On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:18:57PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: > In other words, you are unwilling to discuss the case on its legal > merits, and would rather turn me into some sort of strawman for > censorship. Look, in a perfect world, censorship laws would not be > needed, because sexuality would be discussed maturely and only where > apropriate. This is far from a perfect world however, and *ANY* > forum where underage people are allowed is not the place for sexually > explicit materials.
As far as I can tell, your argument is: In a perfect world, ___(X)___ would not be needed, because everything would be perfect. This is far from a perfect world however, so ___(X)___ certainly is needed. Of course, this argument is just a tautology, and can be used to "prove" any (X) one cares to fill in the blank. Would you care to explain EXACTLY why you, or anyone else except parents, have the right to be the judge of what others may read? What makes you so much wiser or holier than others, that you can decide what is okay for everyone to read or write? > Should we add a parental advisory for subscribers to this list stating > that vulgar language and graphic sexual descriptions are sometimes > posted to this list? Language is language. Vulgar is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like it, don't read it. If parents don't like it, they can do their best to prevent their children from reading it. It seems futile, though. Almost all of the kids in the neighborhood I grew up in had easy access to sexual pictures, movies, and writing. I imagine the same holds for most kids today, especially with the information explosion of the last decade. There's nothing wrong with sexual material. The problems come mostly from abusing others or unwanted pregnancies. The best way to reduce those problems is MORE information and discussion, not less. But if you feel it is necessary to warn others away from writing of this nature, that is your perogative. But you have no right to forcibly censor others. > Would you think the average person would even join a list that had > such an advisory? Millions of people go to R-rated movies. > Should we remove anyone from the list if we find out they are from > a region where such material is against the law? Should we require > that all members be over 17 years of age? You say that freedom of > expression is above all else, but in saying so, you exclude people who > can make valid contributions to the list. Talk about strawmen! I exclude no one, even you who I am finding more and more offensive. YOU are the self-appointed morality cop proposing exclusion. Point the finger at me all you want, but you'd do better to look in a mirror. > Contributions with value. I say that we exclude one person who's > contributions have questionable value *if* he refuses to curb the > vulgar/sexually explicit discussion. .... > My solution may be "evil" in your book, but it is the lesser of 2 > evils. Here we go again. As far as I can tell, your argument is: I judge that ___(Y)___ has less value than ___(Z)___. Therefore, it is okay to take away (Y)'s rights if it inconveniences (Z). This is a versatile argument. It has been used in various forms by religious fundamentalists, by common thieves, by authoritarian governments, and by genocidal maniacs. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
