HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Should there be censorship???
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:59:40 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

[...]
>The broadcaster should provide a warning prior to airing the footage.  
>This is already general practice in the US.
[...]

I would add that the warning "requirement" should be enforced by
social pressure, not by government pressure.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
* Labeling (ALA)

An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"

It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/library/labeling.ala

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:50:51 EST
From: <ECN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Look to Alt.Games.SF2

Ok folks, this is my first posting in this group so forgive me if I break any
long held traditions or sum such stuff:

There's a nasty little arguement in the Street Fighter Group that might belong
in this group.  I request that you check it out.  The arguement centers on PC
and other such nonsence.  The people posting in favour of PC are sounding like
your common garden variety Book Burners.

Please Help Save the First Amendment.

ERIX
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8819 soc.libraries.talk:342 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3405 alt.sex:36305 rec.arts.books:20147
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
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: 15 Nov 92 23:36:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov15.233623.27404
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha


	The Omaha Public Library has not ordered this book.
	The Acting Director of the Public Library, quoting the library's
selection policy (AKA bullet-proof jacket), has said that the library 
has not ordered any copies because it has gotten bad reviews, has a poor 
binding, etc.
	However, this has not kept six of seven City Council memebrs from 
passing a letter asking (?) the library not to purchase the book.  Steve Exon
(he is responsible for the 2 Live Crew raid last Spring) is a city council 
member.
	No one has donated a copy yet, and even so, the library is not 
required to catalog donations;  gifts may end up at the book sale.
	Books are cataloged as Reference for two reasons:
	1)  They contain information that is important and which should stay
in the library so that patrons can be served better.
	2)  The book is a very likely candidate to be stolen, replacing it
would be prohibative, or it conatains material that is adult in nature and 
which some people would check out just to keep it from others.  "Sex" falls 
under this catagory.

Torsten Adair, Student Assistant, Cataloging Department, Omaha PL
These opinions are my own, and are in the public domain.  As a student 
assistant, I have no authority whatsoever, and anyone who believes I speak
for OPL should be locked in a padded cell.

torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Should there be censorship???
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:38:01 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <92323.091951U61508@uicvm.uic.edu>, U61508@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
> If scenes of brutality which are very awful and disgusting are being broadcast
> on the news and I mean real horrifying!  Including videos of violent attack!
> So do you have any points that can be stated on the side of government and
> agree that censorship should be enforce to prohibit these kind of horrifying
> scene to be display through international television????
> Thanks!!!!!!

 People should know all the details about a subject through an unbiased media, 
but the truth is that media IS biased on just about any issue today.  Let the
 people decide on what should be censored and what shouldn't.  It's our taxes
 that sponsor the art, drama, and other cultural works being put out.  If you
 don't like it speak your mind!  
That's democracy for the people.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.movies]  Porn in the USA
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.sex.movies
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:36:56 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies
Subject:  Porn in the USA
Date: 22 Nov 1992 19:40:30 GMT

I read a quote from Nat Hentoff recently which indicated that
the first victim of the new Canadian censorship laws (actually
the consent from the Canandian Supreme Court to enforce the 
law) was a lesbian magazine by and for lesbians (as opposed to
the kind that are clearly intended for men). Does anyone know
anything more about this?

Jack Love
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Should there be censorship???
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:04:46 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <92323.091951U61508@uicvm.uic.edu>, U61508@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
> If scenes of brutality which are very awful and disgusting are being broadcast
> on the news and I mean real horrifying!  Including videos of violent attack!
> So do you have any points that can be stated on the side of government and
> agree that censorship should be enforce to prohibit these kind of horrifying
> scene to be display through international television????
> Thanks!!!!!!!

I think we should let the people decide what should be censored and what we
shouledn't instead of the government.  That would solve a lot of problems.
Nuff said.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 18 Nov 1992 09:19:51 CST
From: <U61508@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Should there be censorship???

If scenes of brutality which are very awful and disgusting are being broadcast
on the news and I mean real horrifying!  Including videos of violent attack!
So do you have any points that can be stated on the side of government and
agree that censorship should be enforce to prohibit these kind of horrifying
scene to be display through international television????
Thanks!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Should there be censorship???
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:56:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship

As quoted from <92323.091951U61508@uicvm.uic.edu> by <U61508@uicvm.uic.edu>:

> If scenes of brutality which are very awful and disgusting are being broadcast
> on the news and I mean real horrifying!  Including videos of violent attack!
> So do you have any points that can be stated on the side of government and
> agree that censorship should be enforce to prohibit these kind of horrifying
> scene to be display through international television????
> Thanks!!!!!!!

No.  The broadcaster should provide a warning prior to airing the footage.  
This is already general practice in the US.

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
From: sakimura@sscl.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Who started all this gaijin myth?! (was Re: Genitals in Japan)
Organization: Social Science Computing Laboratory
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:50:00 GMT

In article <By3oDx.765@world.std.com>, rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) writes:
> Again we see the slippery Japanese language in action. In fact, there
> aren't many words in Japanese that can be pinned down as deliberately
> insulting the way American swear words are. My point was not to flame the
> word "gaijin" itself, but the attitude behind it. I am a "hakujin", which
> is another semi-derogatory word. My Japanese friends use the word
> "gaikokujin" (person from another country) to spare my feelings, where a
> simple "gaijin" might seem to them impolite. It's as if I were to call
> someone a foreigner in English. The delivery would be everything. The word
> can be insulting or impartial. But my real point is that the Japanese do
> regard everyone outside their group (however that group may be defined at
> the moment) as in some sense "gaijin" or "outside people." 

Again! "hakujin" is not a semi-derogatory word!
A Japanese use word "hakujin" in the context of admiring them 
more often than to derogate them. (It is a very sad fact that
unlike "hakujin", "kokujin" seems to be used as an intimidating
word more often than in admiration. This situation, however, 
is improving recently. I am particularly pleased with this 
improvement because many of my friends are "kokujin" because
I grew up in Kenya, in a African's school, not in International
nor British nor American nor Japanese school.)

And you can't translate "gaijin" as "outside people."
It's a very common contraction in Japanese, and conveys the same
meaning as the original word!

E.g.

Gaikoku-jin [foreigner] -> Gai-jin
Tele-bision  [Television] -> Tele-bi
Waado-purosessaa [Word-processor] -> Waa-puro

As I mentioned in an earlier post in soc.culture.japan, there is 
a strong tendency for a Japanese to contract a word of more than
4 syllables to less than or equal to 4 syllables. Above examples
are some of them.

For me, to say "Gaikoku-jin" is as awkward as to say "Tele-bijon."

If "Gaijin" or "Hakujin" is used as a derogatory word, then it is
due to the mentality of THAT person, and "Gaikokujin" or "Hakushoku-
jinshu" used by the same person will convey exactly the same 
meaning as his "Gaijin" or "Hakujin."

--
Natsu Sakimura

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8906 alt.sex:36759 soc.culture.japan:11053
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Genitals in Japan( was Madonna...)
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:02:06 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <Bxs1Iw.n0A@world.std.com> rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) writes:
>keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:
>
>>Carl's phrase "Stragne people, the Japanese.." sums up my opinion when
>>it comes to their attitude to pornography and exposure of genitals 
>>etc. Someone mentioned that General MacArthur's present to Japan,
>Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
>Subject: Re: Genitals in Japan( was Madonna...)
>References: <1992Nov1.001627.15011@actrix.gen.nz> <1992Nov2.032948.14849@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <jwb.720750843@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au> <1992Nov3.043239.21945@utagraph.uta.edu> <1d81hoINNiu7@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
>
>keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:
>
>>Why can't they [the Japanese] admit a simple fact that
>>they did a horrible thing during/before WWII and that human
>>beings have public [sic] hair and genitals and do make love!
>
>Because it's not a simple fact. It would involve a national loss of face,
>which is something most Japanese I have met would not suffer gladly. The
>Japanese, as any Japanese-surnamed individual ought to know, are
>particularly thin-skinned about criticism, especially when it comes
>from gaijin (read: racial inferiors, i.e., the rest of the world).
>
>But I like your typo in line 3 above.
----------------------------------------
Pretty inferior I guess we are, huh? They bomb Pearl, we're gaijin. We
blow a couple cities to hell and flame Tokyo and Yokohama and a half
dozen others and we're still gaijin. MacArthur should have banned the
word from the language and killed the imperial line. Assholes, they
lose face from all that razor stubble to keep their pussy hairless!:)
- Steve


-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: equnlivn@unix1.tcd.ie (Eoin P. O'Coindealbhain)
Subject: Re: Should there be censorship???
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:11:11 GMT

		No there shouldn't any form of govenment
	censorship of factual incidents,this gives 
	government too much power in controling what
	it wants us to see thus twisting our views to 
	suit its needs.A good example of this is that
	during the Gulf War newsmen were forced to travel
	in pools and only see what they were supposed to 
	see.This created a war on TV where none of the
	enemy died (in fact it's estimated that about
	100,000 Iraqies died,many women and children).
		This was a clean war,a bit like the
	Saturday nigth war film,anyone who died was
	faceless and died quietly,there were no 17
	year old kids clutching their gut-shot wounds
	bleeding to death in the sand.
		Some of the most horrific scenes I've
	ever seen were taken illegaly (because of US 
	censorship laws during the war) of burnt out
	Iraqi trucks,the charred remains of the drivers 
	still in the cabs,the last remnants of an Iraqi
	retreat.
From: wolff@zen.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Keywords: censorship,OTA,Congress,ATT,marketplace of ideas,DiNardo,democracy,usenet,computer
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:26:53 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

seraphim@ais.org (Henry Hardy) writes:

[ a rather long open letter to ATT and others.]

If I gather things correctly a Mr. DiNardo, working for ATT, has been
forbidden to tell things to the net by his superiors.
Also Henry Hardy seems to think that this is against the first amendment
(freedom of speach).

Now if above is true, I'd like to say the following:

Companies have so called "trade secrets" things they know, that they'd rather
not have that other people know. If you work in a company,
you get access to some of that companies trade secrets. You have the 
responsibility not to tell them to people ouside the company (whether
you sign a contract saying so or not). 

The employer is entitled to take whatever action (within some limits 
off course) needed to keep trade secrets secret. One of the possibilities
that comes to mind could be to fire the person in question. 

What this boils down to is that if you work for a company, you might
take up your freedom of speach rights, but if you do so, the company
in question has the right to take counter measures.

					Roger.

-- 
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8837 alt.sex:36399 soc.culture.japan:10903
From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Genitals in Japan( was Madonna...)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:42:42 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.

rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) writes:

>keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:

>>Carl's phrase "Stragne people, the Japanese.." sums up my opinion when
>>it comes to their attitude to pornography and exposure of genitals 
>>etc.

>>Why can't they [the Japanese] admit a simple fact that
>>they did a horrible thing during/before WWII and that human
>>beings have public [sic] hair and genitals and do make love!

>Because it's not a simple fact. It would involve a national loss of face,
>which is something most Japanese I have met would not suffer gladly. The
>Japanese, as any Japanese-surnamed individual ought to know, are
>particularly thin-skinned about criticism, especially when it comes
>from gaijin (read: racial inferiors, i.e., the rest of the world).

The strange thing is that the hangup over nudity is of relatively
recent origin. Read, for example, Isabella Bird's classic book on
her travels in rural Japan in the late 1870s. She was appalled the
way the peasants worked naked in the fields (often just topless in the
case of the women) and then crowded together in the altogether
(so to speak) in the village bathouse.

In fact, the big cover-up which occurred at that time was at the
instigation of the Meiji authorities, who were reacting to the
shock/horror/disgust reaction from the (mostly missionary)
Westerners flooding into Japan at that time.

Even now things seem funny to westerners. When we were living in an
8-mat apa-to in Matsumoto, and using the local bathhouse, we were
amused the way there was a low partition between the male & female
undressing areas. A hardened perve would have had a fine time.
Moreover, the (usually male) attendant sat at a high desk overlooking 
both areas. No-one cared a jot. It all seemed (to us) a bit
inconsistent with airbrushing pubic hair on imported Playboys.

Then again, Japanese of my acquaintance find us just as inconsistent,
what with total segregation of changing areas (e.g. at swimming pools)
but fairly prevalent near-nudity on beaches.
-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 15 Nov 1992 16:48:09 CST
From: <U61508@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: restriction on awful photos

These are the points I thought of that government should enforce censorship
on awful photos such as ruin bodies after war be shown on T.V.
1.  Audience may switch channel
2.  It affects children
3.  May scare those that wants to join the army
 Can you please give me some idea or suggestion to support my points?
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: Genitals in Japan( was Madonna...)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:44:07 GMT

mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

mpevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:

>rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) writes:

>>keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:

>>>Carl's phrase "Stragne people, the Japanese.." sums up my opinion when
>>>it comes to their attitude to pornography and exposure of genitals 
>>>etc. Someone mentioned that General MacArthur's present to Japan,
>>Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.culture.japan
>>Subject: Re: Genitals in Japan( was Madonna...)
>>References: <1992Nov1.001627.15011@actrix.gen.nz> <1992Nov2.032948.14849@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <jwb.720750843@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au> <1992Nov3.043239.21945@utagraph.uta.edu> <1d81hoINNiu7@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>

>>keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:

>>>Why can't they [the Japanese] admit a simple fact that
>>>they did a horrible thing during/before WWII and that human
>>>beings have public [sic] hair and genitals and do make love!

>>Because it's not a simple fact. It would involve a national loss of face,
>>which is something most Japanese I have met would not suffer gladly. The
>>Japanese, as any Japanese-surnamed individual ought to know, are
>>particularly thin-skinned about criticism, especially when it comes
>>from gaijin (read: racial inferiors, i.e., the rest of the world).

>Have the rest of the world admitted the nasty things they did in WWII?

>I mean just think if the US said "well we didn't want to allow the red army 
>time to get there, and we had a weapon which needed a field test....."

The U.S. never denied nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is included in
American history texts (unlike the Japanese rape of Nanking and other crimes,
which have been conveniently left out of the *Nihon-no rekishi*). And
recently (although admittedly belatedly) the U.S. even admitted wrongdoing
in the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. This is not to
say we are paragons of virtue. But we do admit our faults (even if we do
not suffer such admissions gladly).

As far as the rest of the world goes, I can't say. But things are emerging
from the new Russia all the time.

Gee, but what does all this have to do with alt.sex?
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: cs922058@ariel.yorku.ca (JEFFREY F HAY)
Subject: Re: restriction on awful photos
Originator: cs922058@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:38:18 GMT


Who cares if the audience switches the channel.

I hope it scares people who want to join the army. It should.
War is not like taking a walk in the flower garden.
People die and kill in war and it's rarely a pretty sight.

As for children ... don't they have a right to know what their world is like??
I have seen many children who are not only more discriminating than their adult
counterparts, but are better able to interpret reality because their minds haven't
yet been cluttered by the barrage of propaganda that we are normally served.

Wanting the government to censor awful photos of ruin bodies essentially
translates into .... please protect me from the real outside world so that i can
live in my own peaceful reality in my mind. Reality is not going to change
just because you turn TV off.

Sorry i couldn't include any points to help make your points.