From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:46:44 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 08:24:22 GMT


First, let me say I don't get alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.  I can however
get it at work and are therefore aware of the newsgroup and what it contains.
I also have to agree to a certain extent that some of the "erotic" pictures
are not really erotic - they are tasteless.

HOWEVER, I think this posting is going a little overboard.

In article <1992Dec22.085300.1@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au> ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:

 > 
 >  
 > 
 > 
 > The Internet newsgroup, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, is just a forum for
 > pornographic images to be exchanged worldwide.

so?  one of many such forums.

 > Since pornography is demeaning to women, I believe the AarNet and any other
 > Australian network, should not be subscribing to such rubbish.

Well, lets extend this line of thought - ban all the newsgroups except
aus.* comp.*  bionet.* and sci.*   Nearly every other group can be said to
contain "rubbish" in one way or another.

 > Recently, images of nude women chained up and tied up have graced the pages of
 > this 'news'group. This does not, in my opinion, fall within the usage
 > guidelines of AarNet.

And how, may I ask, do you know that such pictures have appeared?  Obviously
you must peruse this group.  If you are such a moralist, why do you do so?

 > There are at least three reasons to remove this newsgroup and any others which
 > are similarly demeaning to women:
 > 
 >         1) The images are pornographic, not 'erotic': consult any of your
 > female colleagues for their opinions

Agreed - to a small extent.  It depends greatly on the individuals definition
of "erotic".

 >         2) The images are largely _illegally_ scanned-in images from
 > pornographic magazines (so that there is copyright infringement)

The copyright issue covers many newsgroups - I think we can dismiss this
until there is some well defined standard for Internet.

 >         3) The usage of these images is NOT one of the uses of AarNet that our
 > employers want to be paying for

Why not ban many other groups then - movies, music, startrek, Dr Who, etc in
the rec hierarchy. I think this applies equally well to them.  As I said
above - ban nearly all the groups except the "scientific or academic" ones.
Come on, be realistic.

 > Other reasons to remove the group (and any similar groups):
 > 
 >         * the scandal that would be attached to Aarnet and the Internet more
 > generally if this were to reach the conventional media

Doubt it.  The conventional media is guilty of many like crimes.

 >         * women are badly enough represented on computer networks without
 > further turning them away with the sexual harassment implicit in the
 > promulgation of such pornographic images.

sexual harassment of women?  Are'nt you being a bit sexist?  I see that
there are also pornographic images of men.

 > If you think that the newsgroup is 'harmless fun': see what your female
 > colleagues, friends, wives, secretaries think ===== particularly in light of
 > the fact that your employer is paying for it. Legally, it is a clear case of
 > sexual harassment.

I don't think it is sexual harassment - not unless you actively go and decode
the uuencoded parts and display them with a gif viewer.

It's not a magazine you know - people just can't accidentally look at the
pictures.  They have to willingly decode them and view them.  I think
that there is quite a difference between electronic porn and non-electronic
porn.

 > nb: I am _not_ talking from a moral 'high ground'. I am _not_ a card-carrying
 > member of the Moral Majority. However, pornography generally is demeaning to
 > women, and I believe that it is particularly poor in the present context.

if you aren't taking the moral "high ground" then just what are you doing?

That's my 2c worth.  I'd also like to say that I don't support sexual
harassment in any context and I do agree that some of the material is
going a bit too far.  But I don't support a ban on this newsgroup.

Cameron.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk