From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<718385606@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
   As I said -- this is twice now, although in different words
   -- I find the term "censorship", devoid of context,
   virtually meaningless.  If you mean by it "tending to more
   restriction of expression than I myself care for" then, yes,
   MacKinnon's law is "censorship", and so is Playboy (an ongoing 
   cultural project, Kenn) and quite possibly your politics as 
   well.  I'm pretty radical on freedom of expression.  So what?  
   I have to get along with the overwhelming majority who are
   not as radical in these matters as I am, and my personal
   beliefs are pretty irrelevant.

So, basically, the fact that SOMEONE is offended by a magazine, it
doesn't seem to matter how many people (e.g. you haven't yet proved
that a majority of feminists- let alone women- are anti-pornography;
in fact you later mention the strong free speech strain of
feminism...) than how I feel about it is now very important.  In other
words people have the right to tell me what I can read based on what
offends them; they can enforce their morality on me.  Isn't that what
most feminists are complaining about- people trying to enforce their
morality on the whole culture.  That seems to be the whole argument
against the pro-life movement, and against the anti-gay rights
movement, and against this family values silliness, and against...


   Besides, I think the whole censorship thing is sort of
   fictitious anyway.  Censorship is about detectives in
   fedoras busting sleazy skin magazine parlors back in 1951.
   The proliferation of media, both in quality and quantity, is
   going to make suppression a dead issue, if it isn't already.
   I'm sure people in Canada, which has no freedom of speech as
   we know it, get all the pornography they want.  They
   certainly did when I lived there, back in the 1970s.  The 
   really big question seems to be how much money you can make 
   off it.

   But that's not the point, is it?  The point is to conjure 
   the demon DworkinMacKinnon, and thereby attack feminism in
   general.  Otherwise, there would have been an equally long
   discussion of free-expression feminists and even feminist
   pornographers.  But there ain't, surprise, surprise.
   -- 

Excuse me, I must of missed the postings against feminism in general.
It seemed to me that people were arguing against MacKinnon and her
followers.  The subject line mentioned MacKinnon by name.  If there
was a thread attacking Pat Robertson for being a hawk, would half of
that discussion be about the Quakers and the Berrigan brothers?  Would
a lack of that conversation mean that an attack on Robertson is an
attack on Christainity in general.  I don't think so.  You can attack
the ideas of one member of a movement without discreting the movement itself...
    )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
   ( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism