HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea a need *2*
Date: 24 Jul 92  17:02:00 EST

     Dear Rifleman,

     The NEA is not seeking to control your life, only to enrich it.  If you choose not to participate, then do not be involved with art.'
     Do I apologize that you pay 68 to 70 cents a year for such a vital program?

     NO! I do not.  If you are bothered by excessive taxes then put the blame on waste in government.  The military spends more on its bands & parades.  We do not even want to guess what most politcians do with our money.

     The NEA is more accountable than other areas of government.

     The government needs to set examples of democracy in action. The NEA is a fine example, most funding is traditional, very middle of the road.  Only a small portion is avante guarde, and why not???  Our country is diverse, our taxpayers are, and so should the NEA.

     Clinton may not be a knight on a white horse but he beats the "snot" out of the other option: Bush!
     He has a strong education record, & at least respect certain basic individual right (like abortion).


     I want a government that does not try to tell a woman what to do with her body then sez "we want to get government off your backs".  Vote Elephant Party this year & you will have a Elephant ON your back!

                                       Professor Atget

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:00:53 GMT

In article <nkjr8l8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <2397@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|> >I note that the first five replies in this thread were not protesting
>|> >about the threat to press freedom but wanting more salacious details.
>|> 
>|> It amazes me that you evidently read the first five replies and managed to
>|> misunderstand all five.  Each of those replies asked what the hell you 
>|> are talking about.  No one outside the UK has ever heard of this Mellor
>|> guy.  People around the globe were (like) myself wondering who he is and
>|> what he's done.  I was not one of those five posters, but I read all of 
>|> them and kept expecting you to respond with a brief explanation.  You 
>|> never have.
>|> 
>|> Who is Mellor?
>
>He's a person who naturally infuriates the supporters of the 
>party that lost the last election so badly.

Why "so badly". The figures show that it was the best election result for
the Labour Party since Thatcher won in 1979. Looks like an improvement to
me.

>|> 
>|> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?
>
>It's not, but since the next election may not be for nearly
>another five years, the losers have to have something to
>complain about.  If they can't beat the government on its
>policies, they'll just have to attack it on its sex life.

Most of the newspapers digging the dirt on Mellor are solidly Tory.

>|> 
>|> How does this threaten the freedom of the press?
>
>It probably doesn't, unless the sore losers can provoke the
>press to behave so badly that the public turn against them.
>Then they'll blame the Tories for giving them the excuse to
>provoke the Press to the excesses that turned the public 
>against it.

Again, what does this have anything to do with the opponents of the
Tories? The newspapers chasing the Mellor story are distinguished by the
fact that on General Election day they usually have banner headlines
proclaiming "Vote Tory". How you manage to equate these papers with the
opposition parties is quite beyond me.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore and "Jazz From Hell"
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:16:53 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>>They brought charges against Jello Biafra, Greenworld distibution &c for
>>distributing harmful material to minors WRT the HR Giger poster inside
>>the LABELLED (but on the FRONT instead of the PMRC guidlined BACK of the
>>record) record FRANKENCHRIST.
>
>Not responsive.  You were asked for a source, not for more unsupported
>assertions. 

Huh?!?  Look in the damn newspapers.  He may not have answered the question
you posed, but the Biafra case is most certainly very supported and
documented.


>While we're on the subject, though:
>Who "brought charges"?  Now you're using terms that describe a
>criminal prosecution, whereas your earlier post says they "sued" (in
>other words, brought a civil suit).  What court or jurisdiction?

I believe the chief prosecutor of the city of San Francisco brought the
charges at the request of a third party.  Damn....this is from memory.  I
need to go look up the specifics again.  In the mean time, does anyone else
have access to the details of the case who could describe them hear more
quickly than me? 

I'm not sure whether or not civil suits have ever been served in the
labelling cases, but I'll look that up too.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6067 soc.culture.british:10442
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:13:57 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England


 I mean
> what is it about being a Tory minister that makes a young actress
> want to screw with a fat middle-aged man like Mellor.

This is what I'd like to know too. Money? the lady concerned is said to
find parts hard to find. A warped sort of power trip? Henry Kissinger
seemed to have this effect on women and he's no Adonis either. The most laughable
thing about the whole business to my sardonic way of thinking is
Mellor's newly discovered concern for the well-being of his sons, it
strikes me post eventum angst isn't angst at all. The interesting part
will be if McKenzie's allegations turn out to be true. Any one like to
speculate on which Cabinet minister?

Andy Fear (a Tory incidentally) cla04@uk.ac.Keele
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Nea = education
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:55:39 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:
> The NEA does more than occasionally help create a decent piece of
>art.  It is so often used to work with our youth.  Involving children
>with art helps give them a feeling of self-worth.

And they're incapable of being involved with art that isn't NEA
funded?  I don't think so.  And this self-worth/self-esteem fraud is
one of the primary reasons our students are doing so badly.  Nothing
matters as long as their self-esteem is high!


> Your 68 to 70 cents is so well used, it should be an example to the
>rest of government.

I don't think so.  Well-connected artists getting largesse from the
public to create self-indulgent garbage.
-- 
Cthulhu cthucks, but does he cthwallow?
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore and "Jazz From Hell"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:09:40 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>In <hurd.711658189@sfu.ca>, hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>>speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>>
>>>  Correction:  VOLUNTARY Labeling.
>>
>>Gee, they only sued the pants off people who didn't do it voluntarily.

>Source, please, lest we begin to suspect that you possess only the
>most tenuous grip on reality.

They brought charges against Jello Biafra, Greenworld distibution &c for
distributing harmful material to minors WRT the HR Giger poster inside
the LABELLED (but on the FRONT instead of the PMRC guidlined BACK of the
record) record FRANKENCHRIST.
>-- 
>	It may be a police state, but it's *our* police state.
                          & this makes it ok? not my police.
>	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
-- 
-- Pete Hurd, hurd@sfu.ca          |   Truth never set anyone free,          
Behavioural Ecology Research Group |   it is only doubt which will           
Dept.Biol.Sci., Simon Fraser Univ. |   bring mental emancipation.               
Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada        |               -- Anton LaVey
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nea = education again!!!
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:07:07 GMT
Organization: Bradley University



Mr. Sablow,

Your rhetoric is nice but you're being painfully vague about how the NEA
puts our tax dollars to work.

Maybe you could describe a few of these wonderful programs specifically.
Demonstrate how these programs do all the wonderful things you say.

Since you're such an ardent supporter of the NEA it should be no problem
for you to give specifics.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6167 soc.culture.british:10543
From: streater@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:58:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Jul22.123355.14064@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>I agree, P H-B's original post mentioned like we all knew the ins and
>outs of the issue.  I asked for more details especially since Mellor
>is my husband's MP. (his account I am on).  But no full story was
>forthcoming and then we are attacked  for wanting slalcious detail. We 
>could have wanted salacious details and also have a reasonalbe
>request to know the full story boefore commenting on the press issue.

I too had not heard of this story until I saw posts here. So I also belong to
the group slandered by implication. Oh well, it's a tough life.

Unfortunately, no one over here (in public life, that is) has the balls to tell
The press to fuck off, which from time to time is what it needs. In addition,
or course, there is this "first amendment", which because of its rigidity
prevents anyone notorious from getting a fair trial, and in this instance
would prevent a public figure from seeking relief via the courts. It is this
which supposedly prevented Mario Cuomo from entering the presidential race. If 
Mr H-B and others want this for the UK they are entitled to their opinion but
I think it's dumb.

Juries in the UK have shown what they feel about press intrusion, and a good
thing too. It's a great shame that the Eye got caught in this, since we
now know quite well that Maxwell was a crook, but you can't have it both ways.

tim
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:08:36 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <nm19p0c@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <24083@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>|> In article <nkjr8l8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> 
>|> =>|> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?
>|> =>
>|> =>It's not, but since the next election may not be for nearly
>|> =>another five years, the losers have to have something to
>|> =>complain about.  If they can't beat the government on its
>|> =>policies, they'll just have to attack it on its sex life.
>|> 
>|> Interesting to note that the Mellor-is-an-adulterous-hypocrite saga
>|> is today giving way to news that (surprise!!) the Tories are about
>|> to renege on their election promises with regard to public spending.
>
>Catch 22.   If the Tories spend more, they're irresponsible.
>If they spend less, they're "reneging" on their election 
>promises.

Well, if you prefer, by spending less they are showing that they were
being irresponsible when they made said promises, since all the
economic analysts who write for the sorts of papers I read were quite
clear on the point that while they might be able to use the promises to
get people to vote for them, they wouldn't be able to keep the promises
once they were in control again.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6280 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2393 misc.legal:14813
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:33:38 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul25.023333.10841@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com sez:
>In article <1992Jul24.142408.385@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
>(John Hascall) asks:
>
>>  Can a completely computer generated
>>image be child pornography?  Should it be?
>
>I believe that the laws state that such a thing is child pornography;
>I've added misc.legal to the newsgroup list to get a better opinion.

Not having read every state's law on the subject, I can only address
the question in a general manner.

The relevant federal statute -- 18 USC sec. 2252 -- criminalizes the
shipment/receipt of pornography only where "the producing of such
visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct."  That language makes clear that a real-live minor
must have been involved.

I would speculate, largely relying on First Amendment principles, that
the government could not make purely computer-generated child
pornography generally illegal, any more than it could ban a book
containing fictional accounts of such conduct.  (For the record,
specific works of either sort might be legally "obscene", but cannot
be declared universally so.)

And no, _Osborne_ isn't relevant here, so we needn't get into the
_Stanley v. Georgia_ argument again  . . . .

-- 
O net, thou art sick.  The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy.  (Film at 11.)
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6187 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3744 alt.rush-limbaugh:2987
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:15:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.372
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>Furthermore, I would venture a guess that even non-administration 
>graduation speakers would be free to speak of god or religion.

    That would seem like a safe guess, but in at least one case it has
been disproven. There was a recent case in which a high school valedictorian
was prevented from speaking about his religious faith and reacted by 
arranging to sneeze during his speech to which his classmates responded
(on cue) "God Bless You".

>However, I seriously doubt that the SC decision could be interpreted to
>suggest that, for example, a valedictorian could be prohibited from
>personally thanking god in his speech--the valedictorian is not an agent
>of the school (and, therefore, the government), and to prohibit any mention
>of god would be to infringe upon the valedictorian's free speech rights.

    I would agree with this completely. Unfortunately, for whatever 
reason, the laws are not being enforced in that way. Personally, I'm not 
terribly religious and I'm all for separation of church and state, but 
I think that we've got a situation in which overzealous anti-religious
enforcement may result in a backlash. I don't want the separation of
church and state policy to be overturned, so I think that it's in all
our best interests to clean up the way the current policy is enforced.
That means (firstly) that we have to admit that there's a problem, and
(secondly) that we're going to have to learn to grit our teeth and bear
it when someone wants to stand up and exercise their constitutional 
right to say something we disagree with. At this point I would say that
the people in charge are being overly sensitive about religion in schools.

    Let's try the sex education argument here... students *are* going to 
hear about religion somewhere. Would we rather they hear about it in 
the schools, or are we going to stick our heads in the sand and let the 
kids learn about it on the streets? We had ultra-religious types at my
high school and I thought it was a great learning experience to hear
what they had to say. It certainly cured me of any religious leanings I 
might have had.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore and "Jazz From Hell"
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:48:32 EDT

In article <1992Jul22.025422.19149@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Gee, they only sued the pants off people who didn't do it voluntarily.
>>
>>>Source, please, lest we begin to suspect that you possess only the
>>>most tenuous grip on reality.
>>
>>They brought charges against Jello Biafra, Greenworld distibution &c for
>>distributing harmful material to minors WRT the HR Giger poster inside
>>the LABELLED (but on the FRONT instead of the PMRC guidlined BACK of the
>>record) record FRANKENCHRIST.
>
>Not responsive.  You were asked for a source, not for more unsupported
>assertions. 

I don't know who was responsible for the prosecution of Jello Biafra, but
he certainly was subjected to persecution--oops, I mean prosecution.


>While we're on the subject, though:
>Who "brought charges"?  Now you're using terms that describe a
>criminal prosecution, whereas your earlier post says they "sued" (in
>other words, brought a civil suit).  What court or jurisdiction?

In this case, the difference was probably in name only.  As I recall, he beat
the rap, but his record label went bankrupt, and he was, personally, left in
debt to the tune of something like fifty thousand dollars due to his legal
defense expenses.

Whether the action was criminal or civil or both is not of great relevance to
the discussion at hand--in any case, the intention was to harass Jello Biafra
et al with legal action.  The only question that is relevent is whether or
not PMRC was directly or indirectly involved with the legal action.

About five or so years ago, the Cornell chapter of the ACLU brought him in
for a talk.  At that time, he was touring the lecture circuit with the
dual objectives of fighting PMRC's efforts and raising funds to pay off
his defense debts.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Charges against Time-Warner?
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:36:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Virginia

According to clari.news.headlines, the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers (I think thats the organization) announced that they will file
charges against Time-Warner if a policeman is killed in a jurisdiction
where Ice-T's Cop Killer is distributed.

Oh, gotta love that McKinnon-Dworkin logic again. I mean, were no cops killed
BEFORE Cop Killer was released? Do they honestly think someone wasnt going to
shoot a cop, and then decided to because of an Ice-T song? Dont they realize
that probably 100,000,000 people who never would have heard of this song have
now heard of it because of the stink they have raised? 

-rob
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6127 soc.culture.british:10501
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:54:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: VOILA.NICKH.92Jul22085411
	<1992Jul20.150659.7736@dscomsf.desy.de>
	<1992Jul20.215744.19000@Princeton.EDU> <ni39fjg@zola.esd.sgi.com>
	<1992Jul21.234944.1844@dircon.co.uk> <njhrph8@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <njhrph8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

   In article <1992Jul21.234944.1844@dircon.co.uk>, uad1123@dircon.co.uk (Graeme Lyall) writes:

   |> It is not a perfect world when the press spend a lot of energy 
   |> exposing minor sex scandals and ignore far more important stories. 
   |> However the bottom line is that we have to know what the politicians 
   |> are getting up to.  Mellor used photographs of his happy little 
   |> family as propaganda only 3 months ago in the general election; 
   |> that stinks, and must be exposed.

   Oh really?   It stinks when a politician who has had an affair
   has his photo taken with his family, and ought to be exposed.

   Who says so?   To whom does this apply?   Just politicians?
   Doctors?   Psychiatrists?    The Police?   Reporters?  Actors?
   Military personnel?    Athletes?    How about people who post
   on the net?

That's not what he said. What he said is this:

- David Mellor, in common with many politicians, _used_ the image of
	the `happy little family' as _propaganda_ in the general
	election campaign. Doubtless the Tory leafletting included
	phrases like `a family man,' `happily married,' etc., and
	probably also gave his wife's name, and certaily depicted the
	whole family cavorting in the sunshine or whatever.

- This image is _not_true_ of David Mellor.

- Therefore the propaganda was full of lies [to which I say,
	"really? election leaflets telling lies? Whatever next?"], and
	David Mellor can be said to have lied his way into Parliament.

- This is a Bad Thing and We Should Be Told.

None of this applies to any of the people you describe unless they,
for instance, lie on their job applications.

There is a separate and completely independent argument for exposing
these indiscretions, which runs like this: "David Mellor has promised
his wife not to have sex with other women. He's broken that promise.
A Politician breaking promises is a Bad Thing, and We Should Be Told."

Neither of these arguments have anything to do with the real
motivations for the press behaviour (which are all to do with
titillation and gossip). But IMO both of them hold _some_ water. To
clarify even further, the first argument would also apply if the
leafletting had claimed (say) "David Mellor has a long record of
campaigning to protect the environment". The second would also apply
if he'd cheated on his expenses (in this or any previous job). These
stories wouldn't get in the tabloids, but the same arguments apply to
our right to know.

Nick Haines nickh@cs.cmu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6171 soc.culture.british:10548