Message-ID: <3204@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Dec-84 13:52:57 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3204
Posted: Thu Dec 27 13:52:57 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 05:38:37 EST
Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered
Lines: 21


It's a curious note that the Minneappolis (sp?) ordinance bans
a number of SF books.  For starters, it bans anything that I know
of (I don't claim much expertise) by John Norman.  That's not
surprising.  It's also clear that it bans "Silverlock", and
"The Moon's Fire-Eating Daughter" by John Myers Myers (which
are hardly pornography), many PK Dick stories, quite a few
Ron Goulart stories (so what?), and so many more that I'm not
going to keep going.

I wonder what will happen when someone gets their nose out
of joint at the local B. Daltons and decides to have them arrested for
selling "Silverlock".  It should be interesting.

Sigh.
-- 
TEDDY BEARS AND PENGUINS ARE BOTH LOVABLE!
"Can you say youthful music, boys and girls?  FACIAL SURGERY! That's good,
I KNEW you could say it!"

(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj

Message-ID: <3977@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 12:46:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.3977
Posted: Mon Dec 31 12:46:43 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Jan-85 06:30:14 EST
Reply-To: upstill@ucbvax.UUCP (Steve upstill)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 18
Summary: 

nt of another's creative work is both practically and morally
insupportable.  'practically' because it automatically cripples the artist,
because he/she must always be concerned with predicting how the 'judge' will
take the work.  The Minneapolis ordinance is especially heinous in this respect
because it makes it so difficult to predict the judge's reaction.  'morally'
simply because this is a terrible thing to do to people: putting their thoughts
in a strait-jacket, making them adjust their output, not based on how it will
affect others, but how others MAY THINK it affects others.  Shudder.

Steve Upstill

Message-ID: <5219@duke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 12:46:37 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5219
Posted: Mon Jan  7 12:46:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 05:01:56 EST
References: <3204@alice.UUCP>, <448@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.books:1185 net.sf-lovers:5518

Come to think of it, there are a lot of things in the Bible that seem to
suggest that women should be treated as property, subjected to the will
of men, etc.  Including sexually, as where it is commanded that a man
whose brother dies childless should marry the brother's sister, in order
to make sure that someone carries on the brother's line... no suggestion
that the surviving brother should ASK first.

It would be really interesting to see a Christian bookstore owner
arrested for selling porn on these grounds -- I don't expect to see it
happen, but I can dream.

P.S.  I agree with Tim; we're talking here about censorship, not about
``women's issues'' -- and I feel that restricting my right to read
``pornography'' is NOT a women's issue!  Keep the discussion here.
-- 
		Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated.

				Charlie Martin
				(...mcnc!duke!crm)

Message-ID: <4903@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 11:27:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4903
Posted: Fri Jan 11 11:27:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 11:27:07 EST
References: <3204@alice.UUCP>, <448@ukma.UUCP>, <5219@duke.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 29

Charlie, you, Tim and I may have a problem. (Actually, we're fine,
it's the rest of the world that has a problem. :-) ) Since we doubt
the claim that ``watching "pronography" (pick your definition of
same) causes "violence" (another word which people are having fun
defining, but one which is, in principle, eaiser to define)'' we
see this as a censorship issue. If, however, you accept the premise,
then you will see this as a ``woman's issue''. [Which brings up
my belief that there are no ``woman's issues'' just ``people's
issues'' and that by segregating some issues and making them ``of
interest to women only'' you are doing more harm, then good. But you
all got to hear this when I campaigned agaisnt the creation of net.women.only.]

You get the same thing with other issues. If you accept the premise that
``mystical experiences can/should be a part of religious experience''
then you may find that discussions of same should be a valid topic of
discussion in net.religion. Shall we try it some time? Hmm, I think
that members of the atheist and religious readership of that list are
going to make the counter claim that such experiences are reasons to
be certain that your brain needs laundering by s shrink real soon because
such things aren't real and therefore aren't religious issues at all. 
[And then there are some whom would say that we are all posessed by the
devil, or assorted devils, and consider the matter settled at that...]

I think that you and Tim and I would again be on the same side of the
fence, but this time agreeing to accept the premise presented. Welcome
to the definition game...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura