From: kornkven@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ed Kornkven)
Subject: Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:59:07 GMT


A little behind in my news reading--looks like folks LOVED my last post :-)
I don't have time to answer all objections at once but I'll chip away just
to keep things stirred up.


maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov writes:

 > The Supremes have, over and over, ad naseum, determined that content specific
 > restrictions on speech, be it verbal or symbolic, constitute unacceptable
 > censorship.

Partly right, I suppose.  But even the most liberal Courts have upheld the
notion of *illegal* pornography.  As another example, the FCC still
exercises regulation of the airwaves.  So, the common misconception that this
"right" is absolute is false.

 > Where will it end? When people like you get their way and we are all limited to
 > your world view, by surgery, bullets or drugs. Or more precisely, the world
 > view deemed correct by the powers-that-be. Unless, of course, people like you
 > learn tolerance-- if that happened, it would end tomorrow.

Red-herring?  I have no desire to force my world-view on you or
anybody else.  What I am arguing is that this notion of an *absolute*
right to speak is a modern invention, never intended by the founding
fathers.  Do you dispute this?  I will agree that this presents some
sticky problems but we can discuss those rationally, can't we?

 >Maybe *YOU* ought to REREAD the letter that Carl forwarded.  I just did. Three
 >times. You blew it... here's the relavant passage:

You may be right--unfortunately that item has expired on my machine.  If
so, I apologize.

> > (6) Again, for emphasis:
> >     It would have been no contradiction for those who penned
> >     and ratified the First Amendment to use their common-sense
> >     and pitch sewage masquerading as art in the trash....
> 
> Ok, Bubba. Where do you get off calling Feminist Art trash? 

I didn't call feminist art trash.  Now you get to re-read.


StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
 > 
 > kornkven@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ed Kornkven) writes:
 > 
 > : (4) I personally am getting fed up with being told, "Well, just
 > :     don't go in there if it bothers you so much", or "Just don't
 > 
 > My problem with the paragraph above is, who decides what is "normal"
 > and "proper," and just where is the dividing line between the
 > preferences of the "majority", and the attempts of various "minorities"
 > to express themselves with an equal chance for exposure as the "majority."

I would say that the issue is not a matter of "majority" or "minority"
opinions for sure.  Contrary to the impression that I apparently left
by my post, it is fundamental that minority opinions must be protected.
Perhaps the issue is a combination of *how* the expression is made and
*where* it is made.  For instance, can I "express" my contempt for
someone by punching them?  Surely not.  Just as sure to me is that
some forms of expression are not suitable for *all* arenas.  Some
people apparently believe that *everything* should be available
*everywhere*.  I do not.  I suppose I should explain that I believe
that there are images that are *damaging* to people.  Nobody should
have the right to "damage" me--and it is really unnecessary.  Such a
restriction on the venue of materials doesn't constitute such a
terrible threat I don't think.  It's OK that such restrictions make a person
nervous (they do even for me) but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
for the good of society.  And they have been, since this country was
founded until recent times, constitutional.

Ed


From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP