Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Date: 12 Aug 92  20:38:45 EST

Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <1992Aug8.233122.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
> kornkven@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ed Kornkven) writes:
> [...]

(deleted stuff) 

> Wrong.  The BoR is being eviscerated. People like yourself are materially
> contributing to its demise. Apparently you don't understand the fact that
> popular speech doesn't need protection, only *unpopular* speech needs it.
>                                                                           
This is why the ACLU will defend the right of nasties to march and gather. You
may not like the content of the speech but the peaceful (and there's the key
word in this particular issue--peaceful) gathering to speak is fully protected, 
no matter how disgusting the content in anyone's opinion.

> Where will it end? When people like you get their way and we are all limited to
> your world view, by surgery, bullets or drugs. Or more precisely, the world
> view deemed correct by the powers-that-be. Unless, of course, people like you
> learn tolerance-- if that happened, it would end tomorrow.
> 
> [freedom of religion misconceptions deleted]
> 
> >     
> > (4) I personally am getting fed up with being told, "Well, just
> >     don't go in there if it bothers you so much", or "Just don't
> >     watch", or "Just don't listen", or "Turn the channel".  Why
> >     should I (and MILLIONS of people in this country like me) have
> >     to crawl into a hole and pull the dirt over the top just because
> >     my values aren't (by historical definition) perverted?  This country
> [...]
> You *really* want to be flamed, don't you? Perverted values? You want the world
> to contain only the messages that you find comfortable. What about me? What if 
> I'm offended by the things that you find comforting? (and I think that *might*
> be the case...) What makes your view of the world better than mine?
>                                             

Or mine?

(deleted stuff) 
> 
> > 
> > (6) Again, for emphasis:
> >     It would have been no contradiction for those who penned
> >     and ratified the First Amendment to use their common-sense
> >     and pitch sewage masquerading as art in the trash.  It is
> >     no violation of anyone's First Amendment rights.  A violation
> >     of the "new and improved" first amendment?  Even that is
> >     doubtful.
> Ok, Bubba. Where do you get off calling Feminist Art trash? Tell you what, try
> pitching #6 in a Women's Studies class. Better yet, go to Levis and pitch #6 to
> the first 10 women who come to view the painting. 
> 
> You are not qualified to decide for anyone other than yourself and your
> children, what is trash.  You sure as hell aren't qualified to decide for
> me or my family.
>       
I'm not sure that anyone with such a narrow-minded attitude is even qualified
to decide for their own family--don't want that narrow-mindedness passed on!

> > 
> > All I'm asking for is my country back,
> Ya? 
> You don't have a clue as to what this country is about.
> You're going to have to peel it out of my cold dead fingers. 
> > 
> > Ed Kornkven
> > kornkven@cs.uiuc.edu
> 
> Maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov
> (Max Monningh)

Right on! My cold dead fingers will be attached somewhere near yours. And the rest of
us who know how to close our eyes or turn away when we see art, literature, television,
moview, or music we don't like or approve of. 
               

-- 
Mindy
*****************************************************************************************
Mindy Machanic  (AG Communication Systems/Quality Engineering, Phoenix, AZ)               
(This space available for interesting messages and the usual disclaimers...)
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6929 alt.society.civil-liberty:5538 misc.legal:15989 rec.arts.fine:580