From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:36:29 GMT
Organization: Aston University

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer) writes:
: 
: >IMHO, the  
: >issue here comes down to the question of whether it is legitimate for an  
: >institution of higher education, that claims to be so strapped for cash that  
: >they've cut back on scholarships this fall, ...
: 
: It likely cost more to exclude the material that to include it. Cost
: likely had nothing to do with the decision to remove the material.

This is probably true of most censorship.
It is almost certainly most true with censoring netnews.
(considering that the process of delivery is automatic, if it was simple
to decide a censorship policy then please would someone show.
By posting the code for an AI which will do this)

: 
: > IMHO, the exploitation of women through porn can't be  
: >separated from advertising and other media in our culture ...
: [...]
: >The number of women  
: >today suffering from eating disorders is proof enough of the extreme  
: >difficulties many women experience trying to remake their bodies ...
: [...]
: 
: I think advertising is 1000 times more to blame than pornography.
: After all advertising is 1000 times more prevalent and designed in
: many cases to woman dissatisfied with their bodies. Should we then all
: such advertising be banned?

Is not quite a bit of advertising aimed at making people think then
'need' something that they have no real need of.
In effect a way of infulencing peoples behaviour to do something they 
would not otherwise do.
Are all these harmless??

: 
: >However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex  
: >groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if  
: >these are of interest to them.  All they have
: >to do is turn on the television,  
: >if they want access to the ideas.  Sexually explicit pictoral material is  
: >available in many places.  I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have  
: >been cancelled, since these were often a
: >legitimate forum for discourse, and do  
: >not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an  
: >unencoded .gif file has a way of doing
: 
: We agree on this. Rules against sexual harassment could ban display of
: sexually explict images in labs without banning all discussions of
: sex.
: 
: One final point. You worry about paternalism. What could be more
: paternalistic that giving the University the authority to decide which
: topics can and which topic can't be discussed on campus? What could be
: more paternalistic than having the University decide that sex is
: something so shameful and dirty that it can't be discussed?

Especially considering the lack of places it can be discussed openly.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk