Perry Metzger writes, about the reaction to the "junk bits" file I posted in a controversial new group, "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children":
Michael Ross says:
Tim,
That was very manipulative, and did not achieve much.
I wholely disagree. Tim's post to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children was a valuable exercise even given its limitations.
Of course I agree with Perry, though I also respect the others who have
posted disagreements (sometimes strong!) here on this List or in the
various newsgroups...that's what free speech is all about.
Bear in mind that most of the "Cypherpunks agenda," to the extent we can
identify it, is likely to provoke ordinary citizens into _outrage_. Talk of
anonymous mail, digital money, money laundering, information markets, data
havens, undermining authority, transnationalism, and all the rest (insert
your favorite idea) is not exactly mainstream.
While I don't personally care for the "kiddie porn" I've seen (the David
Hamilton photos of young girls and the occasional Mapplethorpe photos in
news reports), the issues raised in this area are of great importance. (I
don't plan to argue for or against these images in this forum, though.)
If we back down every time a censor screams "Illegal!," then very few of
our agenda items will ever see the light of day.
So long as physical violence or coercion is not involved, I see no reason
to restrict the activities of others. I completely reject the concept of
"class-based crimes," such as:
- conventional erotica and pornography should be banned because it is
degrading to women, objectifies them, etc. (ironically, unless of course it
is "made by and for wimmin," a loophole added by Andrea Dworkin and her
supporters after they discovered their anti-porn crusade in Canada and
elsewhere would put an end to Lesbian porn mags like "Yellow Silk"!).
- I put "child porn" in this category because only the actual coercion of
children--if it is happening--should be stopped. (And even this is
confusing, as coercion of children happens all the time--we call it
"parenting.")
A mere image carries no proof that this coercion has happened, for the many
reasons I have cited and others have cited (e.g., the child may have
willingly participated, the "child" may be 18 and merely look 15, the
images may have come from other countries where the customs and laws are
different, the image may have been computer-generated or morphed, and so
on).
- "racist jokes" are being targeted for elimination in many of the Usenet
groups, by halting the carrying of "offensive" newsgroups. Legal purists
will of course note that this is not "censorship" in the legal/government
sense. IMHO, the English language needs a new term for something between
the one extreme of government censorship and the other extreme of personal
choice, perhaps something like "institutional censorship." Being a free
market sort of person, I have no problems with, say, Apple Computer
deciding not to carry "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children" or
"rec.humor.funny.cripples," but it still a _form_ of "institutional
censorship." [especially when they are acting so as to head off legal
action, as I describe below]
- read the "academic freedom" group (I forget the exact title...search for
"acad-free" in your newsreader) and you'll see that more and more
universities are using the "sexual harassment" laws/codes to stop certain
newsgroups, to halt the distribution of sexually oriented images, and to
take disciplinary action against students (mostly male) who have put GIFs
on their computers or workstations (apparently female students who walk
past an office in which female models are used as startup screens have
decided they are being "sexually assaulted" or "harassed").
[An important point to make here is that many of these institutions are
taking actions largely because they fear that if they don't, the plaintiffs
will take their case to the _government_ legal system, perhaps by suing the
university for "condoning an atmosphere hostile to womym and other people
of color."