From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: 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 07:45:33 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Peter Cooper)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 28 Dec 1992 11:56:00 +0800

anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:

>I don't understand why whenever the word "pornographic" comes up
>everyone associates it with censorship and rights.  If you want

Because it immediately preceeds someone wanting censorship, and invokes
discussion about rights.

>the possibility is small and that there is no hard evidence
>linking rapes and sexual abuses with pornographic picture.  

Quite true.

>I want to say forget about your hard evidence and look at your
>own instinct (here I am talking to males on the net).  Most

Oh yes.  "The earth is flat".  What a wonderful instinct.  Why not talk
to the women on the net?  Surely they are the people who you are asking
to complain, if there are any complaints to be made?

>that if you look at these pictures, you don't get turned on
>(unless of course you are gay :-) ?  A majority of people can

How nice.  And a little patronising smiley.  

>control their sexual desires but what do we do with the minority
>?  You may argue that there are already enough pornography at the
>newsagent and so why limit it on the net.  Well, I ask you
>shouldn't we at least try to limit the amount of exposure ?

What exposure?  As far as I understand, the images cannot be
unexpectedly viewed.  They must be GIFs or something and then ascii
encoded, so not something that one would 'stumble across'.  I would
imagine it more difficult to decode one of these images, than to go to
your corner shop, hand over a note of small denomination and unwrap the
plastic?

>Wouldn't it be better just to forgo something like pornography
>then to know that it could lead to acts of violence against
>females and even childern ?  Ok, the possiblity may be as low as
>0.0001% but is cutting out pornography on the net such a great
>lost ?  If you can't live with dirty pictures on your X-terminal
>then why don't you just buy a copy of Penthouse and scan the
>picture and have it as your background.

Oh, and lets get rid of electricity in our homes.  After all, it can
lead to electrocutions of children and women in the home.  Not only
that, it allows Kentucky Fried Chicken advertisements to make savages of
any men who view them.

>Please try to think of this issue as a matter of protecting the
>rights of women and childern.  It is not a issue of big brother.

Sure.  That's what they all say.  Come on.  Why don't you start a
petition to get rid of female nudes in renaissance art at your
university fine arts library?

Peter

-- 
email:  comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   snail:  Peter Cooper
fax:    +61 9 380 1041                     Guild of Undergraduates
phone:  +61 9 380 3929                     University of Western Australia
"It was the banana that did it!" - Julia Marley
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk