken Cusick)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: limiting religious sp
Date: 14 Sep 92  03:44:00 EST

-> Some more things to think about:
->
-> How is it that the author of phrase "separation between church and
-> state" (which is NOT found in the Constitution or the Declaration),
-> Thomas Jefferson, who, when he served as a schoolmaster, saw fit to
-> approve and heartily recommend the Bible for use in all public
-> schools?
-> Could it be that the understanding of that phrase, which is so
-> commonly used today, is not really what Jefferson meant?

 Browse the Jefferson Bible.

Ken

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.radio.broadcasting]  Obscenity and indecency on tha air
Followup-To: alt.censorship,rec.radio.broadcasting
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:34:28 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: rec.radio.broadcasting
From: WEOS-FM <BLACK%HWS1%HWS.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:  Obscenity and indecency on tha air
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:20:56 GMT

A recent posting concerned a reply to a question on obscenity on the air.
While obscenity is prohibited, indecency in "safe harbored" to late hours
of the night, where children are not in the audience. I could be setting off
a whole bunch of discussions on this, but at least at the moment,
indecentlangua language is protected by the constituion, but regulated as to when it can be on the air.

This means "The Seven Words" plus any references to sexual or excretory organs
or functions in a patently offensive manner, must be restricted to after
10PM.

The FCC wanted to make it midnight, but that is when the court fights and co
congress started to try to make a 24 hour ban. Obscenity (check the properion
meaning) is always illegal. For example, the word F#*K is ok to say during the
safe harbor. However, it is still a good idea to play a disclaimer and it is
good policy to make sure that your staff announcers do not cross the line and
use indecency. It may be OK for George Carlin or Public Enemy to use indecent
language, but not local announcers. Just because you have the right to say
some thing does not mean you should.

Again, if you staty in the safe harbor, you will probably be ok. The FCC is
currently going after incidents outside that, including the recent Justice
Department action against WLUP. The fines have also increased.
Sorry for the soapbox. I wanted to correct a posting and also solicit
broadcast responsibility.

Mike Black
General Manager, WEOS(FM)
Geneva, NY 14456

Note, we are an NPR station but feature modern music, including rap, metal,
and alternative rock. We play the balancing act or try to between legal and
creative programming.

[eek eek]

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7457 talk.religion.misc:16119
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Keywords: Trusting God, or Caesar, or your money
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:56:46 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:

About printing "There is no God" instead of "In God We Trust" on money:

>While the Soviet Union probably never printed it on their money, they did
>print it in their schoolbooks, and made it illegal to teach kids otherwise -
>even your own kids.  Probably not the sort of liberal tolerance you'd like.

>Besides, what do you *expect* them to print on the money?
>	"It's real - trust us!"
>	"We're the government, and we're here to help you!"

I've heard that in the early days of the Republic, the Treasury
printed the words "Mind your business" on the currency.  It would be a
good slogan for today.

Still, I don't mind "In God We Trust."  It always reminds me of Jean
Shepherd's cynical rejoinder:  "In God we trust -- all others pay
cash."


Keith
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.theory, et al.]  Censorship is never safe
Followup-To: alt.censorship,talk.politics.theory,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.sex.bondage
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:04:24 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

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
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.discrimination
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:54:12 GMT


In article <5SEP199223305034@acad3.alaska.edu>, jsdph@acad3.alaska.edu (Dennis P. Harris) writes:
> According to a story on today's NPR Morning Edition, Waldenbooks has fired the
> staff of its Georgetown store in Washington, DC for refusing to sell the
> "Joke-A-Date" appointment calendar, which contains racist and demeaning "jokes"
> for each day of 1993.  After hearing some examples in the story of some of the
> "jokes", I agree with the former WB employees that the publication (from St.
> Martins Press, which should know better) would offend a large number of
> bookstore customers.
> 
> I have already informed WB that I intend to boycott them until they stop
> selling the book and reinstate the fired employees by posting a message to
> their user services folks in their Walden Computerbooks on-line store in the
> Compu$erve Mall (GO WB), and I urge others to join me.  I also intend to write
> St. Martins Press and tell them I'm boycotting them, too.  The book's author is
> apparently afraid to use his/her real name, since it's listed as "Blanche
> Knott" (ooh, bad pun!).
> 
> There is no Waldenbooks store in my area, or I would have dropped in and told
> the local staff that I'm boycotting them, but you can drop by your local mall
> and let the local manager know how you feel.

Hmmm...  Let me get this straight.  Some Waldenbooks employees feel that
they can no longer fulfill the requirements of their jobs AND they don't
quit.  Walden books fires them for not doing their job.  Any rational
being would have no problem whatsoever with Waldenbooks' actions.  If the
former employees didn't want to meet the requirements that the job called
for, they should have quit.  Instead they forced Waldenbooks into the only
action available to an employer when an employee or group of employees
refuse to do the job for which they were hired.  I shed not a tear for
the employees.  They got what they deserved.  
--
J. E. Shum, Free Speech Zealot
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7372 soc.culture.african.american:9223 alt.activism:15978 misc.legal:16934
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:49:24 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

I have no idea what newsgroups this belongs in, but if someone else wants
to edit the newsgroups line, you won't catch me complaining.
 
In article <1992Sep6.165813.16518@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.125020.27141@gdstech.grumman.com> david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles) writes:
>>Nothing is absolute.
>
>So, by changing the perspective, everything can be made to look like
>something else? Okay, to what is the color "red" relative?

To a color-blind person?

>
>>To promote the better good in a society, there has to be laws created
>>to support that good.

Does not follow.  The set of things that are "good" is not equivalent to
the set of things that "should be legally enforceable."  It's two different
categories on Jeopardy.
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: Jeff_R_Spangenberg@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: fuck
Date: Sat,  5 Sep 92 16:16:45 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Censorship is Censorshit.

Fuck censorship.

Let's see you fucking censor this message!!!

Fuck you and all your nigger friends.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty