HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:31:53 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Jonathan Dwyer)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:10:15 GMT


Just my $0.02 worth (for Geoff) from a random point in the discussion:

We can be liberal or conservative,

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

Y> Well, lets extend this line of thought - ban all the newsgroups except
Y> aus.* comp.*  bionet.* and sci.* 

and we can be anywhere else too,  and the neat thing about AARNet
or USENET is that so many points of view are tolerated and often
vigorously :) discussed.

HOWEVER, we all know what the media make of such things
in their scramble for advertising ratings, and remember what
happened to Prodigy.......

If the discussion of AARNet and its content ever hits shows like
Hinch, Current Affair or even 7:30 Report, we all know that the
'outraged (not to mention recession-squeezed) taxpayer' routine
will be dragged out, leading to the government imposed 'quick fix'
to mollify the supposed 'outraged taxpayers'.

Should this happen, the parameters of the 'quick fix' will probably
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the easiest targets, IMHO.

This raises the question:  Should there be easy targets available, i.e.
should AARNet allow a few controversial newsgroups to remain, which
may then be 'sacrificed' in case of trouble.....or.....should AARNet remove
such newsgroups in the hope of avoiding media attention to begin with?

Of course this assumes a definition of 'targets' limited to newsgroups.

Just, as I said, my 'passing thought'  ichi-yen (inflation modifed) worth...

Jon

BTW Is there any truth to the rumor that some major component of
AARNet funding has been removed in the interests of 'user pays'??

--
                        | Internet:            jonathan@gauss.psy.uq.oz.au
Jonathan Dwyer          | Bitnet: jonathan%psych.psy.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Department of Psychology| JANET:     jonathan%psych.psy.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
University of Queensland| EAN:                    jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz
AUSTRALIA   4072        | UUCP:     uunet!munnari!psych.psy.uq.oz!jonathan
                        | JUNET:               jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au

 
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: TK0JUT1@NIU.bitnet (Jim Thomas                   , tk0jut1@niu.bitnet)
Subject: Question on sexual harassment
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:12:00 GMT

The past discussions of electronic sexual harassment were
informative, but perhaps somebody could expand on an answer to the
following question:

What recourse would a woman have if a hostile adult (over 21)
distributed a gif file (a look-alike image, not a photographic
one) of an approximation of her nude, on her back, in a
spread-legged position and made it explicitly clear that the
graphic intended to be this woman, both by physical features and
by labelling?

If the person claimed to be developing such a program, perhaps
embedded in a virus program, under university auspices, would this
violate most sexual harassment codes if it were distributed on
BBSes (rather than on Usenet)? If he informed the woman of the
program via internet from a university account, could this be
grounds to invoke university response? (assume that the male and
female live in separate states and that the female is unaffiliated
with the university).

What options might a woman have in such a case?

Jim Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
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 07:44:13 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: phil@iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:24:37 GMT

In article <1h5q7eINNpnn@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, sthomas@library.adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas) writes:

> My reaction after reading the full post was: "Hey, this guy is _right_!".
> In fact, I'll stick my neck way, way out and not only second this post,
> but add that 99% of the alt.* hierarchy is also junk and should not be
> permitted on AARNet.

But so is 99% of rec.  This is a point that I was trying to make when the
cencorship debate was raging.

Consider the 7 main heirachies:

   comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk

If you believe that alt should go, then so should rec, soc and talk, for
much the same reasons.  In fact while you are at it, why not get rid of misc
and a few of the sci groups.  Then consider that surely some of the comp
groups are not really of any useful research use...

Do you see where we are going?

Who is going to set themselves above the rest and claim the title of
net.police?

If you or your site do not like some groups, then *DON'T* *GET* *THEM*.


If you disagree with my arguments here, before you followup and flame me,
come up with a good reason why rec.pets.fish should be allowed on the
AARNet.


Regards,
Phil.

--
   _-_|\    Phil Kernick                        "Sleep all day,
  /     \   University of Adelaide               Party all night,
  \_.-*_/   E-Mail: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au    It's fun to be a
       v    Phone:  +61 8 228 5914               Vampire!"
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet & pornography
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:10:02 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet & pornography
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:55:04 GMT

ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:

>I hope that some of you reading these postings - for and against my suggestion
>that Aarnet should not be carrying pornography - widen your reading lists a bit
>to include at least _some_ academic discussions of pornography, and don't just
>assume that the use of womens' bodies is as nothing compared to other crimes
>and vices.

Material which essentially supports the views Phil has expressed:

Anything by Andrea Dworkin -- I have read her novel _Mercy_, and a couple
of articles which I'm afraid I don't have references handy for.  She has
written other novels, and non-fiction.  There was also a documentary about
her on SBS in about September last year; I'm sure SBS could provide details
about whether it's available anywhere.  It was quite good -- it summarised
her views well, and provided plenty of food for thought.
_The Beauty Myth_ by Naomi Wolfe.
_Backlash: the war against women_ by Susan Faludi (I think I've got the
	subtitle right).

"Feminist" material which takes an opposing view:

_Hardcore_ by Linda Williams.
_Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nephetiti to Emily Dickinson_ by
	Camille Paglia.  She's also got a new book out whose title I forget
	but which is currently sitting on the new releases shelves in most
	bookshops.
_Sex Exposed_.  This is an anthology of anti-censorship writings by
	prominent feminists (including Linda Williams).  I think Williams
	is also co-editor, but I'm not sure off the top of my head -- ask
	for it by title.

Anti-feminist garbage:

Anything by Fred Nile, John Singleton, George Bush, the John Hewson joke
book, the Construction-Site-Hard-Hat-Wolf-Whistle-Brigade... :-)

Whilst all of the above is faily "academic", none of it is particularly
esoteric: from the "popular front" as it were.  You should be able to
find all of the titles at any respectable bookshop.

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
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 07:46:52 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:59:14 GMT

In article <1hk002INNa1j@zikzak.apana.org.au> zik@zikzak.apana.org.au (Michael Saleeba) writes:
>ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:
>
>>       +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>          Pornography available via Internet News!
>>       +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
	[..]
>I view any attempt by you to restrict what I
>read as an infrigement of my personal freedom and quite immoral.

The original author was suggesting a course of action which would
only have undermined a particularly cozy dissemination path.

>I should point out that I run a public access UNIX system.

So you should be more than well enough aware that your "personal
freedom" extends only as far as the equipment and services _you_
pay for, or the government explicitly provides.
 
>  [..]   AARNet
>has a responsibility to the people they feed news to as well as the
>more immediate interests of their members.

Que? Do you have a contract with AARNet that states they will guarantee
supply of all (or even _any_) of the alt.* newsgroups? 

	[..]
>Now people are missing out on
>important information on pharmaceuticals and AARNet is wide open to
>being sued by people who suffer through the lack of this information.

I'm intrigued (and quite ignorant on this legal point). How can _not_
allowing alt.drugs to be transported over AARNet links open them up
to legal action? (And who the hell makes life and death decisions based
on what they read in an alt.* group?) Is AARNet then going to be held liable
for the _accuracy_ of the drug advice in alt.drugs? 

>Censorship cannot fail but be offensive to people.

But so few people in our western society are truely censored.
They just whinge that things aren't paid for by others.

gja
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
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 07:44:46 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: isaac@etrog.se.citri.edu.au (Isaac Balbin)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:28:01 GMT

It is a lot of things, but I don't see how it is "clear sexual harrassment"
I don't see how someone reading this newsgroup is thereby sexually
harrassing his female secretary.

Amongst other news groups, these aren't directly related to research---although
I could imagine a sociologist or psychologist making reference to such
groups.

The only question I have is one of legality.
If it is illegal it should be stopped. If it is not illegal, go ahead and
shout to get it stopped because that is ALSO your democratic right.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
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 07:44:08 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: sthomas@library.adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 01:15:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.085300.1@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au> ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:
> 
>       +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>      
>          Pornography available via Internet News!
>
>       +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
My initial reaction to this post was: "Oh no, here we go again - another
debate about censorship etc. etc.".

My reaction after reading the full post was: "Hey, this guy is _right_!".
In fact, I'll stick my neck way, way out and not only second this post,
but add that 99% of the alt.* hierarchy is also junk and should not be
permitted on AARNet.

[Actually, before anyone else suggests it, that "99%" is only a gut
feeling - I have not closely examined even 5%, but I can extrapolate
from what I have seen :-) ]

I think it is time that we, the AARNet users, took an honest look at
the alt.* newsgroups, and considered whether

	- they are offensive
	- they have any merit in a _research_ context
	- they contravene any legal statutes

i.e. basically do they meet the AARNet guidelines for acceptable use. If
the answer is no, then they should be eliminated.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
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 07:47:26 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:53:38 GMT

In article <1ibbrfINN2hp@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>In article 9737@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU, gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:
>>But so few people in our western society are truely censored.
>>They just whinge that things aren't paid for by others.
>
>Are you serious ? You are an adult right ?

No, I'm a gifted horse. 

>Can you watch a movie in this country 
>that has not been approved by someone else ?
>They actually take bits out and say
>"no I don't think the likes of Grenville should see this" and you never do.
	[..]
>Of course I guess you are not truly censored.

You've missed a perfect analogy. The govt may censor a particular "newsfeed"
(TV, public video libraries, etc) - but I'm still able to get almost any
movie direct from the source on tape, no? So, no I'm not really censored.

	[..]
>But someone has said, "no Grenville should do this, even
>though no-one is being harmed by his actions, regardless of whether they are
>consensual or not".
>
>Of course I guess this is not truly censorship. [..]

No, I consider govt intrusion into consensual arrangements as a problem too.

Of course, if you'd read what I writ, you'd not have got into such a flap.
Much chest beating over censorship is merely about how easy it is to
obtain XYZ documents or material. So few people are truly censored,
because the instances of true censorship (where _all_ possible avenues
of access to XYZ are blocked or removed) apply to few activities in
our society.

gja
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Question on sexual harassment
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:28:42 GMT

Jim Thomas                   , tk0jut1@niu.bitnet (TK0JUT1@NIU.bitnet) wrote:
: The past discussions of electronic sexual harassment were
: informative, but perhaps somebody could expand on an answer to the
: following question:
: 
: What recourse would a woman have if a hostile adult (over 21)
: distributed a gif file (a look-alike image, not a photographic
: one) of an approximation of her nude, on her back, in a
: spread-legged position and made it explicitly clear that the
: graphic intended to be this woman, both by physical features and
: by labelling?

Different from a drawing or painting?

: 
Where did the jump from scanned images to programs come from.

: If the person claimed to be developing such a program, perhaps
: embedded in a virus program, under university auspices, would this
: violate most sexual harassment codes if it were distributed on
: BBSes (rather than on Usenet)? If he informed the woman of the
                                    ^^ or it could just as easily be
she according to your first paragraph!!
: program via internet from a university account, could this be
: grounds to invoke university response? (assume that the male and
                                                          ^^^^ 
adding this condition may change the situation from the original
description considering the existance of sexual herassment codes
which are sexist in either construction (or execution)

: female live in separate states and that the female is unaffiliated
: with the university).

You don't make much sense...
(it looks like you are trying to generalise something...)
: 
: What options might a woman have in such a case?
(any comprehensive answer to this would run into many pages)
: 
: Jim Thomas

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.]  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:49:36 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject:  Re: Babak Sehari postings -- iastate.edu is dealing
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:16:06 GMT

In <1ie4t2INNhcr@agate.berkeley.edu> dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) writes:

>I would think that the information about what happens to Mr. Sehari
>would come under federal student privacy laws, and therefore not be
>appropriate for distribution on Usenet.


Does this mean the date and time of his public flogging will not be announced?
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Personal Computer requirements
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:03:40 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <199301042133.AA05055@eff.org> U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU writes:
>WRT the query last week in these pages on whether a university should require
>students to buy personal computers:  it all boils down to whom the university
>wants to shift many of the computing costs to, itself or its students.  By
>making students shell out hundreds of bucks per capita for the hard-drive-
>equipped PC's needed to run the microcomputer releases of many statistical
>packages, a school saves itself the cost of maintaining as much hardware and
>software on the multiuser system; but the students are therefore deprived of
>the additional power and features that reside in the mainframe releases of
>this software.  Overall, it is better to give students accounts on a fully
>equipped system then to force them to buy and equip microcomputers of their
>own.
>
Another point is that if all the students are using only personally owned PCs,
they would lose out on the power of networking.  WHat about ftp, email,
telnetting, accessing Usenet?  These sorts of things need to be provided
by the university if the students are going to benefit.

-- 
<< Michael Rogero Brown                      | Disclaimer: I speak     >>
<< CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ |  only for myself.       >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu        | All my opinions are     >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                    |  that: mine & opinions. >>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
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 07:44:31 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: sthomas@library.adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: 23 Dec 1992 06:11:22 GMT

In article <1h883lINNpuv@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>
>If you disagree with my arguments here, before you followup and flame me,
>come up with a good reason why rec.pets.fish should be allowed on the
>AARNet.
>
One, I would never flame anyone for giving an honest opinion. Indeed,
one of the reasons I find the alt groups so tiresome is the % of flames
to useful dialog. IMHO, flames are a waste of everyone's time.

Two, I have no wish to defend rec.pets.fish, or any other group in
particular. What the thread is about is whether *obviously* offensive
material should be propagated, and I think that we should be able to
make a rational and intelligent distinction between what is acceptable
and what is not: rec.pets.fish would probably not be offensive,
alt.sex.pictures certainly would be.

But, I concede your point, and maybe I did go a bit overboard.
Henceforth, I will defend to the death the right of others to read and
post absolute crap - OK?
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk