HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:17:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.062126.18026@news.iastate.edu>,
twap8@isuvax.iastate.edu (Mike McNarney) writes:

>An update on the evolving 'door policy' controversy...
>We are now allowed to have our RA write our name, major, and hometown
>in blue or black ink on a university-supplied 3x5 white index card.

I've had a couple more ideas to try if you want to push things . . . A
person could post a copy of the policy on their door.  If that's
forbidden, they could then post a blank sheet of paper on their door.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [UPI] ACLU names 'Arts Censors of the Year'
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 11:29:36 EDT

Sorry--in my haste, I misdirected this...


>In article <92268.54272.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>
>>Most of which I agree with.  However, I don't consider withholding government
>>money as being censorship.  Well, actually it is, if some "art" is funded by
>>our buddies in Washington while others are considered "morally repugnant."
>>That should raise a red flag and a question:  Morally repugnant to WHOM???
>
>Clearly, the article was referring to this case.  The question of whether
>or not to fund the arts, in the first place, is a whole separate political
>issue--and one which has been discussed to death here.  Let's not start it
>again, as it is not at all relevant to the issue of censorship.
>
>>If anyone *really* believes in civil liberty, the American taxpayers should
>>have their wallets liberated from the NEA.  In fact, a case could be made that
>>taxpayer-funded "smut" could deprive a fundamentalist of their religious
>>rights.  Think about it.  Whatever you think of Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan,
>>a true civil libertarian would believe that they have the right to not have
>>their property (tax money) used to support something their religion forbids.
>>Nor should atheists be made to pay for works which are religious in nature.
>>To avoid any conflicts, I think that the NEA should be abolished.  Government
>>intervention inevitably denies someone of their rights.  That's what government
>>does best.  Pulling the plug on the NEA is not "censorship", since the
>>government has no duty to fund the arts anyway, and the decision whether or
>>not to fund is not content-based.
>>
>>It's much like Arab-Americans whose tax money goes to aid for Israel.  It's
>>blacks or gays paying tax money to provide security at a KKK rally.  Would they
>>pay for this voluntarily?  Of course not--and understandably so.  So why does
>>our government force people to support causes they despise?
>
>Yes--and the logical conclusion of this reasoning is that the government
>has absolutely *no* rights whatsoever.
>
>Fine.  This still has nothing to do with censorship.
>
>Follow-ups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty.
>
>
>-- 
>J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
>but my d*mn system wants a 
>*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.feminism] Pornography Victims' Compensation Act
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:55:04 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Pornography Victims' Compensation Act
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:19:14 GMT

I don't know if everyone knows about this bill or not, but on June 25th
the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved by 7-6 a bill that would
permit suits for economic damages against the producers, distributers,
and exhibitors of obscene material if a plaintiff can show that the
sexually explicit material was "a substantial cause" of a sexual offense.

(Will we next see an analogous bill permitting Reagan or Hinkley to
sue Scorcese for the creation of Taxi Driver?)

Anyway, I just thought I'd post the closing paragraph from the Ad Hoc
Committee of Feminists for Free Expression (which includes Nora Ephron,
Judy Blume, Adrienne Rich, Betty Friedan, Anne Bernays and 180 other
active feminists):

"Women do not require 'protection' from explicitly sexual materials.  It
is no goal of feminism to restrict individiual choices or to stamp out
sexual imagery.  Though some women and men may have this on their platform,
they represent only themselves.  Women are as varied as any citizens of a
democracy; there is no agreement or feminist code as to what images are
distasteful or even sexist.  It is the right and responsibility of each
woman to read, view, or produce the sexual material she chooses without the
intervention of the state 'for her own good.'  We believe genuine feminism
encourages individuals to makes these choices for themselves.  This is the
great benefit of being feminists in a free society."

I think it is a rather nice statement.

rini

Just for the record, the yea votes were Charles Grassley (Iowa), Strom
Thurmond (South Carolina), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Alan Simpson (Wyoming),
Hank Brown (Colorado), Howell Heflin (Alabama), and Dennis DeConcini (AZ).
Arlen Specter conspiciously left the room at vote time.  (Woah -- 
flashbacks to the Anita Hill thing or what?)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.jewish
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis Hate Speech Ordinance 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep28.154427.29536@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Sep28.170613.22678@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Sep28.194124.26838@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:22:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.194124.26838@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

  "Wrong.  Assault is the creation of a belief in another's mind that he
   or she is at immediate risk of being harmed.  Nazi displays on one's
   lawn create this belief in Jewish passersby; burning crosses create
   this belief in the minds of blacks; pornographic displays create this
   belief in the minds of women...
   (stuff deleted)
   Now you tell me how this is different from giving
   Posner's grandma a heart attack because she was in Theriesenstadt in
   1940 and I march through her neighborhood in Nazi regalia.  You tell me
   how this is different from giving a black guy's grandma a heart attack
   by dressing up like the lynch mob that killed her first husband in 1936.
   You tell me how this is different from giving my secretary a nervous
   breakdown by putting pornographic magazines on her desk." 

Now note that all women are not offended by pornography; some enjoy it.
So since not even all are offended, the number of women who would have
"a nervous breakdown" from having pornography on their desk is an even smaller
percentage of women.  So, what we have is the argument that if a small
minority of people feel assaulted by "free speech", then that speech
is not protected.  What if only one person is assaulted, does it still
count?

Let me say that I honestly find these beliefs assaulting.  O.K.,
having them presented on the net doesn't bother me, but if someone
came to my town and said we're going to ban all pornography and throw
people in jail if they "assault" someone, I'd be terrified.  I like to
play Devil's advocate; I'd be thrown in jail in a matter of days.  So,
I can honestly say, I'd feel threatened for my safety in this
situation.  So, under these rules, this idea should be oulawed.

This is why I hate speech codes.  Someone is going to find almost
every idea offensive.
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
***********************************
*  "There's a dog in the station  *
*   With a bad reputation         *
*   That's a sign of the nation's *
*   Decay"                        *
***********************************



Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:04:06 GMT

This was shot down in alt.folklore.urban

basically, without a model release, which she can retract at any time
if she actually signed one, anyone involved in allowing it to be seen
or hired, would be liable for prosecution. So all she had to do was
contact a lawyer or the Police, and all hell would break loose for the
video store. Dunno who would pay, but with that sort of case I can 
easily imagine a queue forming, of lawyers willing to take the case
for a percentage of the winnings.

moz


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___    (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 /\  _______\
 \ \ \____  /   If you disagree with anything I have said
  \ \ \/ / /    you have my permission to discard the message,
   \ \/ / /     then write a rejoinder based on
    \  / /      what you hoped I might have said
     \/_/
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.jewish
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:04:29 EDT

In article <Bvo5Au.6rn@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
>This was shot down in alt.folklore.urban

I have no doubt that this was an urban legend, but...

>basically, without a model release, which she can retract at any time
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>if she actually signed one, anyone involved in allowing it to be seen
>or hired, would be liable for prosecution.

Not around these parts.  If one signs a contract, one generally doesn't
have the right to unilaterally nullify a contract.  The release form is
a contract giving up one's rights (or some of their rights) to the
images (photographs/video/whatever) involved.

You are suggesting that, say, Playboy could arrange to do a photo shoot,
get a model release, spend a ton of money on the shoot, print a million
copies, and then, at any time, the model could withdraw her consent and
playboy has to flush all of the magazines down the toilet.

It makes no sense.  If it were the case, why didn't Vanessa Williams do
just that with her photos...

If this were the case, then anti-porn advocates could bankrupt all of the
diustributors just by doing the above...


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: dragon@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Korth)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:30:20 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu> () writes:
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon. 
>Isn't this
>censorship?

Not necessarily.

It depends on *why* the newsgroup was excluded.  We don't get it here
at Bradley, either.  There are two reasons given for this: first, that
pictures take up too much disk space, which we cannot afford; and
second, that there isn't enough readership to allocate disk space.  I
know that the first point is justified, since we don't get any of
the other pictures groups either.

However, if U of O has the money to support the disk space, and does
get other pictures groups, *and* there's a sufficient demand to have
the groups added, then this may be censorship.  You
might try asking your newsadmin why the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
newsgroup was removed.
--
*** Matt Korth *** dragon@camelot.bradley.edu *** dragon@buhub.bradley.edu ***
The Republicans are thinking of changing the Republican Party emblem from
an elephant to a condom, because it stands for inflation, halts production,
and gives a false sense of security while one is being screwed.
From: Ken.Cusick@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (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)
20 
20 
20 
20 

From: Tom.Cavender@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: limiting religious sp
Date: 18 Sep 92  18:54:00 EST

Up front, Mr. Ault, I agree with the previous poster who said that Pat Robertson is psychotic and dangerous, but I think that he has the right to spew the sort of nonsense that he does.  However, I do not believe that the sort of POLITICAL PROSELYTIZATION WITH TAX EMEMPT STATUS should be afforded tax exempt status.  Please do not take this criticism of Mr. Robertson's views or your own as "censorship".  It is, merely, the statement of an opposing viewpoint.  And that's what it's all about...

-> Because I believe that removing prayer at graduation ceremonies was a
-> bad decision, and people here disagree with me.  I see it as
-> censorship of traditional religious speech at public functions.  I've
-> heard what you all think, I'm not asking for a rehash. Well, since I'm new to this thread, here's what I think.  If it echoes any of the other posters here, please accept my apologies:
  1> Who decides which prayers merit usage and which do not?  Robertson,
     for example, says that "Hinduism is Satanism".  Does this mean that
     a Hindu child will be forced to listen to Christian prayers without
     the chance to have his own religious tradition represented?

  2> Are all groups going to be provided access?  I submit that this has
     to be either an ALL or NOTHING proposition, and there is no way on
     God's green earth to accomodate all religious views.  This leads
     to point 3:

   3>Isn't this a way for the government to subsidize religious
     education, clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause
     of the First Amendment?

Mr. Ault, I do not mean to insult you.  I do not mean to "censor you by scorching you."  But, please take the above as constructive criticism. And, please remember a couple of things:

      1>the sort of revisionism pushed by Pat Robertson in his book
        "America's Dates With Destiny", in which he outlines the idea
        that the founding fathers would have been card carrying members
        of the 700 Club is not only bad history, it's pure and utter
        balderdash.

      2>The First Amendment applies to EVERYONE.  That is irregardless
        of whether or not Pat Robertson would feature them on his show,
        or whether Jay Sekulow would represent them in court to protect
        "their religious liberties".  (I will believe Sekulow is
        sincere in his "advocacy of the First Amendment when I see him
        represent a non-Christian, preferably of a sectarian movement
        such as the Hare Krishnas which is not held in high favor).

      3>The Constitution never once mentions the name of Almighty God,
        or begs the forbearance of the Deity.  It makes it clear in
        the first three words of its preamble the source of government's
        legitimacy: "WE THE PEOPLE".

Just my two cents.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:03:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.151446.4968@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.201130.12074@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
>>>>_bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
>>>>is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
>>>>difference, but still it's an important one.
>>>
>>>Gee, when Ice-T portrays a character in one of his songs that supports
>>>killing police, the Republicans are up in arms.
>>
>>Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
>>cops.  Arnold's work does not.  There are two different messages here.
>>This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
>>to grasp it.
>
>Please support this claim by providing in-context quotes where Ice-T
>supports killing cops.
>
>I have heard Ice-T speak on this issue on a number of occassions.  I have
>heard him say that we need to get rid of (note--that doesn't mean kill)
>the bad cops.  I have heard him say that he believes that many youths
>have been so victimized by cops that they have developed a mentality
>such as that portrayed by his song.  I have heard him explicitly say
>that his *portrayal* of a character in the song has been misinterpreted
>for his own feelings.
>
>I have yet to hear him say that he supports doing what is portrayed
>in his song.
>
>
>-- 
>J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
>but my d*mn system wants a 
>*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"


See his remarks recorded on video tape at the outbreak of the L.A. Riots.  
They were widely distributed about a month ago.  He does not use the words
"it's time to kill cops," but he comes quite close to that.  
-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7709 misc.legal:17826 soc.culture.jewish:16726
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.legal
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:21:40 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:49:25 GMT

     In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported on yet another
"rappers made me do it" case.  In this case a woman was suing a rapper
because a miscreant had shot her policeman husband shortly after listening
to a number by the rapper urging people to do just that.

     In the article, the Times said that all previous such cases had been
thrown out on grounds of freedom of speech.  I was surprised at this.  My
understanding of freedom of speech is that the government cannot prohibit
anybody (well, almost anybody) from saying anything (well, almost any-
thing), but that, in general, when a person says something he has to take
responsibility for having said it.  This is particularly true when the
person advocates an action, else what's incitement to riot for?

     Was the Times wrong in its summary of the previous cases, or does my
idea of freedom of speech need revision?

                              Charlie
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:33:49 GMT
Followup-To: uiuc.civil-liberty

As quoted from <1992Sep28.153011.27789@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):

> In article <1992Sep27.233708.1395@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >cmk>Here is the law:
> >
> >cmk>Code 292.02 (1990), which provides:
> >cmk>      -Whoever places on public or private property a
> >cmk>symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
> >cmk>including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi
> >cmk>swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds
> >cmk>to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others
> >cmk>on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
> >cmk>commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a
> >cmk>misdemeanor.
> >
> 
> The only difference is that the fighting words doctrine applies to
> one-on-one encounters.  The St Paul law is valid under the background
> reasoning of fighting words: free speech is not an absolute right that
> automatically trumps all other rights.  Nobody really believes that it
> does.  Proponents of absolute free speech would deny it to prisoners,
> the insane, and children, and feminists point out that their
> pornographic free speech silences the free speech of women.  The St Paul
> law was an effort to demarcate an area in which free speech is trumped
> by civil peace.

There ARE no proponents of "absolute free speech here".  They exist only in 
your imagination.  What speech rights are denied to prisoners, and the insane?
What speech rights does the GOVERNMENT deny to children?

FASCIST feminists pretend that pornography silences them.  Oddly enough it
seems not to have silenced your fellow totalitarian, MacKennon.  Rather, you
and she are proponents of the brand of "freedom" espoused by the religious
ultra-right.  You do not wish to "merely" have the freedom to express your
views.  You wish to have the "freedom" to IMPOSE them by ELIMINATING all OTHER
opinion.

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.feminism] MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:04:29 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:57:30 GMT

The following posts were on "alt.folklore.urban". What they claim is that
an alleged film of a supposed rape, allegedly being offered in commerical
release, is "a centerpiece" of MacKinnon's legal assault against the
First Amendment. The longtime folklore-watchers immediately recognized
this claim as a variant of the ever-recurring "snuff film" legend,
frequently asserted but never proven.  Can anyone confirm whether or
not the supposed travesty of the "rape film" is indeed one of the
"evils" from which MacKinnon and her pals are promising deliverance?
("Just hand over all your rights under the First Amendment, and we'll
see to it that nobody can EVER make a commerical film of a woman being
raped!")
                           - - - - - - - - -



Article 51234 of alt.folklore.urban:
Xref: netcom.com alt.sex.movies:3952 alt.folklore.urban:51234