----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 10:49 PM Subject: Re: Sexually explicit materials, censorship, and strawmen.
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:40:54PM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: > > > But my point (and Reggie's initially) is that is not about any > > individual's convenience, it's about the civilisation/community as a > > whole. > > Yes, exactly. And my point is about rights of people in a community > versus convenience of people in a community. When people believe > too strongly that convenience outweighs rights, then things will go > downhill. But, freedom of speech does not mean one has the right to say whatever one wants where-ever one wants. That doesn't mean that certain forums cannot have rules for modes of expression. For example, people do not have a constitutional right to show pornographic pictures at an open air art show on the town green. You may argue that people who don't want to see their pictures are just inconvenienced because they cannot go to the green without looking at those pictures. I'd argue that the person who wants to show his pictures loses no constitution right if he is simply asked to find some other forum in which to display his art. The same is true here. There is no constitutional right to post in any given list. There are plenty of forums to post sexual fantasies. There is no reason that one's rights are limited when certain forums have ground rules for posting in those forums. Requesting that members find forums appropriate for those posts is not censorship. It is, perhaps, a bit of moderation, but not censorship. I think Nicks discussion of this is very much on target. I'll give an example of a good moderated list: sci.physics.research. Only posts that seriously discuss questions in physics are accepted in that newsgroups. Crackpot theories are not; casual discussions between contributors to the newsgroup are not. Those are posted in sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity and alt.sci.physics IIRC. There is no censorship involved. There is a lot more moderation than is appropriate for Brin-L, IMHO, but no censorship. Indeed, I do not want moderation for Brin-L, but even if it were introduced, that would not be a question of censorship. Now I do agree with Gautam that we should not have a moderated list were certain political opinions cannot be posted. However, I think discussions of whether former a list member's spouse is a bad husband is not appropriate for this list. I think describing a sexual fantasy in detail is not appropriate for this list. As long as there are other forums to discuss these topics, there is no censorship. Using that word for this consideration is inaccurate. It is not evil for civilizations to have rules that limit the actions of its members. There are science fiction books where libertarian political philosophy works, but there are no communities where it does. With regards to language use, I can see very clear examples of what is and what is not censorship. Arresting a comedian for using salty language in his nightclub act is censorship. Stopping someone from calling every woman who passes by on the street a dirty **** is not. I think what is discussed here is much closer to the latter example than the forum. Dan M.
