From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:03:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.195941.11752@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>So are you saying that it is *legal* to print and sell libelous material?
>>>*Legal* to print and sell copyright infringments?  
>>
>>To censor is to prevent production/distribution.
>
>So are you saying that child porn is uncensored?  (It is both produced
>and distributed.)

So is cocaine. But that might be better worded. Shall we try...

To censor it to make production/distribution illegal.
 
>>>(I know for sure it isn't legal to print and sell child porn in the US, 
>>>so there is *some* censorship in our country, right?)
>>
>>Yes, that is censorship. 
>
>Oh, no, I guess not.  So child porn *is* censored, even though it is both
>produced and distributed.  So how do the laws that are meant to censor 
>child porn differ from the laws which are meant to censor libellous attacks?

See above. And you love to play word games. That part about 'laws which
are meant to censor libellous attacks?' is great, shove your conclusion
into the wording some where, it -has- to be right, right?

There is nothing whatsoever preventing one from printing libellous material.
It is perfectly legal to write and print it. This is not the case with child
porn. You may be sued for -having- printed it, but they cannot stop the
presses and jail the printer. Try printing child porn and see if it works
the same way.

Get it---

Child porn - censored, illegal to print. 

Libel - legal to print, but someone -may- be held responsible.

And it is not libelous if it is true. Otherwise the police blotter would
be libellous, and you could sue the police -and- the paper.
 
>(I'm geniusly curious here.  I *want* to be able to deflect attacks like
>Gordon Fitch's.)

Then stop being so offensive. But otherwise you are doing great. Keep yelling
the mantra of -misrepresentation-, like GF chants -DworkinMacKinnon gargoyle-,
and ignore anything which makes sense or expresses a valid point of view
(other than yours), and you might just get an email certificate suitable
for framing. :^}

>Do you have a problem with the dictionary definition of censor (verb):
>"to alter, delete, or ban completely AFTER EXAMINATION" (emphasis
>mine)?  That *seems* to be to similar to the idea of the laws against
>libel.  We examine it, we see if it is libellous, then we can stop
>the offending party from continuing to disseminate said statements, right?
>I still don't see the difference.  Can anyone else help?

I have no problem with it. But the term under discussion is -censorship-,
what say we look that up? Do you have any problems with that?

From the Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary...

censorship, n.	
	1. a censoring.
	2. a system of censoring.
	3. the work of a censor.
	4. in psycoanalysis, the agency that prevents unplesant ideas,
	   memories, etc. from entering the consciousness in their
	   original form.

An act of censoring may require examination, but notice 3. A system
of censoring. By your definition, unless each bit of child porn is
individually examined, it cannot be censored. By your definition, child
porn is not censored, although you seem to be claiming that it is.

What are -you- saying? BTW, to give a single usage of a word as -the-
usage is a bit misleading at best, but it certainly misrepresents the
disctionary. Most words have several meanings, which are listed as
above. You did not even mention which usage.
 
>>>You might be on the right track...  convince me...
>>
>>We still need to talk about your flame posts. Perhaps in email. But
>>I have seen very little of anybody being convinced of anything, anywhere
>>on the net, not just here. It is not generally what I would consider
>>a reasonable goal.
>
>Pardon me for having an open mind.  

I will not accuse you of that yet. You get on my case, by way of
flaming me (by your definition) for (by your claim) flaming Muffy.
If it is wrong for me to do it, it is just as wrong for you. If I was
not wrong, then you had nothing to bitch about. You are a hypocrite,
and this is not synonymous with having an open mind.
 
>So, I'm curious:  why do you post if you're not trying to convince us 
>of something?

Quit acting as if your mind is not already made up. Perhaps you have 
discovered that you get a thrill by flaming and being rude, and you
like it. I do not know. 
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism