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 07:46:11 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:29:19 GMT

ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:

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

I've read the followups -- it's the same old argument about rights and 
censorship.  For those of you on the anti-censorship side, I find your
arguments a little simplistic.  We accept many forms of censorship in
our society, and in fact a society with *no* censorship runs the risk of
severly limiting the rights of minority groups, and those with less power.
We don't tolerate the dissemination of anti-semitic Nazi propaganda, we
don't allow the manufacture and distribution of child pornography --
hardly anybody would argue that it should be otherwise.  Noam Chomsky
claims that the right to free speech is precisely the right to express
*unpopular* opinions -- but if it were that simple, the world would be
a far more harmonious place.  We accept the suppression of some ideas,
opinions, words and images precisely because we believe that their
free expression in one way or another embodies the oppression of other
members of society.  In a democratic society the debate is not about
whether censorship per se is a good or bad thing, it is a constant
appraisal of where exactly the boundaries do and should lie.

Having said that, that "pornography is demeaning to women" is hardly
self-evident.  The role of ponography in society is a subject of hot debate
amongst *women* -- you know, that group of people you hope to protect and
serve by eliminating pornography from the Net.  In feminist circles opinion
ranges from Andrea Dworkin's line that all pornography is tantamount to
violence against women (read her novel _Mercy_ if you wish to experience
mercilessness!  Dworkin has also written a number of non-fiction books
on the subject.  Susan Faludi's _Backlash_ and Naomi Wolf's _The Beauty Myth_
are also of interest) to Linda Williams' argument that the vast majority of
pornography has the potential to empower women (see her book _Hard Core_.
For similar arguments, including another essay by Williams, a collection
called _Sex Exposed_ is also relevant).  Someone mentioned the
Dworkin/MacKinnon state legislation in the U.S.  Two points: 1) The
legislation did not *ban* pornography, what it did was to give someone who
felt they had been disadvantaged or discriminated against, directly or
indirectly, by the publication of pornographic material legal recourse
to take action against the producer(s) and publisher(s) of that material;
2) I believe the legislation has since been repealed on the grounds that
it was unconstitutional.

So long as women need men to "protect" their interests, particularly in
a comparitively enlightened forum such as this, very little real progress
is being made.  If we sit around and discuss the course of action we should
take to best advance the cause of women, with little or no real input
from the group in question, we are being patronising at the very least.
This is *precisely* the reason why AARNet should *not* buy into the debate,
and certainly not by taking pre-emptive action.  By all means discuss
the issue with female friends, relatives and colleagues -- that kind of
communication is valuable and important.  But do some reading and some
research too -- no decision should be made on moral or ideological
grounds without some real understanding of the issues involved as they
affect women.  The solution, contrary to what some would like to believe,
is far from obvious.

>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.

Maybe not, but nor is it necessarily oppressive to women.  S&M is a valid
expression of human sexuality for some people.  The dissemination of that
idea can give people a kind of permission to express their sexuality more
freely.  It is far from obvious that the women involved were in any way
oppressed or coerced, and even less obvious that the distribution of the
images over the net is in any way harmful.  That it is *possible* to
"use" such images to fuel harmful behaviour is not really in doubt --
however there is no evidence to suggest that eliminating them removes
the real problem.

>	1) The images are pornographic, not 'erotic': consult any of your
>female colleagues for their opinions

You might also wish to ask them whether they believe that the fact that such
images are available over the net in any way demeans or oppresses them given
the fact that exactly the same material is available in general society.
Symbolic gestures are meaningless here (an idea which the strongly pro-
censorship Dworkin endorses wholeheartedly), what matters is what you
believe and what you are prepared to do about it.  If you feel strongly,
contact a group such as Women Against Sexual Violence Propaganda (I
believe they're headquartered somewhere in Carlton, Melbourne) and find
out what you can do to help their cause.  If you are instrumental in having
material on the net censored, you cannot sit back and feel smug having done
your bit, because as far as society as a whole goes, you have achieved
nothing of any practical value!

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

Now, that's a good reason.

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

It is not up to your employers.  In an academic environment the censorship
and freedom issues are important.  You don't have to receive any newsgroup
you don't want, and you don't have to use AARNet -- of course, to get the
same functionality you'd need to build your own national network, with it's
own overseas link, and you have to negotiate interconnect and message
transfer with AARNet.

I hope this hasn't come across as too permissive/liberal.  I actually find
this a very confusing issue, and there are certainly things which I would
ban were it up to me.  But it's not up to me, and I have to support a
democratic process because I'm highly reluctant to hand that kind of
power over to somebody else, either!

Mark.
          --------------------------------------------------------
              Mark Summerfield,  Photonics Research Laboratory
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne  
                ACSnet[AARN/Internet]: summer@ee.mu.oz[.au] 
          --------------------------------------------------------
   "This terminal is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone
    to meet its maker. This is a late terminal. It's a stiff. Bereft of
     life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the bench, it
      would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and
            joined the choir invisible. This is an X-Terminal!"
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc