HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk (Bruce Taylor)
Subject: Re: photomanipulation
Organization: Imperial College Computer Centre
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:25:55 GMT


hdevine@alfred.carleton.ca (Heather Devine) writes:
> I am looking for specific examples of photographs that have been
> manipulated and used as a picture of reality.  For example, the
> National Geographic photo which moved the pyramids closer together for
> a horizontal rather than vertical photo.  I need examples that date
> back no farther than two years, and I prefer those that have been used
> in newspapers.

During the run-up to the Gulf Conflict in 1990 a British lorry driver was
arrested in Greece as he was driving parts of the "Super Gun" to Iraq. The
driver was eventually released by the Greek authorities. The Sun and Daily
Mirror newspapers had both been running campaigns to have the driver 
released. On the day he was set free he was wearing a Daily Mirror t-shirt.
His picture was printed in the Daily Mirror with the logo on this t-shirt
very clearly shown. A similar picture was published in the Sun with him
wearing a t-shirt bearing the Sun logo!. In fact the Sun photograph had 
been (badly) retouched to show the Sun logo. The retouching was VERY 
obvious. I'm sorry that I can't remember dates or names but the picture
should be fairly easy to track down.

Bruce Taylor             Process Systems Engineering, Imperial College.
(umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk)


Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8564 alt.sex:34960 soc.culture.japan:10126
From: santos@mickey.ai.kyutech.ac.jp (Rafael &)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Censorship of 'obscene' materials in Japan (was Re: Madonna's ....)
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:00:09 GMT
	<1992Oct30.154537.1002@physics.ucla.edu>
Organization: KIT Iizuka, AI Dept, JAPAN.

In article <1992Oct30.154537.1002@physics.ucla.edu> aoki@physics.ucla.edu (ken aoki) writes:

 >Within Japan, the rule about no hair (and I believe all genitalia too)
 >applies with the exception of 'art'. Same rule applies to im(ex)ports.
 >So this brings up the interesting question of what constitutes
 >art. If my memory serves me right, the 'santa fe' photos were
 >'artistic material' and got thru; needless to say the application 
 >of the rule is pretty arbitrary. (how about mapplethorpe photos, I wonder.)

There are Mapplethorpe books here for sale, with no censure of any kind.
Of course, I did not saw any photo of the "explicit" kind :-)

 >They are some of the 'ukiyoye' porns from the Edo era 
 >(with captions too). I guess this *is* 'art';
 >I thought it was hilarious. I bought it.

GIFS ! GIFS ! ISBN ! I would *really* like to see these...

 >			     ___Kenichiro Aoki. (aoki@physics.ucla.edu)


Rafael.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8621 talk.politics.misc:58455 alt.activism:18438
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [alt.conspiracy, et al.] Censoring John Dinardo Violates Constitutional Law
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:17:47
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<JASON.92Nov4085802@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> <Bx9nCA.ICH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:16:57 GMT

In article <Bx9nCA.ICH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
-> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
-> 
-> 
-> >	I agree.  As it has been brought up many times before, posting
-> >on usenet news is not protected by the first amendment to the US
-> >Constitution.  Each post resides on private computers and the owners
-> >of those computers have complete control over what is and isn't on
-> >their machine.  It would be like you getting sued because you removed
-> >a sign someone stuck on the side of your house.
-> 
-> Dream on! Each post resides on the "net." It is *you* who choose to
-> bring this information into your computer when you access the net. By
-> accessing the net, you are implicitly accepting the fact that (as this
-> is a free society) all types of view are likely to be represented. It
-> is like when you buy a "Playboy" magazine. If you are upset by the
-> pictures, then don't access the magazine.

	If you don't believe me, this is excerpt from the file ``What
is Usenet?'' that is regularly posted on news.announce.newusers:

  4. Usenet is not a right.

     Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
     to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
     say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
     said computers have no right to stop them.

     Those people are wrong.  Freedom of speech also means freedom not
     to speak.  If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
     that is my right.  Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
     one.


--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,rec.arts.books
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Library attacked for buying Madonna's Sex book
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:16:28 GMT

john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

[...]
>In Ames, "We have to look out for a wide variety of interests in Ames,
>        the library should be a place of access, not restriction."
>        Dawn Hayslett, Asst Dir Ames Public Library (as quoted by _ISU Daily_)
[...]

Contrast this with the Iowa State U. policy on Netnews that
restricts alt.sex.

== Excerpts from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/netnews.iastate.edu ==
[...]
The purpose of this statement is to provide a brief overview of Usenet News, a
description of challenges that accompany this technology, and the Computation
Center's policy on this issue.
[...]
Some university sites in other locations have already come under internal and
external criticism for the use of state and federal funds to store and
distribute items which are alleged [...] to be [...] objectionable.
[...]
Some of the material provided through Usenet has been objectionable to some
members of the university community. [...]
[...]
With the academic freedom of the campus environment goes individual
intellectual responsibility.  Hallmarks of that responsibility are to obtain
and use material in manners which respect others in the campus community;
[...]
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:05:40 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

s0454850@let.rug.nl (J.P. Prenger) writes:
: Hi there!
: 
: I'm reading this newsgroup for about a week or so, and now I'm stuck with a 
: question:
: 
: 	'Where does censorship start & where does it stop?'
: 
: An example: as far as I know, the only book in Holland which is forbidden 
: by the law is Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' (probably translated in English 
: as 'My camp'  or something like that). There are people here, who think that 
: you shouldn't do that. On the contrary, this book should be used 
: in schools, to show how easy something can start & how terrible it can 
: end (did it ever end? --> several anti-semitic & racial fights in Germany, 
: Italy, a bomb in a mosk in Holland, etc.)
: 
: I'm curious how you people think about this: can you ban books? Especially a 
: book like this? (D.A.F. de Sade's '120 days of Sodom' has just been re-
: published in Holland. Okay, I know that this book didn't start a worldwar, 
: but it isn't very humane too.) 
: 
If I'm not mistaken, 'Mein Kampf' ('My Struggle' in English, by the
way) was banned in Germany before Hitler came to power.  Didn't
work then.  You can't fight ideas that aren't acknowledged.  
Not to mention that the folks who decide what is unacceptable
aren't always going to be on your side.  Anti-pornography feminists
in Canada thought they had won a great victory recently when they
got a censorship law passed; the first item banned under the new
law was a feminist/lesbian magazine...
Bill Anderson
From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: photomanipulation
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:46:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

In article <BxILwB.EE9@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
|> hdevine@alfred.carleton.ca (Heather Devine) writes:
|> > I am looking for specific examples of photographs that have been
|> > manipulated and used as a picture of reality.  For example, the
|> > National Geographic photo which moved the pyramids closer together for
|> > a horizontal rather than vertical photo.  I need examples that date
|> > back no farther than two years, and I prefer those that have been used
|> > in newspapers.
|> 
|> I can think of three British examples of rather more significance than
|> that, though they're all a bit older, and they show that tools no fancier
|> than a pair of scissors can do the trick.
|> 
|> During the UK miners' strike of the mid-80s, Murdoch's "Sun" ran an image
|> of the miners' leader Arthur Scargill addressing a rally: he was holding
|> both hands straight out, palms down, in the usual gesture to call for
|> quiet.  The "Sun" cropped away his left hand and added a text that
|> suggested he was giving a Nazi salute.  The Press Council (a newspaper
|> watchdog body of astonishing gutlessness) eventually ordered the "Sun" to
|> print a retraction.
|> 
|> During the same strike, another newspaper photo ran a picture of a miner
|> shouting at a policeman on a picket line.  He *was* in fact shouting at the
|> cop, but the picture editor removed several yards of empty space between
|> them to put them apparently inches apart and make the cop look like he was
|> being seriously threatened.
|> 
|> More a case of censorship than manipulation: when Bassam Shaka'a, the Arab
|> mayor of Nablus on the West Bank, was bombed by Israeli terrorists, only
|> one UK paper ran the whole of the photo the agencies gave them.  That
|> showed Shaka'a full-length in his hospital bed with his legs blown off at
|> the knees.  Other papers gutted the impact of the picture by only showing
|> him from the waist up.
|> 
|> Followups to alt.censorship.
|> 
|> -- 
|> --  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
|> 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
|> INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
|> BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp


And then there is the most famous example of all...

Lee Harvey Oswald holding the rifle he "shot" JFK with.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: [alt.conspiracy, et al.] Censoring John Dinardo Violates Constitutional Law
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:22:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.011357.470@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:

>>	Do you speak *for* Oracle Corporation?

>When necessary, yes.

>>	I didn't think so.

>What you think has as little to do with John DiNardo's rights and his
>employer's responsibilities to honor the Constitution and the ethical
>framework of reference points it represents, as my relationship with
>Oracle does.

Okay, let's try it this way.  Which part of the Constitution is his
employer violating?

>If Oracle objected to my hosting UUS-L, for instance, they would have to
>explain why, if they named this as a reason for censoring me.

>If they didn't have a reason, I would be free to speculate about why it
>was that they _really_ did this. If, for instance, my boss was virulently
>anti-Unitarian-Universalist, and this came out after the fact, it would
>make my employer look bad.

>Thus, it is in my employer's interest to remain above-board and honest to
>those principles of ethical guidance incorporated in the Constitution.

That's true, but it's a different issue.  That's a *practical* reason
for not censoring, not a legal/moral one.

>>	However, what you say *does* reflect on the organization.  Try
>>posting some of the Oracle source code and see how long you survive.  Or
>>post the projections for next quarter. :-)

>This is, again, irrelevant to John DiNardo's circumstances. A red herring,
>if you wish. Why do you have such an aversion to the issues ?

>>	If JD were sat upon by AT&T for posting his material from some
>>other site, then I'd agree that they (ATT) had overstepped their bounds
>>and were open to liability.

>How reassuring.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: [alt.conspiracy, et al.] Censoring John Dinardo Violates Constitutional Law
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:16:57 GMT

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:


>	I agree.  As it has been brought up many times before, posting
>on usenet news is not protected by the first amendment to the US
>Constitution.  Each post resides on private computers and the owners
>of those computers have complete control over what is and isn't on
>their machine.  It would be like you getting sued because you removed
>a sign someone stuck on the side of your house.

Dream on! Each post resides on the "net." It is *you* who choose to
bring this information into your computer when you access the net. By
accessing the net, you are implicitly accepting the fact that (as this
is a free society) all types of view are likely to be represented. It
is like when you buy a "Playboy" magazine. If you are upset by the
pictures, then don't access the magazine.



Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."
From: ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999)
Subject: Re: "Gay rights group files complaint"
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.183836.19273@news2.cis.umn.edu> olivier@everest.ee.umn.edu (Olivier Meirhaeghe) writes:
>	Gays are product of Evil 

So, fungus =can= type....

-- 
 -Ric     __                       __                                 __
          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8792 soc.libraries.talk:334 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3388 alt.sex:36050 rec.arts.books:20051
From: v462etnn@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: [UPI] Library attacked for buying Madonna's Sex book
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:57:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov12.233650.20@cobra.dra.com>, sean@cobra.dra.com writes...
>In article <BxMKts.656@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> 	He said despite the controversy, the book has a proper place in the
>> library.
>> 	``Madonna is a cultural phenomenon,'' he said. ``Most of what she
>> does is news. And our patrons would have an interest in what she's
>> doing.''
>> 	Bates said the book is not pornographic. ``It's being sold legally in
>> mainstream book retailers,'' he said.
> 

The Buffalo and Erie County Public Library has four copies.  They
ordered them long before they came out.  So far, there's only
been one article in the paper (Wednesday, 11/11) -- a councilman
from Cheektowaga has voiced his complaints about it.  The lib
director said essentially the same thing as above, both in the
paper and on the 11 o'clock news.  Interesting note: two copies
are on permanent reserve, two are circulating.  Given the public's
proclivities about this book, make that only two copies the library
owns.

David Anderson
Medaille College Library
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,rec.arts.books
From: parker@navier.math.uh.edu (Ronald L. Parker)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Library attacked for buying Madonna's Sex book
Organization: Society to disband societies. (Good thing I'm the only member!)
	<Bxnqr5.3M3@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:47:42 GMT

In article <BxMKts.656@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> 	He said despite the controversy, the book has a proper place in the
>> library.
>> 	``Madonna is a cultural phenomenon,'' he said. ``Most of what she
>> does is news. And our patrons would have an interest in what she's
>> doing.''
>> 	Bates said the book is not pornographic. ``It's being sold legally in
>> mainstream book retailers,'' he said.

Since the happy ending is unlikely to go out over the wire, here's the story
from today's Houston Chronicle (reprinted without permission - don't sue me,
I have no money, I don't speak for UH and they don't speak for me, and so on)

----8<---- clip here ----

``Patrons give library `Sex' for the asking''
Houston Chronicle, November 13, 1992  (Stefanie Asin)


_Sex_ in a Houston public library: Now, you can have it too.

Although unintentional, the city's porn busters have made _Sex_ 
availablae to library patrons by prompting donations of five copies of
Madonna's steamy pictorial.

The books arrived two days avfter Geneva Kirk Brooks of Citizens Against
Pornography went before City Council to lambaste the library for ordering
the tome.

Ironically, the limited-edition book has been on back-order for commercial
customers like libraries, and there was no guarantee that Houston's would
receive it.

Now, pending cursory approval from a library committee, there will be 
enough _Sex_ to go around.

``Now we are overflowing with bounty,'' said David Bates, the library's 
public information officer.

One woman drove from Spring in pelting rain to donate a copy of the book
in the ``name of intellectual freedom everywhere,'' he said.  Another donor
delivered four copies, and four more have been promised, Bates said.

The donors are just a few of dozens who have called the library this week.
Bates said about 60 percent of the calls have been unfavorable -- and some
even unpleasant.  He's been called ``smut peddler'' and ``child abuser''
among other things, he said.

``I tell them, `No, no -- I'm just a flack.' ''
 
----8<---- clip here ----
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Parker, parker@navier.math.uh.edu,  st1ca@jetson.uh.edu
What would be so wrong if Fred Rogers WAS running this country? --D. Letterman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8761 alt.conspiracy:12121 talk.politics.misc:59571 alt.activism:18625
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [alt.conspiracy, et al.] Censoring John Dinardo Violates Constitutional Law
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:13:57 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:

>	Do you speak *for* Oracle Corporation?

When necessary, yes.


>	I didn't think so.

What you think has as little to do with John DiNardo's rights and his
employer's responsibilities to honor the Constitution and the ethical
framework of reference points it represents, as my relationship with
Oracle does.

If Oracle objected to my hosting UUS-L, for instance, they would have to
explain why, if they named this as a reason for censoring me.

If they didn't have a reason, I would be free to speculate about why it
was that they _really_ did this. If, for instance, my boss was virulently
anti-Unitarian-Universalist, and this came out after the fact, it would
make my employer look bad.

Thus, it is in my employer's interest to remain above-board and honest to
those principles of ethical guidance incorporated in the Constitution.


>	However, what you say *does* reflect on the organization.  Try
>posting some of the Oracle source code and see how long you survive.  Or
>post the projections for next quarter. :-)

This is, again, irrelevant to John DiNardo's circumstances. A red herring,
if you wish. Why do you have such an aversion to the issues ?


>	If JD were sat upon by AT&T for posting his material from some
>other site, then I'd agree that they (ATT) had overstepped their bounds
>and were open to liability.

How reassuring.


-- richard

=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8614 alt.sex:35059 alt.politics.homosexuality:6826
From: falkhen@freeside.com (Falkhen)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: "Gay rights group files complaint"
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 14:11:58 CST
Organization: Rivendell BBS / Hou, TX. / +1 713 941 2236

olivier@everest.ee.umn.edu (Olivier Meirhaeghe) writes:

> In <Bww3DM.n4M@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
> >Short excerpts and comments based on a UPI story from clarinet:
> 
> >"A founder of a gay rights group has filed a complaint with Wichita
> >Falls police, alleging three Christian bookstores are carrying obscene
> >material on their shelves within the reach of children."
> >[...]
> >"``The Christian Right has had a heyday censoring books they have
> >determined to be pornographic,'' he said. ``This is just to show them
> >they have material that is objectionable to some. Censorship affects
> >everyone."
> 
> 	Gays dont have any rights. Gays are product of Evil , and 
> 	it's no wonder they try to get rid of christianity, i think
> 	this is a ridiculous story , but it is the kind of story UPI
> 	and news network like to wide-spread. Gays people brain lies
> 	mostly between their legs. Right, they have the right to be
> 	animals , may they take it an enjoy it.
> 
> O.

who gave you the right judge...people that are sexually uniform..
                          Sonic Nazi \-\
                        silly Christians...

--
falkhen@freeside.com (Falkhen)
Rivendell BBS -*- Houston, TX -*- +1(713)941-2236
Newsgroups: alt.censorship