HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:01:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>> 
>Fine.  I (and I hope most others) do not care what your personal values are,
>provided that it does not impact on anyone else.  You are probably like many
>people for whom porn is pure entertainment and will not be lead to lower your
>opinion of women, or to rape, kill etc.  But there are a large number of men
>out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
>the standards by which women are treated, and there are a very small number
>who will be lead to violence by pornography.  I would be prepared to forego
>some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BZZZZTTTTTTT!@!@

begging the question. we all would forgo minor entertainment to prevent women
from getting raped. However, as an advocate of change, YOU must first prove
that the removal of pornography from our society {whether or not that is
possible is a whole other issue, and also one on which pro-censorship people
suffer} will actually reduce rape in our society. Such proof has not yet
been presented, not is it likely to be.

rape is not something that originated with the advent of pornography.
attacking expression, as vile as it may seem to you, under the guise of
attacking rape does great violence, not only to our principles of
free expression, but also to legitimate efforts to end rape.

-rob


Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7962 alt.conspiracy:11071
From: mpevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:32:59 GMT

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.211740.30378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>     kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>[ Quoting the Republican Platform]

>>But if hard- core pornography does not cheapen the human spirit, then
>>neither does Shakespeare elevate it.

>   But what is The Republican Party that it should feel the right to
>dictate what someone does with their "spirit," a concept the United
>States Government doesn't even recognize?

I would guess they take the view that anything agreeing with their views
is ok anything which disacrees is not.

>>especially since the Commission on Pornography, in 1986, found a
>>direct link between pornography and violent crimes committed against
>>women and children.

>   The Commission found no such link.  In fact, their statement on the
>matter concludes: "Even though no visible link between pornography and
>violence was demonstrable in the material presented, COMMON SENSE
>DICTATES that there is a link, yet to be found."  (Emphasis Mine).
>"Common sense."  Horseshit.

They looked for one, didn't find one, still think there  should be
and probably want to try again until they get the RIGHT results.
This statement came out of a political manefesto, these are
hardly the most un-biassed documents in the world.

>   We must remember that the Commission on Pornography was the laughing
>stock of ever major newspaper in the country, that it was given, in
>numerical dollars, just 7% of what the 1972 Commission of Pornography
>was given ($780,000 vs $11 million), and that the 1972 Comission on
>Pornography recommended _the decriminialization of pornography_ because
>no such link between pornography and violence could be demonstrated
>then, either!  Of course, the Republicans through out that Comission's
>work, too...

But these figures are probably penuts compared with the ammount spent
on catching pornography producers.

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:18:20 GMT

In article <FISCHER.92Oct10062614@steiner.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
>
>
>This only goes to show us that it is *not* the subject matter that
>decides what is good or bad art. "Guernica" is an important work of
>art even if what is shown is not an example to follow. It is the
>artistic rendering of the subject matter that makes one work good and
>another bad, not the subject matter itself.
>
>This tells us that outlawing art based on subject matter is silly. You
>cannot, based on the subject matter alone, know if a work is
>worthwhile.
>
>Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
>CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin

While I am not one to judge whether any particular piece of art is good
or bad, I do have an opinion or two of the art which is being produced
today.  

I think that there is a lot of art out there which I would prefer not to
see (and if the truth be known, prefer not to exist).  Which isn't a big
problem, really, except that my tax dollars are being used to subsidize
some of these art projects.  This is what my problem is.

The only thing which I consider necessary for a work of art is the
appreciation of one individual or another (not necessarily me).  If
nobody will buy a piece of art, then it may be the case that type of art
shouldn't be pursued (even if the artist likes it).

In other words, let art support itself.  I have a good appreciation for
what I consider good art, and I am willing to pay a premium for it, in
order to allow that artist (and that type of art) to continue their role
as artist in our society.  The problem with government subsidy is there
is no person to approve the art (and no person capable of it, since
tastes differ so vastly) and I consider most of the money wasted.  Our
society WILL provide the means for a good artist who is producing
appreciated works to continue.  However I believe that the artist who is
unappreciated should get a job on an assembly line and trust a union to
give him fair wages (which is another matter entirely) and quit wasting
the tax payers money.

Mark A. Morrell
Disclaimer:  These opinions are mine only, but they ought to be yours.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8018 alt.politics.elections:15965
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:13:46 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Oct7.152130.5388@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>You know, it was a big news story at the time.  I'm not going to find the
>tape for you.  Everyone who saw it knows what I'm talking about.  You can
>choose to believe whatever you like.

Read: If you won't just take my word for it--even though it contradicts
      what you have observed yourself--then I'm going to pack up and go
      home.


Funny how "everyone" hasn't spoken up to provide an (in-context) quote
to back up your claim, or even to agree with you.

You can claim whatever you like, but as I said, I have heard Ice-T
speak several times on the topic, and I have never heard him endorse
the killing of cops--though I have heard him specifically reject the
idea that he *endorses* such behavior.

As such, when someone makes a claim to the contrary (but provides no quote--
just their own interpretation of the quote) I have to be extremely skeptical.
It could be that he was lying, or that he has changed his story, but I'll
need a little more than just your say-so to draw that conclusion.

I've also heard lots of people claim that "Cop-Killer" itself *endorsed*
killing cops, and we know how much merit that claim has...


-- 
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?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (long)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:58:28 GMT


I've added it. The reference is enclosed.

You can also get it via gopher (if you have gopher):
  gopher gopher.eff.org

It is under "Computers and Academic ..."/"Civil Liberty ..."/"Human Right .."

- Carl

=================ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty/README ===
=================
README
=================
* Civil Liberty Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is an on-line collection of civil liberty statements. It includes
the American Civil Liberties Union's planks for its "Campaign for the
Bill of Rights '92". (The ACLU material is made available by permission
of the American Civil Liberties Union)

The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory
"pub/academic/civil-liberty".  For email access, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:

send acad-freedom/civil-liberty <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).

=================
faq.pointer
=================
An article by Jyrki Kuoppala with an outline of an FAQ (Frequently
Asked Questions w/ Answers) for civil liberities. Includes information
about a civil liberties gopher.

=================
campaign-92.aclu
=================
* Campaign 92 -- ACLU

yes
The American Civil Liberties Union's planks for its "Campaign for the
Bill of Rights '92". The planks are 1) a national campaign against
bigotry and racism, 2) constitutional protection for a woman's right
to choose, 3) a realistic approach to crime and punishment, 4) a Bill
of Rights for all working people.

=================
human-rights.un
=================
* Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- United Nations

The full text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by
the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

=================
women-against-censorship
=================
Excerpts from _Women Against Censorship_. Edited by Varda Burstyn.
Douglas & McIntyre Limited, 1985.

=================
womens-rights.1848
=================
The Declaration of Sentiments from the first Women's Rights convention
in the United States, held in Seneca Falls, New York, the nineteenth
and twentieth of July, 1848. Among the famous who signed are Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, whose home in Seneca Falls is now part of the Women's
Rights National Park, and Frederick Douglass.

=================
=================
Last update
Fri Oct  9 01:46:15 EDT 1992

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8019 alt.politics.elections:15972 uiuc.civil-liberty:71 alt.sex:32523
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:33:06 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Oct9.144544.24382@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>
>>sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>>"If you accept the premise that porn doesn't cheapen the human spirit,
>>then you must also accept that Shakespeare does not elevate it.  The
>>latter is false -- Shakespeare DOES elevate the soul -- therefore the
>>former is also false -- pornography DOES cheapen the soul."
> 
>IT seems clear that that is what the intent and faulty logic was meant
>to do.  But is it true that Shakespeare elevates the soul?  The
>question begs a religious arguement vis-a-vis the concept of soul and
>wha tit means to elevate it but...  With a mear high-school and college
>lit. Shakespeare background, along with a few plays taken in for the
>pleasure of it I can think  of many things in Bill's stuff that would
>get it banned: incest, murder, treason, madness, ghosts, witches, omens,
>anti-semitism, suicide, teen lust and sex (and disobeying parents),
>bawdy language, sexual innuendo and plain sex, women manipulating their
>husbands, oppression of women, I could go on (I think).  Of course much
>of the above list could be describing the Bible as well as a movie
>playing at a theatre near you.
>
	Actually, Shakespeare is just rattling good theatre, for the most
part.  This "elevate the soul" bulldada comes from people who have never
actually seen or performed the stuff, but have learned that Shakespeare is
a sort of Cultural God -- someone you worship but not enjoy.
	And, yes, the same theocratic ninnyhammers who want to ban everything
in sight are also active in making the Bard of Avon morally acceptable for
our public schools by (for example) cutting out any sexual references in
"Romeo and Juliet" or "Hamlet", thereby rendering huge chunks of the plays
incomprehensible.
	Otherwise, we might have to ban Shakespeare entirely, lest the
subject matter inspire criminal behavior.  Heck, aren't you willing to give
up a little classic drama to save women from a Fate Worse Than Death?

>Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
>Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
>Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
>Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Summary: Using Shakespeare as a role model
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:37:29 GMT

In article <BvtqL2.EBA@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> >kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >>[Michael Lax has posted the Republican Platform to
> >>alt.politics.elections. Here are the excerpts related to pornography,
> >>arts funding, and censorship. - Carl]
> >>
> >>Some would have us believe that obscenity and
> >>pornography have no social impact.  But if hard- core pornography does
> >>not cheapen the human spirit, then neither does Shakespeare elevate
> >>it.
> >
> >Huh?  Is this a hugh non-sequitur?
> 
> Yes, I believe it IS a huge non-sequitur.  But I think the sense was
> supposed to be
> 
> "If you accept the premise that porn doesn't cheapen the human spirit,
> then you must also accept that Shakespeare does not elevate it.  The
> latter is false -- Shakespeare DOES elevate the soul -- therefore the
> former is also false -- pornography DOES cheapen the soul."
> 
> Thus we see not only a non-sequitur, but a person who failed Logic 101.
> 
> -- 

I find it hysterical that people are using Shakespeare as a role model
for writers.  Shakespeare "elevating" the human spirit?  How about
assassination, suicide, witchcraft, cannabilism, betrayal, -
in the dramas.  What about cross dressing and falling in love
with a guy with a donkey's head in the comedies?  :-) Then there are a host
of lesser issues that Shakespeare's supporters might or might not
support, like anti-semitic characters and  rascist characters
as heros.  Shakespeare was the Wes Craven of his day.


marc colten
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Gore
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:18:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	Al Gore.....do you want Tipper to be the second lady ?



	The PMRC will be joyous about that...


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.103139.11289@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>> Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
>> 
>Oh, probably someone who has been looking at some evidence, rather than just
>supporting one's self-interest.

Hmmmm....you've been asked repeatedly for said evidence, and voluminous
evidence to the contrary has been posted here.  I can e-mail it to you,
if perchance you missed it.  We're eagerly awaiting _your_ evidence,
but I'd imagine none of us are holding our breath....Facts never seem
to get in the way of would-be censors.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:47:36 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct6.221631.14583@col.hp.com>

In their 1992 platform, the Republican dweebs write:

>"We must recognize that the time has come for a national crusade
>against pornography.  Some would have us believe that obscenity and
>pornography have no social impact.  But if hard- core pornography does
>not cheapen the human spirit, then neither does Shakespeare elevate
>it.  

Ha!

Reverend Bowdler, call your office...


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Sinead
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:25:54 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Why is Sinead O'conner mentioned under this heading so many times?

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv,or.politics
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:43:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.204659.1@vxcrna.cern.ch>
     roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.071431.17466@nwnexus.WA.COM>,
>     elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternber>g) writes:

>> [ Quoting the Republican Party position on pornography ]
>>>However, no
>>>artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
>>>private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
>>>basis on which our society is founded.

>>    "Art provides the people of the state with a moral guidance and
>> direction of purpose.  No artist should be allowed to exhibit his works
>> in our libraries, museums, and public squares, if they do not extoll
>> and support the virtues of The Fatherland."  - Adolph Hitler.

>However, the only support I wish to give to an artist is the purchase
>price of a work or the admission price to a showing.  Any artist's 
>claim to the tax money taken from me is, in my opinion, tantamount
>to theft.

   Oh, I agree absolutely.  But if there's going to be a National
Endowment for the Arts _at all_, then the criteria by which funding is
distributed should not be dictated by a party, an ideology, or a
religion.

         Elf !!!

-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8074 alt.politics.elections:16971
From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:50:00 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Oct9.173731.28309@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

> 	- handguns are demostrably *at least* as much a contributor to murder
> as pornography or erotica are to rape.  By your logic, the State should
> immediately ban all handguns.
> 	- knives and other sharp implements are routinely used in murders.
> Aren't you willing to give up a little kitchen implement to to prevent a
> woman being stabbed to death? >:-)>

 But, I guess, my whole point is that these other items (handguns, knives) have
other, legimate, uses.  What do you really lose by forgoing pornography?  I
admit I did miss the original post concerning the stats of some study, but
still think that there is *some* porn that should be censored (note *some*
rather than all, just as we might want to regulate the carrying of *some*
guns, or *some* knives) if there is some evidence to support the theory that it
promotes violence.  My search starts in earnest shortly.


Stephen..
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8047 alt.politics.elections:16261
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:54:21 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <BvwCEn.L91@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
....
>
>The only thing which I consider necessary for a work of art is the
>appreciation of one individual or another (not necessarily me).  If
>nobody will buy a piece of art, then it may be the case that type of art
>shouldn't be pursued (even if the artist likes it).
>
...
>
>Mark A. Morrell
>Disclaimer:  These opinions are mine only, but they ought to be yours.

Would you say the same thing aobut the Search for Extra Terrestrail 
Intelligence?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:31:50 GMT

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>[Michael Lax has posted the Republican Platform to
>>alt.politics.elections. Here are the excerpts related to pornography,
>>arts funding, and censorship. - Carl]
>>
>>Some would have us believe that obscenity and
>>pornography have no social impact.  But if hard- core pornography does
>>not cheapen the human spirit, then neither does Shakespeare elevate
>>it.
>
>Huh?  Is this a hugh non-sequitur?

Yes, I believe it IS a huge non-sequitur.  But I think the sense was
supposed to be

"If you accept the premise that porn doesn't cheapen the human spirit,
then you must also accept that Shakespeare does not elevate it.  The
latter is false -- Shakespeare DOES elevate the soul -- therefore the
former is also false -- pornography DOES cheapen the soul."

Thus we see not only a non-sequitur, but a person who failed Logic 101.

-- 
HYPOCRISY HALL OF FAME:                  | Dan Hartung               |  Ask me
"I would think very hard and long about  | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us |  about
voting for a presidential candidate who  | Birch Grove Software      | Rotaract!
has had an affair."  -- Gennifer Flowers!