From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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? As I have said before and you are just to flame-happy to listen to. I don't give a damn what anyone reads or writes, as long as it is in an appropriate forum. By law, in America (You know, the place where the listservers are located, the place that has legal authority over the contents of the list), any real-world forum that includes underage people cannot discuss or depict explicit sexual acts. Laws have been enacted that extend similar protections toward the internet, but failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts because the law was too broad. Make no mistake, such laws will eventually be enacted and hold up to judicial scrutiny. Law aside, I don't think any forum that allows underage people should be discussing explicit sexual acts. Who am I to decide? I'm nobody... Who are you to decide that underage people on the list *should* have access to it? Like you said, only parents should decide that, so if a parent wants their child to be able to join porno lists, that is the parent's choice. By allowing sexual material on this list, you deny an underage person with prudish parents the right to join this list simply so perverts on list can publically exchange stroking material. > > 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. So because it is futile you don't even think we should put forth the effort to make this list a safe place for *everyone*, where everyone has *equal* rights? > 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. Like you said, "Who are you to decide?" That which is or is not apropriate content for a developing mind is up to the parents of those children, not you. In a prudish country like America most parents would not allow their children to participate in a list that has sexually explicit material. > > Would you think the average person would even join a list that had > > such an advisory? > > Millions of people go to R-rated movies. Yeah, but how many go to NC-17? That is the appropriate rating for movies that contain explicit sexual content, and Hollywood is so afraid of that rating that studios have editted finished movies just to get the movie down to "R". > > 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. Wrong, my argument is: I judge that a portion or (Y)'s rights has less value than the whole of (Z)'s rights. Therefore, is it ok to take a protion of (Y)'s rights away if that portion of (Y)'s rights takes away all of (Z)'s rights. I have said that I would welcome him to stay *if* he agreed to refrain from obscenity and vulgarity. I don't want to deprive him of his right to post, I just don't think he should be allowed to post obscene/vulgar materials on-list because the presence of those materials can deny underage list members *any* rights on this list. Again, you are too flame-happy to actually read these points of mine and would rather make me a strawman and equate me with Adolph Hitler than to try and look at the logic of what I am saying. Oh, and just in case you are atributing even more strawman atrributes to me, I am not saying "no sexual discusion" I am saying "no sexually explicit materials". Sexual discussion can take place on a list without being explicit. Heck, sexual discussion is the topic of prime-time sit-coms and even the jokes in cartoons. Sexual discussion is not taboo... sexually explicit discussion is taboo though.
