OFF: Cyber Sleaze

[Rudich, Robert A]

>You seem to have fastidiously avoided the central point of my posting :-)
>which is this: why should the Internet be allowed special, unlimited
>access to certain types of material when the same is not true of this same
>material outside of it?

Seems to me that one difference is in the net one has to actively seek out
the material, unlike an in your face bulletin board (real not virtual)
notice.

>A lot of "normal adults" are offended by pornography or extreme violence.
 Not
>everyone likes to see pictures of cigarettes being stubbed out on dicks,
>bound people having objects forcibly inserted into them, girls taking
>donkeys up their asses, people eating shit, scenes of torture and
>execution, and similar aesthetic delicacies.

Certainly no redeeming social value.  You don't happen to have the URLs?

>Here in our own department, there was a case where a female student
complained >because several male students repeatedly displayed pornographic
images >obtained from usenet on workstation screens in a general access
laboratory.  She >found these images offensive, especially when taken
together with the lurid >comments offered by the male students debating the
merits of the respective images
>amongst themselves.

Paul, this is not a net problem, but with the guys who did it.  There are
other ways they could have done the same thing.   My problem is that the
responsibility for bad acts doesn't get put where it belongs.  Deprive these
guys of the net and they will find another way to do the same thing.  Get on
their case directly and maybe they will see their error and not repeat it.
 If not, poke out their eyes.

>Arguments about the degrading effects upon society aside, the fact remains
>that children lack the emotional maturity to process extreme material,
>especially where it is presented in an unusual context.  It is of benefit
>to everyone, therefore, if we try and keep material deemed legally obscene
>away from minors, and direct it towards those that enjoy it.

I don't buy this argument any more than I do that TV violence induces real
life violence.   (BTW, I am a psychologist so I'm aware of the studies.)
 Kids find their way to printed materials and have for a long time.   This
is not new.   European countries where porn is less regulated have lower
incidences of rape and illegitimate births.

>And if you think the possibility is remote, anyone remember when Netscape
used to >have a link to "Bianca's Smut Shack" on their "What's Cool" page?
:-)

I do and the title was more lurid than the site.

>I don't understand.  Have you actually *seen* the cover of an adult video?
>They're hardly discreet.

I could never understand the strategically placed dot.  To a kid or the
morally distressed, it really can't make it tame.

>Besides, I think the reason for the separate room is as much to avoid
>embarrassment to the punters browsing that section than to bar minors. ;-)

A lot of truth to that.   Saw a "Hard Copy" story on porn addicts and they
interviewed a minister who was hooked.  He feared being recognized by his
flock, but not enough to stop.

>It is for this reason that oral sex, for example, is illegal in certain
states (or areas) in the
>U.S.A. but not in others.

I live in MA and there are all sorts of old laws on the books that never get
enforced except when there is an ulterior motive.   There are automobile
laws that date from horse days which restrict cars in the presence of a
horse.  These old obscenity laws pop up now and again to restrict gays or
some other thing, but really aren't enforced or enforceable.   My town bans
adult videos, but the next town doesn't.   How much of a problem is it to
get them?  The town fathers feel that they have a wholesome community
anyway.

>Besides, it seems sensible to me that people be held accountable when
>they exercise their "right to free speech" by yelling "Fire!" in a
>crowded auditorium.

My point above.  Here the person is punished, not the right revoked for
everyone.

>Unfortunately, there are some (e.g. those that abuse Internet anonymous
remailers) >who want to enjoy the freedom but without the responsibility.

I see this as a category error.   In speech, we are going to hear it if we
are in earshot.   On the web, it has to be sought out.  The active role is
that of the viewer.

>Most parents I know do not consider the job of raising children to be an
easy one, but >nevertheless one filled with ultimate reward, and so well
worth pursuing.  But the road >is far from easy.

I think most parents would agree that peer pressure is the biggest influence
on kids.  Some people want to blame Joe Camel for their kid's smoking.
  Forget that the group they want to hang with smokes and considers it a
requirement, it's that cartoon that is the root of evil.

Something that hasn't been mentioned in this chastising of the US for net
censorship is that Germany has made the most waves of late in this area.

>Any more followups from me will be via private e-mail, I promise.  Honest,
guvnor!

Hope not, Paul.   We'd miss your obCDs.

Cheers,

Rudy
obCD:  Queensryche "Operation Mindcrime"