HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ar682@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broderick Smylie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Brush up your Shakeapeare (was: [Republicans] On Pornography)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 01:36:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


Before I make a complete fool of myself, I've never used Usenet and I'm still quite confuzed on this thing.

Responding, to joe blow's comment

I think it's a mere coincidence.

Anyway, God (in my view) would not dstrike down Shakezpear in

ssuch an outlandish way as this Bdamien guy sez.

If this makes no sense, just pretend I never made this comment!

|\
|/
|\
|/roderick
-- 
|   \		    BRODERICK SMYLIE
|   /               (ar682)
|   \
|   /ABYDINO!!!!!   Member of the IRC_Crew
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.sex.stories.d,comp.misc,rec.arts.books
From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: roeber@cern.ch
Organization: CERN -- European Organization for Nuclear Research
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:46:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.071431.17466@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> [ Quoting the Republican Party position on pornography ]
>>However, no
>>artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
>>private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
>>basis on which our society is founded.
> 
>    "Art provides the people of the state with a moral guidance and
> direction of purpose.  No artist should be allowed to exhibit his works
> in our libraries, museums, and public squares, if they do not extoll
> and support the virtues of The Fatherland."  - Adolph Hitler.

I find a great difference in being allowed to exhibit works and 
claiming taxpayer support.

I hold the position that anyone can exhibit their artworks, and "art"
is not something that either I or anyone else can precisely define.

However, the only support I wish to give to an artist is the purchase
price of a work or the admission price to a showing.  Any artist's 
claim to the tax money taken from me is, in my opinion, tantamount
to theft.

-- 
Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44
--  
"Sorry, baby, I can't take you to the pizza joint tonight, I've got to go
back to the lab and split the atom." -- Ayn Rand, "What is Romanticism?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv,or.politics
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (Charles Lavazzi)
Subject: Protecting us from ourselves (was: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 17:26:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.225000.11428@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.173731.28309@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>
>> 	- handguns are demostrably *at least* as much a contributor to murder
>> as pornography or erotica are to rape.  By your logic, the State should
>> immediately ban all handguns.
>> 	- knives and other sharp implements are routinely used in murders.
>> Aren't you willing to give up a little kitchen implement to to prevent a
>> woman being stabbed to death? >:-)>
>
> But, I guess, my whole point is that these other items (handguns, knives) have
>other, legimate, uses.
	Really?  Name a use for a handgun *other* than disabling/killing 
someone.  Guns are *designed* to serve as *weapons*.  Weapons are designed to
inflict physical, demonstrable harm on people.  Erotica is designed to be
sexually stimulating.
	To put it even more simply: erotica is designed to have an effect on
*you*, of your own free will.  A weapon is designed to have a harmful effect
on someone else, presumably *not* of their own free will.  Where is the logic
in banning the former but not the latter?

>What do you really lose by forgoing pornography?  I
	Not much.  But I was under the impression that you were advocating
an involuntary, State-enforced ban, not voluntary abstention by individuals.
By allowing the State to dictate my reading material, I lose something called
"freedom".  You may have heard of it.
>admit I did miss the original post concerning the stats of some study, but
>still think that there is *some* porn that should be censored (note *some*
>rather than all, just as we might want to regulate the carrying of *some*
>guns, or *some* knives) if there is some evidence to support the theory that it
>promotes violence.  My search starts in earnest shortly.
	And I'm sure that if you carefully look only for studies which appear
to support your conclusion, regardless of their scientific merit, you can
probably find a few.  The Meese Commission did just that some years ago.  Alas,
they found much more material refuting this notion than supporting it.  It
didn't shake Meese's belief and I'm sure it won't shake yours.
	I'll stand by my initial point (which you deleted):  presuming that
The State has the right to ban anything which *might* be harmful to some of
it's citizens is a nasty precedent.  It presumes that the government knows how
to run our own lives better than we do.  It's a fundamentally un-American
notion.
>
>
>Stephen..

Chuck
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8017 alt.politics.elections:15964
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:00:07 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:

>But there are a large number of men
>out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
>the standards by which women are treated,

Please provide references/evidence for this claim.

While I don't doubt that there may be some correlation between looking down on
women and liking pornography, I have serious doubts about any claims of a
causal connection.


>and there are a very small number
>who will be lead to violence by pornography.

Please provide references/evidence for this claim.  I have yet to hear
of *one* reputable study (or even disreputable study) that purports
to show such a causal connection.


>I would be prepared to forego
>some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?

Since there is no credible evidence that pornography has a causal
connection to rape, this is a false dichotomy.

Furthermore, even if there were a causal connection in a very small
number of cases, you've still got a real ideological problem.  Use of
alcohol clearly causes drunk driving accidents in some cases.  Are you
prepared to argue that, as a result, use of alcohol should be prohibited.
Sex (especially promiscuous sex) cause the transmission of dangerous and
deadly diseases in some cases.  Are you prepared to argue that sex (or
promiscuous sex) should be prohibited?

(Well, these are probably poorly-chosen examples, since I may well be
talking to someone who *would* like to prohibit these things...)


>> Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
>> 
>Oh, probably someone who has been looking at some evidence, rather than just
>supporting one's self-interest.

More likely, someone who has preconceived, anal-retentive notions about 
pornography.  If there is some evidence that pornography *causes* violence,
why don't you provide it.


We've been through this before, and very recently in another thread.  It's
a simple case of put up or shut up.  Either provide evidence to support
your claims, or stop making those claims.


-- 
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?"
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8020 alt.politics.elections:15977 uiuc.civil-liberty:72 alt.sex:32527
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:54:43 GMT
	<1992Oct7.071431.17466@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Elf" == Elf Sternberg (elf@halcyon.com)

Elf>    The Commission found no such link.  In fact, their statement on the
Elf> matter concludes: "Even though no visible link between pornography and
Elf> violence was demonstrable in the material presented, COMMON SENSE
Elf> DICTATES that there is a link, yet to be found."  (Emphasis Mine).
Elf> "Common sense."  Horseshit.

Hey, that's a good one. I'll have to remember to use it for a few
papers I'm writing. Makes reasoning about scientific findings so much
simpler. "Even though no visible proof that Object-Oriented
Programming increases productivity has been found, common sense
dictates that it is so." How elegant. I'm off to write a paper to
Journal of Object-Oriented Programming.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8043 alt.politics.elections:16233
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:45:44 GMT

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

>sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>[Michael Lax has posted the Republican Platform to
>>>alt.politics.elections. Here are the excerpts related to pornography,
>>>arts funding, and censorship. - Carl]
>>>
>>>Some would have us believe that obscenity and
>>>pornography have no social impact.  But if hard- core pornography does
>>>not cheapen the human spirit, then neither does Shakespeare elevate
>>>it.
>>
>>Huh?  Is this a hugh non-sequitur?

>Yes, I believe it IS a huge non-sequitur.  But I think the sense was
>supposed to be

>"If you accept the premise that porn doesn't cheapen the human spirit,
>then you must also accept that Shakespeare does not elevate it.  The
>latter is false -- Shakespeare DOES elevate the soul -- therefore the
>former is also false -- pornography DOES cheapen the soul."
 
IT seems clear that that is what the intent and faulty logic was meant
to do.  But is it true that Shakespeare elevates the soul?  The
question begs a religious arguement vis-a-vis the concept of soul and
wha tit means to elevate it but...  With a mear high-school and college
lit. Shakespeare background, along with a few plays taken in for the
pleasure of it I can think  of many things in Bill's stuff that would
get it banned: incest, murder, treason, madness, ghosts, witches, omens,
anti-semitism, suicide, teen lust and sex (and disobeying parents),
bawdy language, sexual innuendo and plain sex, women manipulating their
husbands, oppression of women, I could go on (I think).  Of course much
of the above list could be describing the Bible as well as a movie
playing at a theatre near you.

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)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:11:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.030607.12512@athena.mit.edu>
jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.165817.29077@news.iastate.edu> tarjan@iastate.edu (Scot 'ONE T!' Kight) writes:

>Like what you want, but laws are made to protect the nation and its people,
>and if the state, representing the people, decides something is harmful,
>(theft, murder, fraud, pornography)

(Calling your senator a crook)

> they can outlaw it

Sorry, that's (part of) what the Bill of Rights is all about.

>>                         I dont care about what you feel should be my family's
>>values, I know my own values and will teach those to my children.
>
>So it's okay with you if your (hypothetical) daughter decides it looks like
>fun, and she goes acting in pornographic films, having sex with actors she's
>never met before, etc.  (She's still a pacifist, wouldn't hurt a fly :)  That
>okay with you, pop?

I don't think those are the values he'll teach his children; are they
the values you intend to teach yours?

Do you want to protect your children from becoming knife-murderers by
outlawing knives?

>>Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
>
>If you can do an unbiased study, and show a causal relationship, then
>saying that seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I don't know if this has
>ever been done, but I can understand that relationship myself, even if
>I can't prove/show it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Such studies have been attempted; they've never found any proof.  The
fact that you can "understand" a relationship doesn't imply that it
exists.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8021 alt.politics.elections:15978 uiuc.civil-liberty:73 alt.sex:32528
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:26:14 GMT
	<1992Oct9.173729.5224@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Marc" == marc.colten  (colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com)

Marc> I find it hysterical that people are using Shakespeare as a role model
Marc> for writers.  Shakespeare "elevating" the human spirit?  How about
Marc> assassination, suicide, witchcraft, cannabilism, betrayal, -
Marc> in the dramas. 

This only goes to show us that it is *not* the subject matter that
decides what is good or bad art. "Guernica" is an important work of
art even if what is shown is not an example to follow. It is the
artistic rendering of the subject matter that makes one work good and
another bad, not the subject matter itself.

This tells us that outlawing art based on subject matter is silly. You
cannot, based on the subject matter alone, know if a work is
worthwhile.

There has been good, important pieces of literature about
assassination, and there has been some lousy ones. Likewise for sex.
It is a sad fact that very few good works of art with sex as subject
has been created -- most such works are lousy. One could make a good
case that the reason for this is that social pressure means that few
good artists work with this subject.

Outlawing works of art that do not "elevate the spirit", i.e., making
a law against bad art could be interesting, but I have never seen
anyone try, and it would of course not be practical. Any attempt to
camouflage laws against pornography as being based on artistic merit
are just that -- camouflage.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.165817.29077@news.iastate.edu> tarjan@iastate.edu (Scot 'ONE T!' Kight) writes:
>
>
>I myself am a pacifist, I dont hurt anything (except maybe playing football..)
>
>I coud never Kill anything or abuse any one, I have friends who have been
>abused and every time I hear of it it sickens me, But I also like 'Porn'
>I have no problem with it and I appreciate it, Who are you to tell me what
>I may like and not like. 

Like what you want, but laws are made to protect the nation and its people,
and if the state, representing the people, decides something is harmful,
(theft, murder, fraud, pornography) they can outlaw it (usually with some 
form of popular consent  :)  Doesn't mean you can't like it, just that 
they'll do what they can to stop you from producing, using, selling, 
transporting it.


>                         I dont care about what you feel should be my family's
>values, I know my own values and will teach those to my children.

So it's okay with you if your (hypothetical) daughter decides it looks like
fun, and she goes acting in pornographic films, having sex with actors she's
never met before, etc.  (She's still a pacifist, wouldn't hurt a fly :)  That
okay with you, pop?

>
>Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'

If you can do an unbiased study, and show a causal relationship, then
saying that seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I don't know if this has
ever been done, but I can understand that relationship myself, even if
I can't prove/show it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>
>You sound like a drunk Jesse Helms..
>(the biggest mistake next to J Danforth "Know eye relee no howe two spel"Quayle
> 

Better that than a self-righteous macho with a lifestyle to defend....

>What a joke..
>Tarjan@iastate.edu
>No I am not a demopublican either, nor a republican, nor a liberitarian.
>I will vote for who I think is right, not a steriotype group which I 
>blindly follow into the jaws of the rest of the world.

Whew!  and I was starting to be concerned! :)


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu


Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8051 alt.politics.elections:16308
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:10:25 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci

In article <1992Oct12.154112.27885@midway.uchicago.edu> 
shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> Look dude, this is not your high school debate team.  Keep your eyes closed
> if you like.  The people who saw it know about it.  If you don't want to
> believe it, fine.  Don't worry, be happy!

What a loser!  

Shouse gives an ambiguous reference, and then when someone calls him
on it he says he doesn't have to prove anything.

Shouse: If asking you for proof gets a snide remark like "this isn't
your high school debate team", don't be surprised when we don't
believe you.  

Just tell us Ice-T's exact words, you fool!  That's what we're asking
you!
-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Best War on Drugs article since Pittsburgh Press series 1990!!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:26:34 GMT

I am writing this to say I've just read the best War on Drugs article I've
seen (except on usenet!) since the award winning series in 1990 by the
Pittsburgh Press. All activists- even those in favor of continued drug
prohibition- should read it. It discusses the trampling of Constitutional
rights of ordinary NON-DRUG USING citizens in the quest to confiscate
property.

No that I've said that, I have to admit I saw the headline on the magazine
cover and bought the magazine for the story not the pictures. [Regular
readers of talk.politics.drugs should have no truoble believing this! :-)]
The magazine cover says in bold, "HIGH TREASON: We aer all POWs in the War
on Drugs". The actual article is by James W. Harris and is titled,
"American Jihad: Losing Battles in the War on Drugs". It is subtitled,
"The only victories in the White House's dope wars have been against the
Constitution and you."

Some of the highlighted bullets the magazine includes to capture attention
on each page of the four page article:
	
	* "Every American is liable to body and luggage searches prompted
	by no more legal justification than simple curiosity."

	* "'I didn't know it was against the law for a 42-year-old black
	man to have money in his pocket.'"

	* "Custon agents ordered her to defecate into a wastebasket, while
	they watched, so they could search her excrement for signs of
	drugs."
	
	* "Two elderly citizens were killed when fire from a flash grenade
	 ignited their Minneapolis home. No drugs were found."

Again, I can not recommend the article highly enough. It is published in
the December issue of Hustler, a "men's magazine". If you are under 18, or
offended by sexual content, then have someone make a photocopy of the
article for you. You may want to thank the publisher for the article:
Larry Flint, Editor and Publisher, HG Publications, Inc., 9171 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 300, Beverley Hills, CA 90210. You may want to tell them that
an article on the Libertarians would also be nice.

***
For the article, not the pictures!!! :-)
***



Distribution:
  alt.censorship internet:alt-censorship@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  alt-activism internet:alt-activism@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  misc.legal internet:misc-legal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  talk-politics-drugs internet:talk-politics-drugs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.201526.23618@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
(William December Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz>, 
>sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) said:
>
>> I would be prepared to forego some minor entertainment to prevent
>> women getting raped - how about you?

Oh yes.  No problem.  There's only one part I have trouble
understanding: Can you explain how my not looking at pornography will
help save women from rape, given that I know the difference between
rape and consensual sex and have no intention of ever raping enyone?

Or are you saying that some people have such a poor grasp of morality
and ethics that they might decide to rape someone after viewing
pornography?  Given these people's poor grasp of morality and ethics,
how do you propose to get them to go along with your idea of avoiding
pornography?  Were you thinking of enacting laws?

I think you should change your question to reflect the fact that you
are talking about passing laws, not merely some personal decision.

>Now *that's* what I call a loaded question!  Sort of like "Are you
>still beating you wife?" updated...  I think a more relevant question
>-- especially to alt.censorship -- is "Would you be prepared to force
>someone else to forego an action which harms no one in order to lower
>the probability of a different person doing something bad of his own
>free will?"

Yes, something like that.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
 
"It seems neo-nazi revisionists have almost no sense of humor."
-- Enrique Conty on Usenet, 9 April 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex,rec.arts.fine
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:26:37 GMT

[I missed a relevant excerpt from the Platform. - Carl]

"Republicans will not tolerate sexual harassment or misconduct toward
any individual in the ranks.  We demand both its prevention and its
punishment.  To drive home that point, we urge a halt to the sale, in
military facilities, of sexually explicit materials"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7967 alt.sex:32348 alt.sex.stories.d:316 comp.misc:3925 rec.arts.books:17987