HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 01:42:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.230108.10941@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Dworkin/MacKinnon don't say you read Playboy because of a preexisting
>hatred of women, Dworkin/MacKinnon claim that Playboy induces this
>hatred by turning women into sex objects.  And I trust my perceptions
>rather than studies which are apt to be funded by the Playboy
>Foundation, which (like the EFF) has an axe to grind.  Why don't you?

What perceptions of yours are you talking about? Are you 
saying that reading pornography has caused you to hate women 
by encouraging you to objectify them? Or are your perceptions
that friends of yours now hate women because they have read
pornography?

I don't think you mean perceptions. I think you mean that the
idea fits in with your prejudices regarding human nature. And
as flawed as any studies on pornography may be, I trust them
a whole lot more than your prejudices.

Because my perception is that pornography does nothing of the
kind. I've been reading it fairly regularly since I was around
14 years old. And as best I can tell it hasn't affected my opinion
of women one iota.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:30:35 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

I think most "intellectuals", like everybody else, have bread-earning as
their top priority.  That is, justifying their positions by staying busy,
getting grants, etc.  To this end most of them engage in what they
know to be arcane, esoteric and useless (useless in an intellectual as well as
a practical sense) "research" that look good on paper because those few who
understand their jargon are doing the same thing!

Why they (at least the useless part of their work) get funded by society is 
caused by the indirectness of intentions.  The government, institutions and
big corporations give money because their constituents (who ultimately
pay for all this) feel that there should be some such funding "for the
good of the society."  The govt, institutions and corps know slightly more
than their constituents as to what work is being done, but they also care
less about whether the money is spent wisely.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:31:47 GMT

In article <RJBODKIN.92Jul25182140@laennec.lcs.mit.edu> rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin) writes:

>	Even if you do not accept this important distinction, I
>believe your point still falls.  There is no (legal) penalty attached
>to passing an unconstitutional law; it is just struck down by the
>supreme court.

Exactly so. And the legislature can go right ahead and pass other 
unconstitutional laws, articulating whatever principles it likes.
No restraint on its freedom of speech.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:16:47 GMT
Organization: Fairleigh Dickinson University

In article <1992Jul25.034520.17957@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> It's been shown in this thread, however, that the interest
> in free speech by such institutions as Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, the
> Electronic Frontier Foundation, the New York Times, et al., while real
> to some extent, is not disinterested.  Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler
> all have an interest in selling magazines.  Freedom of electronic data
> interchange assists corporate sponsors of the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation in meeting their goals, whence the support of the EFF by
> Lotus and others.  And so on.

	"The greatest productive force is human selfishness."

				-- Robert A. Heinlein


-- Chris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:12:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul29.185531.1@acad2.alaska.edu> fsars@acad2.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.004737.5571@cs.brown.edu>, ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
>> In article <Bs3oJH.6F6@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>   Look, I have a policy of not
>>>   using smileys because intelligent and perceptive readers don't need
>>>   them
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this is simply not true.  I recognized that the statement 
>> was not intended as fact, but it did not appear to be humor either.  I
>> interpreted it as severe sarcasm intended to tick off its target.
>> 
>> Network news does not transmit tone of voice or other non-textual cues.  If
>> you want humor smileys are required unless you post to rec.humor.*
>
>I've never used a smiley either.  But to support Tony's point, I think
>it's wrong to imply that someone isn't intelligent or perceptive, just
>because they don't get some piece of irony that you've thrown out.

 I do use emoticons like *this* and THIS.  But if there ARE people
 who can "get" a bit of humor or irony in a comment or posting
 then we have to assume that the information necessary DOES 
 already exist in that original posting.  In the original one 
 in question a previous poster had already grasped the humor
 and so did I, so the shortcoming could not be said to
 be in the posting but in the readers who didn't "get" it.

 And to go to extremes, a deconstructionist like Nilges (how's
 that for "going to extremes"?) would probably say that ALL 
 the meaning in a statement is to be found in the reader and
 not in the words.


>Also consider that many net readers are from foreign countries,
>whether they reside in the U.S. or not.  This means that English is
>probably a second language, and they are not going to be well versed
>in all its nuances.  Since they know a second language (most Americans
>don't, including me), they may not be perceptive in this particular
>case, but it would be wrong to imply that they aren't intelligent.

 Okay, Okay, I'll lift my comment in the case of non-native-English
 speakers.


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:41:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.231748.9770@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>However, I submit that most men who have been exposed to Playboy and
>similar magazines develop a view of female sexuality which is utterly
>at odds even with its highly diverse reality. That view includes, as
>one of its central themes, the notion that women who want sex want it
>with anyone (or anything), anywhere, anytime. Our experience of real
>life sex does a good job of modifying this view somewhat, but its
>amazing how much of written pornography/erotica/whatever centers on
>the theme of one or more women who are just so desperate for sex that
>they will have it with *you*, right here, right now. 

You're going to have to do better than this. Like produce
*one* man who thinks women's sexuality works like you describe.
This shouldn't be tough since you seem to think that *most*
men think horny women want sex with anyone or anything.

What you describe is a *fantasy* many men have. And that is
why it appears in so much pornography.

That it is a fantasy is a good reason to suspect men actually
think this way, it is a good reason to be concerned about the
implications of men who think this way. But if you look around
you, you will find that men *don't* think this way, at least
none of the men I've ever met think this way. This should cause
you to discard your hypothesis that men's fantasies reflect
their view of real-life sexuality.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?  (was: Re: Ethnicity)
Summary: follow the money
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:24:23 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
| |   ...
| |   Because intellectuals are often trendy followers of fashion, they
| |   can lose touch with reality, and fail their watchdog role (arguably,
| |   this happened in the '80s).  But in any case, their motive is not
| |   to serve the dominant class, and the dominant class doesn't see
| |   them as serving (they see them as bloody nuisances, trying to
| |   upset the apple cart).

jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
| 	Right now the dominant class in both the US and UK
| is primarily conservative.  So are many "intellectuals".
| ....   [T]hey ARE servants of the dominant class and
| are seen to be such by that class.  Liberal intellectuals
| serve the (smaller) liberal section of the dominant class
| and are similarly paid for their services.  The small
| group of Marxist or socialist intellectuals are generally
| ignored and refused entry into many of the main channels
| of "the free interchange of ideas" (i.e. the mass media).
| 
| 	To argue that most, if not all intelectuals are
| liberal and/or Marxist/socialist is disingenuous and/or
| a deliberate attempt to further the cause of the ruling
| class.

First, I'd like to call for a moratorium on the use of
the word "disingenuous" in this newsgroup.

I don't think that it makes much difference whether 
intellectuals are "conservative", "liberal", "socialist",
or "Marxist."  If the dominant class were not getting
some kind of value out of the academic system in which
most people I think we would call intellectuals are
sequestered, they would not supply it with money.   This
value can be rather sophisticated; for instance, many
rebellious feminists of the famous Sixties can now be
found behind desks in respectable institutions, preaching
safer revolution.  I suspect that the impenetrable jargon
which has become fashionable in recent years may have the
precise purpose of deflecting the very potent critiques
of Western Civ which arose in the last generation or two,
as formerly colonial peoples and subject classes began
to think and speak for themselves.

Of course, we may be speaking of different sets of people
here.  I think of "intellectuals" as not just anybody who
may read the New York Review of Books, but of people who
make their living by playing an intellectual role, e.g.
someone who _writes_ for the NYRoB, or a university
professor.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3062 misc.legal:14933 alt.postmodern:2201 alt.censorship:6344
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:29:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.211940.853@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Well, here you just assert without proof that limitation on legal
>writing is not limitation on speech, whereas I've asserted the opposite
>and presented arguments for it.

I asserted no such thing. Legal writing is indeed speech. What I said was
this: "The limitation on what the law can do is not a limitation on
what you can say." I don't know how you missed this sentence.

>Great, you admit, then, that law is not performative, any more than
>utterances of John Q. Citizen ("there oughta be a law.")

Right. It's no more performative, but it is more significant than JQP's
statement, if what you're trying to do is figure out what relationships
are prescribed by this utterance.

In any case you've confused speech and performance when discussing law.
Nothing prevents a legislature from saying all sorts of things in its
statutes. All that's prevented is the enforcement of unconstitutional
laws, not their utterance. Hence, free speech is not denied in the
legislature. QED.

>It looks like I anticipated an
>objection unnecessarily, yet I am puzzled as to why, once again, you
>present arguments that buttress the case of your opponent.

It's because you missed the significance of what I was saying. 
Here it is in a nutshell: a legislature is perfectly free to pass
laws that violate Constitutional protections (take, for example, some
hate-speech laws in cities and similar regulations at public
universities). Nothing prevents the St. Paul city council from
"speaking"--all that's prevented is the enforcement of that speech.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve? (careerist charlatans)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:49:52 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

So how do you define "intellectual"?  We can hardly
blame people for being careerists when it's just about
the only game in town.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3105 misc.legal:15126
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:57:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Jul29.153516.19266@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.110318.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.031843.4563@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>> First, let's remember, as we should know from the low-Q
>>> newsgroups, it is men and not women who are exploited by the
>>> likes of Playboy and Hustler.  That is, the male nervous system
>
>Your "exploitation", Gordon, is less a reality than a mysterious object
>which has for you become a prize.  A prize cannot be shared, it must be
>held by the superior term in a relationship.  The absurdity of making
>victimhood a prize or privilege is projected on feminism by antifeminist
>writers in a technical sense, for their imagination runs no further than
>things like BMWs and bank accounts in a dysfunctionally individualistic
>society.  BMWs and bank accounts cannot be shared, so
>hyperindividualists subconsciously reason that victimhood must be such a
>prize, and they fantasize that it confers advantages (which is logically
>self-contradictory, for victimhood is by nature disadvantageous.)
>
>I suggest to you that BOTH men and women are exploited by Playboy, but
>women MUCH MORE than men.  


	I must be too logocentric to understand this argument.

	Gordon made a completely rational statement that was internally
consistent, and was supported by both logic and a representation of
facts, which I have to admit, are subject to debate. 

	Instead of either accepting or rejecting the terms of the
debate, Ed simply buries Gordon's thesis inside of tub of ideological
lard. 

	Ed, me bucko, I've had some real set tos with girly men in my
Usenet career, and let me tell you, you're no match for them. Go find
some allies who know what they're talking about, and try to learn
some Men's Movement dogma before making a fool out of yourself here again.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3142 misc.legal:15264 alt.postmodern:2247 alt.censorship:6520
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:58:42 GMT
 <1992Jul29.132135.6685@Princeton.EDU> 
 <1992Jul30.131412.25945@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>  
 <1992Jul31.012035.20581@panix.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul31.012035.20581@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> Heinlein and Rand use an extremely unsophisticated view of
> altruism [...]

I knew it was only a matter of time before Rand was mentioned in this
thread.  Rand is the perfect theme for a new "Godwin's Law of USENET".
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3111 misc.legal:15137 alt.postmodern:2232 alt.censorship:6464
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:21:49 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul29.173257.10189@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>, perez@mgr.hjf.org 
(Charles Perez) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.230108.10941@Princeton.EDU> 
> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul27.190001.5960@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> 
perez@mgr.hjf.org 
> (Charles Perez) writes:
> >>In article <1992Jul25.034520.17957@Princeton.EDU> 
> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> >>
> >>Which is to say that there is no clear distiction between thought and
> >>action, but that contradicts the first part of your statement. Dworkin
> >>& Co. *are* interested in criminalizing (not banning - they want to
> >>make certain thoughts (or at least their *expression*) crimes, sins
> >>even, and then cash in on the guilt) thoughts.
> >
> >Completely incoherent.  What do they want to ban?  Thoughts?
> >Expression?  And there's at least one unbalanced parenthesis.
> 
> Unbalanced parenthesis? Let's see... yank that text here...
> >>& Co. *are* interested in criminalizing (not banning - they want to
>                                           1
> >>make certain thoughts (or at least their *expression*) crimes, sins
>                         2                              1
> >>even, and then cash in on the guilt) thoughts.
>                                      0
> 
> and inserting paran counts shows us that the parenthesis are indeed
> balanced. Check your facts before you go shooting your mouth. While
> I admit that my paragraph above is poorly written, it parses
> unambiguously. Sorry to the rest of the netters here, I fell into
> the trap of writing the way I think. :-)

This is me, doing my impression of Ed Nilges:

begin-impression{

You should check your own facts.  I didn't say there is exactly one 
unbalanced parenthesis, I said there is at least one.  Clearly, there are 
two: one just happens to be a left one, and the other a right one.

}end-impression 

If Mr. Nilges is reading, I invite him to add smileys as necessary to 
recognize the above as humor.  I presume the remainder of the misc.legal 
readers are sufficiently perceptive so as not to require them.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.002953.1257@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>In any case you've confused speech and performance when discussing law.
>Nothing prevents a legislature from saying all sorts of things in its
>statutes. All that's prevented is the enforcement of unconstitutional
>laws, not their utterance. Hence, free speech is not denied in the
>legislature. QED.

Sounds like the boundary between speech and action shall be moved at the
SC's will.  For if flag and cross burning is protected "speech", then
(just as I announced last week that knocking over convenience stores was
the way I spoke, registering my disapproval of economic exploitation) I
hereby declare that I enforce laws as part of my "speech."

But this objection aside, I of course acknowledge that no direct attack
was made of the St Paul City Council's freedom of speech, or assembly.
My point remains that there's a dislike of real speech and real dialog
on the part of these latter day defenders of free speech.  For real
speech is part of the real world and it has consequences.  It's not porn
speech, selling magazines by (for example) dragging the good name of Kim
Pring in the mud.  It's not punk speech, offending and frightening one's
black neighbors.  It's the speech of plain citizens trying to pass and
enforce laws to make their community a less hateful place.
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:32:41 GMT

In article <RJBODKIN.92Jul25182140@laennec.lcs.mit.edu> rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.043658.28680@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>   One thing all sides of the "hate speech" debate have ignored up to now
>   is the fact that in spite of the professed dedication of opponents of
>   "hate speech" laws have to freedom of speech, this dedication is NOT
>   extended to one ancient and honorable form of speech.
>
>   This is the making of LAW.
>
>
>	Even if you do not accept this important distinction, I
>believe your point still falls.  There is no (legal) penalty attached
>to passing an unconstitutional law; it is just struck down by the
>supreme court.  So unless you want to make enforcement of a law part
>of the speech (which would indeed be perverse, especially if you do
>not believe the above distinction), this speech is definitely allowed.

Quite so: the legislature of St Paul was not penalized, only nullified,
by the Supreme Court.  However, law is still a form of speech and the
dislike many libertarians have for legal speech undercuts (runs across
the grain of) (deconstructs) their professed dedication to speech of all
kinds.  Just as I cannot and do not compare Starr's use of a kill file
to government censorship in scope, I cannot say that the St Paul
legislators were "censored" in any meaningful sense; but Starr's dislike
of open debate undercuts (runs across the grain of) (deconstructs) his
professed dedication to free speech. In both cases, we should not take
these arguments for freedom at face value.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books