Can anything be done about this web site?
Christi Alice Scarborough
[Apologies for the slightly bizarre cross-posting - I wasn't really sure
where to put this.]
http://www.best.com/~anorexic/Anorexic_and_Bulemic_Rec_Room1.htm
This site was very deeply upsetting for me, since it incites women to become
anorexic, and also triggers those who are already suffering from anorexia.
A very close friend of mine is currently in end stage anorexic crisis
(dying from the disease), and when she showed it to me, I was extremely
disturbed, as she was, by the content.
In my opinion, the site is exploitative of anorexics, and very dangerous
in its trivialisation, promotion and encouragement of a very serious and
often fatal illness. It is on a level with the promotion of paedophilia
and incitement of violence (the fact that the site is inciting women to do
violence on themselves is in no way mitigating).
Yet Best Internet refuse to close the site down, citing the maintainer's
first amendment right to freedom of speech. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't
comment on the legality of this, but this action is callous and insensitive.
I regard myself as very liberal, but I can't bear to think that this site
may cause and encourage others to follow in the footsteps of a dear friend
that I will almost certainly lose to anorexia. The right to free speech
stops at the point where serious harm is being done to vulnerable people.
Please, can anyone suggest any ways in which pressure could be bought to
bear upon Best?
Thanks for your help,
Christi
--
Christi Alice Scarborough - http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ccs95 BOFHdom's answer
Not a member of the Lusty Wench Cabal (TINC) to Wednesday.
"Taken out of context I must seem so strange" Ani DiFranco # Caffeine != Sheep
YoYo
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>[Apologies for the slightly bizarre cross-posting - I wasn't really sure
>where to put this.]
>
>http://www.best.com/~anorexic/Anorexic_and_Bulemic_Rec_Room1.htm
>
>This site was very deeply upsetting for me, since it incites women to become
>anorexic, and also triggers those who are already suffering from anorexia.
>A very close friend of mine is currently in end stage anorexic crisis
>(dying from the disease), and when she showed it to me, I was extremely
>disturbed, as she was, by the content.
>
>In my opinion, the site is exploitative of anorexics, and very dangerous
>in its trivialisation, promotion and encouragement of a very serious and
>often fatal illness. It is on a level with the promotion of paedophilia
>and incitement of violence (the fact that the site is inciting women to do
>violence on themselves is in no way mitigating).
I'm sorry about your friend, Christi, but you'll get no sympathy from me
in your attempt to censor this person. If you don't want to read the site,
fine. If you want to warn people about what's on there, fine - you can put
up your own page. But if you want the power to tell other people what they
can and cannot say, and what they can and cannot read, that's when I feel
an obligation to tell you in no uncertain terms to go take a long walk off
a short pier.
Your analogies cut no ice with me. I believe you should be allowed to
advocate violence or pedophilia if you want to. (Actually committing
violence or pedophilia is another matter.)
--
----YoYo------...@tezcat.com------------and stuff------
"Hot like wasabi when I bust rhymes / Big like LeeAnn Rimes"
-Barenaked Ladies
John C. Mozena
In article <peB*-Ip...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Yet Best Internet refuse to close the site down, citing the maintainer's
>first amendment right to freedom of speech. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't
>comment on the legality of this, but this action is callous and insensitive.
>I regard myself as very liberal, but I can't bear to think that this site
>may cause and encourage others to follow in the footsteps of a dear friend
>that I will almost certainly lose to anorexia. The right to free speech
>stops at the point where serious harm is being done to vulnerable people.
I'd disagree with that statement, but that's not the issue right now.
>Please, can anyone suggest any ways in which pressure could be bought to
>bear upon Best?
Realistically, you're not going to have much luck. No ISP wants --
especially in light of the recent USSC decision that AOL is not
responsible for content posted by its users -- to get into the business of
censoring otherwise-legal content.
If you wanted to make Best's PR Director's life a living hell, I'd suggest
contacting womens' groups, organizations for persons recovering from
eating disorders and other such folks and asking them for help with a
media relations campaign.
Of course, I doubt that this would make Best change their minds.
YMMV HTH
--
John C. Mozena [=-=+=-=] m...@mich.com [=-=+=-=] http://www.mich.com/~moz/
Co-founder and PR Droid, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail
Fight spam, join CAUCE | "There is no reason anyone would want a computer
<http://www.cauce.org> | in their home." -- Ken Olsen, DEC founder, 1977
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <peB*-Ip...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>where to put this.]
Down your throat, kinda like two fingers?
["Well-meaning" but typically specious "mental harm" censorship advocacy
deleted]
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n0ruc$8...@xochi.tezcat.com>, YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>Your analogies cut no ice with me. I believe you should be allowed to
>advocate violence or pedophilia if you want to. (Actually committing
>violence or pedophilia is another matter.)
In my opinion this site constitutes not only advocacy but incitement.
I will not apologise for trying to stop this. Free speech will never be a
black and white issue for me. Just like the rest of my reality. Your
sympathy for my friend seems hollow in the light of the fact that you seem
to regard freedom of expression to be more important than freedom from
harm.
If we can't agree on that, I suggest we respect each other's differences
and move on. This is obviously a very emotive issue for me, and I have no
wish to get into a flame war. Your idea of free speech would be very
strange indeed if it supported this site and yet denied me the opportunity
to state my case, or tried to prevent me acting upon my beliefs.
Free speech is a privilege, not a right. If you have never been in a
position where you are in danger from those with harmful intent, I envy
you. That will not, however, stop me from trying to help those who
are in such a situation.
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n0tfi$4...@news1.panix.com>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
>>[Apologies for the slightly bizarre cross-posting - I wasn't really sure
>>where to put this.]
>Down your throat, kinda like two fingers?
I think that is is the most insensitive thing anyone has ever said to me.
(And that includes the time someone called me "fucking disgusting" to my
face.) Good luck growing up. It appears that you're going to need it.
Josh Brandt
In article <peB*-Ip...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>This site was very deeply upsetting for me, since it incites women to become
>anorexic, and also triggers those who are already suffering from anorexia.
>A very close friend of mine is currently in end stage anorexic crisis
>(dying from the disease), and when she showed it to me, I was extremely
>disturbed, as she was, by the content.
Okay, I just checked this out, and, um, it seems like the pictures and
writing there are really much more of a dissuasion from than an incitement
toward anorexia. Scary. Although it is real people, I can't see how anyone
could read this and actually be enthused about anorexia afterwards...
Other than that, we can't stop them directly, but you are well within your
own rights to tell other people how rotten it is. Make your own propaganda,
don't clamor for the suppression of opinions with which you don't agree.
At the risk of sounding jingoistic, that's what this country is supposed to
be about.
Josh
--
...said it was heaven just to breathe your air Severed Heads
J. Brandt - mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Josh Brandt
In article <kBE*m-...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>wish to get into a flame war. Your idea of free speech would be very
>strange indeed if it supported this site and yet denied me the opportunity
>to state my case, or tried to prevent me acting upon my beliefs.
I believe the problem isn't with your stating the case, but with the idea
that you want to go to best.com and get them to take down the site. Do you
see the difference?
>Free speech is a privilege, not a right. If you have never been in a
>position where you are in danger from those with harmful intent, I envy
>you. That will not, however, stop me from trying to help those who
>are in such a situation.
How is this site a "danger from those with harmful intent?" I'm afraid I'm
missing your point here.
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <kBE*m-...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Free speech is a privilege, not a right.
I don't know the law in the UK, but in the US, free speech is a right,
not a privilege. This is perhaps the most basic principle of American
law.
jello viagra
In article <peB*-Ip...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,>http://www.best.com/~anorexic/Anorexic_and_Bulemic_Rec_Room1.htm
>Yet Best Internet refuse to close the site down, citing the maintainer's
>first amendment right to freedom of speech. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't
>comment on the legality of this, but this action is callous and insensitive.
It's tasteless, but there's nothing illegal about it. If you don't
like it, i suggest you not visit the page.
rone
--
Why bother spending time
reading up on things?
Everybody's an authority
in a free land
Cyohtee
Out of the ether Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> rose up and issued forth:
: In article <6n0ruc$8...@xochi.tezcat.com>, YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
: >
: >Your analogies cut no ice with me. I believe you should be allowed to
: >advocate violence or pedophilia if you want to. (Actually committing
: >violence or pedophilia is another matter.)
: In my opinion this site constitutes not only advocacy but incitement.
: I will not apologise for trying to stop this. Free speech will never be a
: black and white issue for me. Just like the rest of my reality. Your
: sympathy for my friend seems hollow in the light of the fact that you seem
: to regard freedom of expression to be more important than freedom from
: harm.
: If we can't agree on that, I suggest we respect each other's differences
: and move on. This is obviously a very emotive issue for me, and I have no
: wish to get into a flame war. Your idea of free speech would be very
: strange indeed if it supported this site and yet denied me the opportunity
: to state my case, or tried to prevent me acting upon my beliefs.
: Free speech is a privilege, not a right. If you have never been in a
: position where you are in danger from those with harmful intent, I envy
: you. That will not, however, stop me from trying to help those who
: are in such a situation.
: Christi
: --
Um, I didn't see anyone saying you had no right to state your case or prevent
you from acting. Just that they disagreed that the site should be closed down
just because you felt it should be. Ok, so they might not have said it in the
nicest way they could have, but, that old freedom of speech thing again says
they have the right to say what they think, no matter how mean or abusive it
might be.
I for one cannot comment on the site since it doesn't seem to be coming up.
I do, however, agree that they have the right to put the site up. Would you
also want to ban a book that promoted Women's Weight Loss Through Forced
Vomiting?
My feeling is, if you don't want to see it, don't go there. If you want to
campaign against their point of view, do so. If you want to force them to not
be able to stat /their/ opinion, I have to disagree with you.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it"
Cyo
Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition
52 - Never ask when you can take.
Bill Cole
In article <kBE*m-...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Christi Alice Scarborough) wrote:
> In article <6n0ruc$8...@xochi.tezcat.com>, YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
> >
> >Your analogies cut no ice with me. I believe you should be allowed to
> >advocate violence or pedophilia if you want to. (Actually committing
> >violence or pedophilia is another matter.)
>
> In my opinion this site constitutes not only advocacy but incitement.
Last I looked, there were sites which encouraged people to reduce the
ecological burden of humans on the planet by suicide.
Are you going after them?
> I will not apologise for trying to stop this. Free speech will never be a
> black and white issue for me. Just like the rest of my reality. Your
> sympathy for my friend seems hollow in the light of the fact that you seem
> to regard freedom of expression to be more important than freedom from
> harm.
I don't believe anyone can make your friend or anyone else visit that site.
The freedom from harm here is quite obvious to me.
> If we can't agree on that, I suggest we respect each other's differences
> and move on. This is obviously a very emotive issue for me, and I have no
> wish to get into a flame war. Your idea of free speech would be very
> strange indeed if it supported this site and yet denied me the opportunity
> to state my case, or tried to prevent me acting upon my beliefs.
That's the thing about the concept of free speech. It amounts to freedom
to be wrong.
It gets problematic when acting on your beliefs amounts to trying to force
wrong people to shut up.
> Free speech is a privilege, not a right.
That depends on where you live. My sympathies.
>If you have never been in a
> position where you are in danger from those with harmful intent, I envy
> you. That will not, however, stop me from trying to help those who
> are in such a situation.
There is no one being forced to go to that site. It is certainly
disgusting and maybe even dangerous for people easily convinced to harm
themselves in that way, but it's not being imposed on anyone.
From a practical standpoint, you will have an extremely hard time trying
to actually get the site removed from Best, and even if you do it will
probably pop up somewhere else and it is almost certainly never going to
be really gone, just moved. I'm no lawyer, but I can't imagine how this
site would ever be legally shut down in the US. Providers who would drop
it for the content would also risk stepping onto a legally slippery slope
where their failure to close all sites advocating potentially dangerous
would make them liable, and providers do not want that.
--
Bill Cole bi...@scconsult.com
Yes, I have lost a hyphen and a name.
See http://www.inlink.com/~scconsul/name.html for why.
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n151d$d...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
>not a privilege. This is perhaps the most basic principle of American
>law.
I was speaking from a philosophical, not a legal, standpoint in this case.
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n10k1$1te$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>I believe the problem isn't with your stating the case, but with the idea
>that you want to go to best.com and get them to take down the site. Do you
>see the difference?
Completely. I was just pointing out that it's inconsistant to defend his
advocacy of self harm, but at the same time attempt to prevent me
advocating removal of his site. I don't expect everyone to agree with me
about this site, but neither do I expect those who disagree to try to
prevent me from trying to contact those who do. Having said that, no-one
has even suggested I withdraw the original post, so this doesn't appear to
be an issue.
>How is this site a "danger from those with harmful intent?" I'm afraid I'm
>missing your point here.
To understand this, you have to understand that anorexia is not primarily
about a desire to be thin. It usually centres around incredibly low self
esteem and a feeling of lack of control over one's life. Anorexics often
see not eating as the only means they have of exerting control. This is,
of course, deeply pathological, and the owner of this site is attempting
to reinforce and encourage that pathological behaviour (ie cause further
harm). That seems like harmful intent to me.
Russ Allbery
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> I was just pointing out that it's inconsistant to defend his advocacy of
> self harm, but at the same time attempt to prevent me advocating removal
> of his site.
But no one did that.
> Having said that, no-one has even suggested I withdraw the original
> post, so this doesn't appear to be an issue.
Exactly. So I'm in the situation of entirely understanding why other
people are upset at you for advocating censorship and not having any clue
what exactly you're upset about unless you're upset that people don't
agree with you about free speech (or the absence thereof).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n1bre$id4$1...@tepe.tezcat.com>,
Cyohtee <cyo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>My feeling is, if you don't want to see it, don't go there. If you want to
>campaign against their point of view, do so. If you want to force them to not
>be able to stat /their/ opinion, I have to disagree with you.
If you can get access to the site, I suggest you read some of the writing
on it by actual anorexics. I hope this will help you understand why I
regard the site as a form of assault. I know that the free speech thing
tends to be axiomatic in America, but my personal sense of ethics does not
value free speech at any cost (although free speech is important to me).
I guess the approach that you advocate comes from the idea that there is
some sort of slippery slope here, but I've never beleieved in this kind
of argument. I'm a situation ethicist. Each case has o be considered on
its own merits. In my opinion the harm done by removing this site will
be less than the harm done by allowing it to remain. I contend that I
am probably in a better position to judge the harm this site does than
most of the other people who have responded to my posts.
You may not agree. That's fine.
>"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death
>your right to say it"
I wondered how long it was going to take before someone brought this one up.
As I've explained, I don't hold that view.
Chisti
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <bill-26069...@192.168.1.1>,
Bill Cole <bi...@scconsult.com> wrote:
>I don't believe anyone can make your friend or anyone else visit that site.
>The freedom from harm here is quite obvious to me.
Lots of people have brought this up. I think the point is that those
seeking help with their condition are likely to dig it up in net searches.
Help is the last thing they will get from this site. To say that they
can always not look at it is akin to leaving a skip full of free drugs
in a very public place and saying that recovering addicts don't *have*
to help themselves.
Christi
YoYo
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <6n0ruc$8...@xochi.tezcat.com>, YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>>
>>Your analogies cut no ice with me. I believe you should be allowed to
>>advocate violence or pedophilia if you want to. (Actually committing
>>violence or pedophilia is another matter.)
>
>In my opinion this site constitutes not only advocacy but incitement.
The U.S., which is where I assume this site is located was built through
incitement.
"We must fight. I repeat it, Sir, we must fight.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet that we must
purchase it with chains and slavery? Forbid it
Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me
death."
Sounds like an incitement to me.
>black and white issue for me. Just like the rest of my reality. Your
>sympathy for my friend seems hollow in the light of the fact that you seem
>to regard freedom of expression to be more important than freedom from
>harm.
I do. Freedom of expression is the bedrock freedom. It is the freeedom
that precedes all others, because it's the freedom that allows other
freedoms to be argued for. "Freedom from harm", like Santa Claus, doesn't
actually exist.
>If we can't agree on that, I suggest we respect each other's differences
>and move on.
Sorry, no. I take it very personally when people try to erode basic human
rights. I have worked in a number of capacities as an anticensorship
activist, and as such, I will fight you on this.
>wish to get into a flame war. Your idea of free speech would be very
>strange indeed if it supported this site and yet denied me the opportunity
>to state my case, or tried to prevent me acting upon my beliefs.
Go back and read what I said. I said that if you want to warn people about
what's on that site, that's fine. I believe that you have the right to
advocate censorship, but again, you don't have the right to actually do
it.
>Free speech is a privilege, not a right.
From the Universal Declaration of Human *Rights*
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers.
Russ Allbery
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> I guess the approach that you advocate comes from the idea that there is
> some sort of slippery slope here, but I've never beleieved in this kind
> of argument. I'm a situation ethicist. Each case has o be considered
> on its own merits. In my opinion the harm done by removing this site
> will be less than the harm done by allowing it to remain. I contend
> that I am probably in a better position to judge the harm this site does
> than most of the other people who have responded to my posts.
This is an interesting perspective, but it has the following problem: You
may indeed be in a far better position to judge the harm that this site
does by existing, but are you in a position to judge the harm it might do
by not existing?
The second one is far, far harder to judge than the first. I arrived at
my position on free speech by examining how one would go about determining
what harm could be done by *repressing* something, and concluding that it
was so impossible to measure and had the potential to be so catastrophic
that I had to look for other ways of addressing the harm.
Most arguments in favor of repressing something seem to be made from the
basis that people will only look at this single instance of speech in
isolation. This is fundamentally at odds with the way I observe people
approaching information resources.
Russ Allbery
>> I don't believe anyone can make your friend or anyone else visit that
>> site. The freedom from harm here is quite obvious to me.
> Lots of people have brought this up. I think the point is that those
> seeking help with their condition are likely to dig it up in net
> searches. Help is the last thing they will get from this site.
Then why would they continue reading it, if help were what they were
looking for?
> To say that they can always not look at it is akin to leaving a skip
> full of free drugs in a very public place and saying that recovering
> addicts don't *have* to help themselves.
No, it's not, because reading this site does not cause anorexia directly
(whereas injesting the drugs does directly impact a drug addiction). You
need to account for the one level of indirection here, which goes through
a person's mind.
See, from *my* perspective, you are attempting to control the anorexic's
life for them in the name of helping them. I have a lot of ethical
problems with that.
Russ Allbery
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> http://www.best.com/~anorexic/Anorexic_and_Bulemic_Rec_Room1.htm
> This site was very deeply upsetting for me, since it incites women to
> become anorexic, and also triggers those who are already suffering from
> anorexia. A very close friend of mine is currently in end stage
> anorexic crisis (dying from the disease), and when she showed it to me,
> I was extremely disturbed, as she was, by the content.
Maybe it's just me, or maybe I've gotten too jaded from seeing spam,
pyramid schemes, and random oddballs on Usenet, but even given how
seriously you're taking this, and how seriously I went into this *trying*
to take it, I'm having real difficulty looking at this site and figuring
out how anyone could believe this is advocacy.
It seems to be part rant against certain type of supermodels, part really
twisted sex fetish, part poorly-written description of body types that I
can't believe anyone would find attractive, and part "testimonials" (like
most of these things, I would be very surprised if they weren't completely
made up, probably by the same sort of guys who go on IRC pretending to be
women to get netsex) that rather than being at all convincing are so
completely over the top as to be nauseating. Quite a bit of it seems to
be written specifically to try to offend people.
Is it your honest, thought-out belief that someone would encounter this
site and actually believe this nonsense?
(If so, that's deeply disturbing, and I'd dearly hope that the friends of
such people would try to take action to keep them off the Internet. There
are far more sites that would have negative effects on people that
gullible than anyone would ever be able to get rid of.)
Bill Cole
In article <v6v*u8...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Christi Alice Scarborough) wrote:
> In article <bill-26069...@192.168.1.1>,
> Bill Cole <bi...@scconsult.com> wrote:
> >I don't believe anyone can make your friend or anyone else visit that site.
> >The freedom from harm here is quite obvious to me.
>
> Lots of people have brought this up. I think the point is that those
> seeking help with their condition are likely to dig it up in net searches.
> Help is the last thing they will get from this site. To say that they
> can always not look at it is akin to leaving a skip full of free drugs
> in a very public place and saying that recovering addicts don't *have*
> to help themselves.
Reflect a little on that analogy. I suspect you can see the problems with
it on your own.
It is impossible for me in the US to avoid being confronted with the
availability of the drug I am addicted to almost every time I enter a
grocery store, gas station, or drug store. I cannot drive on any highway
without being subjected to advertisements for it. No one is handing me the
cigarettes and lighting them up. Perhaps that is a better analogy.
Peter da Silva
There are some really scary sites on the web, and this is one of the
scarier ones... but I've seen worse. Last time I jacked in to IRC they
were talking about a site that was just for close-up photos of train
wrecks and car crashes. It squicked me just from the stuff they were
describing so I won't go into it.
So, ah, what RonE said, but less flippantly.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Cyohtee
Out of the ether Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> rose up and issued forth:
: >I don't know the law in the UK, but in the US, free speech is a right,
: >not a privilege. This is perhaps the most basic principle of American
: >law.
: I was speaking from a philosophical, not a legal, standpoint in this case.
: Christi
: --
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in your
philosophy, Horatio."
- Hamlet, Prince of Denmanrk, "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare
};>=
Cyo
Yakko: Hey, come on! The Wheel of Morality adds boring education value
to what would otherwise be an almost entirely entertaining program!
Cyohtee
Well, in a way Christi got what she wanted.
Congratulations, you managed to give the site so much publicity that they
have exceeded their Transfer Limit.
Of course that means that you have also exposed more people to the site than
ever would have seen it if you hadn't started talking about it, so who knows,
you may have even, in their eyes, done them a favor by making them so popular.
I wonder if they might be able to come back with advertisers, since they now
have proof that theirs is a "Popular and Well Visited Site"...
Cyo
"To be... or not to be... that is the question which troubles my people"
-- General Chang (Star Trek VI)
Josh Brandt
In article <xrv*Q3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>How is this site a "danger from those with harmful intent?" I'm afraid I'm
>>missing your point here.
>
>To understand this, you have to understand that anorexia is not primarily
>about a desire to be thin. It usually centres around incredibly low self
>esteem and a feeling of lack of control over one's life. Anorexics often
>see not eating as the only means they have of exerting control.
Actually, I talked to my girlfriend about this last night, since I'm not
familiar at all with the pathology of anorexia, and this matches what she
said.
> This is,
>of course, deeply pathological, and the owner of this site is attempting
>to reinforce and encourage that pathological behaviour (ie cause further
>harm). That seems like harmful intent to me.
All right, I suppose. But his main gist seems to be that he gets off on it,
and that these women are sexy to him. (I think they're frightening, and my
first response would be to haul them off to a hospital.) Is this _really_
encouraging, especially considering the way he talked about it? It looked
mighty creepy to me... Please expand on this.
And I changed the subject header, as you're far more likely to educate us
against this kind of lameness without mixing in the free-speech issues,
which quickly will muddy the waters beyond clearing. 8)
Kathy Pascoe
In article <6n0ruc$8...@xochi.tezcat.com>, yo...@xochi.tezcat.com says...
>>in its trivialisation, promotion and encouragement of a very serious and
>>often fatal illness.
>But if you want the power to tell other people what they can and cannot say,
>and what they can and cannot read, that's when I feel an obligation to tell
>you in no uncertain terms to go take a long walk off a short pier.
I have to agree with the guys, Christi. At some point you have to trust
women to make good choices for themselves. The influence of a single website
has got to be pretty far down the list of bad inputs to your friend's psyche.
Or that of any other anorexic.
While anorexia's not a problem I have personal experience with, I saw that site
as tasteless, like lots of other spots on the web. If someone viewing that
site can't just shudder, say 'yuck' and wander elsewhere, they should turn the
computer off now and unplug the connection to the net.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ kpa...@sprintmail.com (home)
.. posting from Newsguy's web interface; hope this gets out.
YoYo
Bill Cole <bi...@scconsult.com> wrote:
>It is impossible for me in the US to avoid being confronted with the
>availability of the drug I am addicted to almost every time I enter a
>grocery store, gas station, or drug store. I cannot drive on any highway
>without being subjected to advertisements for it. No one is handing me the
>cigarettes and lighting them up. Perhaps that is a better analogy.
Same here, and yet I've managed not to smoke for some time now. Perhaps
marketing doesn't exert as much control on human behavior as some folks
like to think, eh?
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n346h$api$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>All right, I suppose. But his main gist seems to be that he gets off on it,
>and that these women are sexy to him. (I think they're frightening, and my
>first response would be to haul them off to a hospital.) Is this _really_
I find them very frightening too, because I'm not anorexic. An anorexic
looking at those pictures isn't likely to be frightened though. In fact,
her most likely thought is "I'm not as thin as her, so I'm obviously too
fat - I need to control my eating better."
>encouraging, especially considering the way he talked about it? It looked
>mighty creepy to me... Please expand on this.
Well, in addition to the attitude above, by presenting a positive view of
anorexia it can lull anorexics into a false sense of security. "If others
feel this way, I can't *really* be ill, even if all my friends are saying
that I am". Denial is a very big problem with anorexics. To admit that
one is anorexic is to admit that one needs to find an alternative way of
managing ones problems. To make that step is a deeply frightening one,
since it involves letting go of a whole way of viewing the world that
may have been present as long as can be remembered. Plus, it's not at
all obvious how else to cope with the pain.
On top of that, anorexics get a lot of social reinforcement. Until the
latter stages of the disease, they are often just thin women. Most
anorexics look like models, and are therefore the subjects of desire from
men and envy (and possibly desire too) from women. Society effectively
tells anorexics that they are not only all right, but better than most
women. I can't remember the number of times I said to my friend "Oh, I
wish I could fit into a size 10 like you" before I realised that she was
anorexic, and how much that size 10 figure really cost her. If I'm
totally honest, I have to admit that I'm still jealous of the figure she
has before she went into terminal decline. That kind of attitude is very
reinforcing because it strengthens the idea of food being evil and
undesirable by associating it with being ugly/unpopular.
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <6n2t4f$lm$1...@tepe.tezcat.com>,
Cyohtee <cyo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Congratulations, you managed to give the site so much publicity that they
>have exceeded their Transfer Limit.
The transfer limit sems to be imposed on an hourly basis. I suggest you try
again some time. I got this error *before* I posted the URL here.
>Of course that means that you have also exposed more people to the site than
>ever would have seen it if you hadn't started talking about it, so who knows,
>you may have even, in their eyes, done them a favor by making them so popular.
Life is full of difficult choices. I try to do the best I can.
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <m3n2az5...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>The second one is far, far harder to judge than the first. I arrived at
>my position on free speech by examining how one would go about determining
>what harm could be done by *repressing* something, and concluding that it
>was so impossible to measure and had the potential to be so catastrophic
>that I had to look for other ways of addressing the harm.
I think this is a sensible and well reasoned position, and certainly wouldn't
accuse anyone holding it of not having thought things through properly.
Having said that, I find the idea of a nebulous catastrophic harm possibly
arising from a less inflexible attitude to freedom of speech to be far less
worrying that the very real harm I am certain this site is doing. I believe
that if someone abuses the idea of protecting people from harm to repress
those doing no real harm, a responsible response is then to fight that
specific abuse - I was vehemently against the CDA, for example. I
immediately distrust absolutes, and it seems to me that this attitude to
free speech is very absolute in nature.
I'm sorry if this seems like me shouting "I'm right, you're wrong" at you
all. I don't mean it to be. All I'm really trying to do is to show you
that I've thought these issues through very carefully and my stance isn't
illogical or inconsistant, just different from yours.
I'm not going to post any more about free speech specifically, as I think
I've said all I can about the way I feel about it, and it's not really
appropriate here. If anyone wants any further clarification, please email
me directly, and I'll do my best.
Thanks,
Christi Alice Scarborough
In article <m3hg175...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Is it your honest, thought-out belief that someone would encounter this
>site and actually believe this nonsense?
No, I didn't say they would believe it intellectually (although some
might - lots of people believe things that I think are nonsense).
Anorexia doesn't operate at an intellectual, but at a deeper emotional
level, and for reasons I've explained in other posts, those images
*do* give anorexics problems. This opinion is mine, but it's also that
of the one anorexic that I know personally and several others that I
don't. (See alt.support.eating-disorders on Deja-News)
>(If so, that's deeply disturbing, and I'd dearly hope that the friends of
>such people would try to take action to keep them off the Internet. There
>are far more sites that would have negative effects on people that
>gullible than anyone would ever be able to get rid of.)
The fact that you regard this as gulibility shows that you have failed to
grasp the anorexic mindset. In a way, this makes me glad. It probably
means that you're fairly well adjusted as far as self-esteem goes.
Wednesday
In article <6n0tfi$4...@news1.panix.com>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
>In article <peB*-Ip...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,>>[Apologies for the slightly bizarre cross-posting - I wasn't really sure
>>where to put this.]
>
>Down your throat, kinda like two fingers?
I have mailed the person inquiring as to whether this was an intentional
post to the group in question, given the followup-to header and the
likely highly different dynamics of net.media.electronic (I don't
recall the name from net.config). Certainly I don't think I need to
tell the regular readership that posts on these lines are *quite*
out of line and inappropriate.
-- wednesday, who will have a number of things to say regarding this
thread and the issues addressed by placement
--
wedn...@tezcat.com====================================================
Learn to deal with life or not as you will, but know that the world owes
you nothing. In fact, it owes you niceness least of all. - liana@tezcat
Abby Franquemont
[snip]
>That's the thing about the concept of free speech. It amounts to freedom
>to be wrong.
>
>It gets problematic when acting on your beliefs amounts to trying to force
>wrong people to shut up.
There's the Thomas Jefferson line I've always liked, which I can't
remember verbatim, to the effect of having nothing to fear from
freedom of speech so long as all are free to respond in kind.
For me that's the real issue. Someone can say something that is
complete anathema to me and I can hate that they think it worth
saying... but so long as I am allowed to retort, then retort is
what I should do, rather than attempt to silence. When there is a
problem is when someone else can say something I disagree with,
and I am not allowed a retort, or when I say something someone
else finds objectionable and they can have me silenced.
For this to work, and for me to be able to talk about, say, Lesbian
sex when that bothers the fundies, I have to allow people to talk
about things that bug the piss outta me. Which fetishizing anorexia
does, among other things.
--
Abby Franquemont Nothing cures insomnia like the realization
J. Random BOFH that it's time to get up. --Fortune program
Wednesday
In article <peB*-Ip...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>[Apologies for the slightly bizarre cross-posting - I wasn't really sure
>where to put this.]
My apologies for not being able to address this sooner. Christi, I have
said this to you in person, but I repeat it for the benefit of having
said it and established a written precedent: if you are in doubt as to
whether something belongs in net.support.*, please mail me privately
and inquire before taking action.
I am hazy enough as to whether I stated this initially or merely
drafted it privately and neglected to post it, but I will take it
as something I haven't said and say it *now*, to be repeated in
documentation to be made available within the next 48 hours:
*Please do not crosspost outside of net.support.*.* Until now, it
hasn't been a problem (the last thread to be crossposted -- I
believe the only, for that matter, until now -- went amicably, and
I neglected it), but it has typically been a tradition to keep
support space separate from other spaces AFAICT, largely to maintain
some modicum of boundary (here is where we do not, for example,
make jokes in poor taste about bulemia in response to someone's
issues regarding eating disorders), and I would like to maintain that.
>This site was very deeply upsetting for me, since it incites women to become
>anorexic, and also triggers those who are already suffering from anorexia.
>A very close friend of mine is currently in end stage anorexic crisis
>(dying from the disease), and when she showed it to me, I was extremely
>disturbed, as she was, by the content.
It is more than appropriate to discuss issues that a site like this
would bring up for you and your friend, how that would affect stuff,
things like that.
>In my opinion, the site is exploitative of anorexics, and very dangerous
>in its trivialisation, promotion and encouragement of a very serious and
>often fatal illness. It is on a level with the promotion of paedophilia
>and incitement of violence (the fact that the site is inciting women to do
>violence on themselves is in no way mitigating).
In context, a statement such as this is even appropriate, although
strict advocacy-of-position posts would not be. [e.g. "This disturbed
me in part or in whole bcause I feel that x is harmful" is okay;
"x is bad bad bad bad" is not. I am not accusing you of the latter, but
clarification never hurt.]
>Yet Best Internet refuse to close the site down, citing the maintainer's
>first amendment right to freedom of speech. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't
>comment on the legality of this, but this action is callous and insensitive.
>I regard myself as very liberal, but I can't bear to think that this site
>may cause and encourage others to follow in the footsteps of a dear friend
>that I will almost certainly lose to anorexia. The right to free speech
>stops at the point where serious harm is being done to vulnerable people.
>
>Please, can anyone suggest any ways in which pressure could be bought to
>bear upon Best?
This *is* inappropriate. Aside from *any* personal sentiments I may have
on the matter, which I will not get into in this post, net.support.*
is not a place to seek assistance in such matters. To an extent, I am
not totally sure that meta-discussion to the effect of "is it right for
a site such as this to exist" is appropriate; again, I have no problem
with you talking about the effect you found it had on you personally,
I have no problem with you explaining why a site of this nature would
upset and disturb and anger you and so forth; I even have no problem
with you saying "I don't want sites like this to exist." I do have a
problem with attempting to rally support for a shutdown in such a
vulnerable forum. This group is for personal issues, not political
action.
Speaking in czarina voice,
-- wednesday.
Daniel B. Holzman
>Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>>>Free speech is a privilege, not a right.
>>I don't know the law in the UK, but in the US, free speech is a right,
>>not a privilege. This is perhaps the most basic principle of American
>>law.
>
>I was speaking from a philosophical, not a legal, standpoint in this case.
In that case, I'll say simply that I have big problems with your
philosophy on a very basic level and do not subscribe to it.
The legal point in the US Constitution is predicated on a philosophical
point that free speech is a right, not a privilege. One can counter bad
speech with good speech, as one of our many Supreme Court justices
explained it. One can criticise bad speech. But when one outright
forbids bad speech, one forbids all speech not pleasing to the government
in power, which is tyrrany.
Thus, you could put up a web page responding to or critiquing this page.
You could write to the authors of the site and try to pursuade them that
their page does harm and should be taken down. But there is no way you
can pressure best.com to take the site down without violating the rights,
both under American law and under a treaty to which the UK is signatory, of
the people who put the page up.
And I must congratulate best.com on recognizing this. It's very tempting
to make an exception "just this once" for something so disgusting,
especially under the rubric of protecting someone. Unfortunately,
the vast majority of the human rights violations I've heard of are done
under the rubric of protecting someone, particularly children. The
"slippery slope" which you don't believe in is not something theorized,
but empirically observable.
Russ Allbery
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> No, I didn't say they would believe it intellectually (although some
> might - lots of people believe things that I think are nonsense).
> Anorexia doesn't operate at an intellectual, but at a deeper emotional
> level, and for reasons I've explained in other posts, those images *do*
> give anorexics problems.
Ah, okay, so it's specifically the images that you find objectionable, not
the entire site? That wasn't the impression that I'd gotten from your
previous message.
rif...@cybernothing.org
chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Christi Alice Scarborough) wrote:
>[Apologies for the slightly bizarre cross-posting - I wasn't really sure
>where to put this.]
It's not relevant to net.config, especially since it doesn't involve
Usenet II.
>http://www.best.com/~anorexic/Anorexic_and_Bulemic_Rec_Room1.htm
You have found that rarity, a webpage that actually repels me. That is not
an easy task.
>This site was very deeply upsetting for me, since it incites women to become
>anorexic, and also triggers those who are already suffering from anorexia.
Indeed, I stopped reading it after only a short time lest I find myself
getting too upset. I have to wonder if whoever's doing it is truely motivated
by sexual attraction or some sort of twisted mysogony.
>In my opinion, the site is exploitative of anorexics, and very dangerous
>in its trivialisation, promotion and encouragement of a very serious and
>often fatal illness. It is on a level with the promotion of paedophilia
>and incitement of violence (the fact that the site is inciting women to do
>violence on themselves is in no way mitigating).
I would not place it on the same level as pedophilia, except perhaps for the
ability to invoke a strong emotional reaction.
>Yet Best Internet refuse to close the site down, citing the maintainer's
>first amendment right to freedom of speech.
And they are correct. We Merkins tend to get a bit fanatical about that little
right, even though it's abused on a regular basis.
>I'm not a lawyer, so I can't
>comment on the legality of this, but this action is callous and insensitive.
It is not illegal at all, though I didn't look long enough to see if there
was actual hardcore imagery. Hardcore pornography (I.E. visual depiction of
penile/vaginal intercourse in clear detail) would be illegal, depending on
the laws in the state where the site is located. However, the legality or
illegality of sexually explicit material is a hotly debated topic in the US
and often falls back to "community standards" which vary dramatically.[1]
It is callous and insensitive. The web-page is definately motivated by sick
intentions, though I have no idea whether it's mysogony, hatred for a specific
individual, or just twisted kicks...
>I regard myself as very liberal, but I can't bear to think that this site
>may cause and encourage others to follow in the footsteps of a dear friend
>that I will almost certainly lose to anorexia. The right to free speech
>stops at the point where serious harm is being done to vulnerable people.
In Europe, there's a greater tendency to take your side in these sort of
issues (these words/images/artworks may encourage someone to harm themselves).
In the US, there's a body of concern that restricint free speech based on that
reason has no ultimate limit... After all, just about everyone has *something*
that offends them or upsets them.
If the Best Internet people shut down the page, the owner could sue them in
civil court for damages, and would very likely win, or at least get Best to
settle... Thus giving the person money you do not want to profit at all.
>Please, can anyone suggest any ways in which pressure could be bought to
>bear upon Best?
You will not be able to convince them to do anything by complaining to them.
I've gotten numerous complaints from people about webpages on Alachua Freenet
and usually take no action, as these complaints generally boil down to "I
don't like this so I demand you make it go away". No insult intended to you.
But it's just a very delicate thing to do in the US.
However, I will not just suggest ignoring the page. The individual has the
right to say what they think, but so does everyone else. I suggest passing
on the URL to the National Organization of Women (http://www.now.org/) as well
as other US-based organizations that would have an interest in the topic. I'm
pretty sure that's a support group for Anorexics in the US, as well as
numerous health and fitness organizations.
All of which have the same right to their opinions as the person running that
webpage does. So they will probably make him well aware of it. And the news
media. Eventually, Best may decide they don't like the page after all, or
the page owner might get tired of the complaints.
[1] To illustrate that, I like to mention Florida's Blue law, which outlaws
ALL forms of sexual activity except for the missionary position between two
married people of opposing genders. Yes, in Florida, having oral sex with
your wife/husband is not only a crime, it's techincally sodomy.
rif...@afn.org : There has been opposition to every innovation in the
Jeff The Riffer : history of man, with the possible exception of the sword.
Drifter... : --Benjamin Dana
Homo Postmortemus :
rif...@afn.org : "Comedy. Sudden, violent, comedy!"
Jeff The Riffer : --Monty Python's Flying Circus
Drifter... :
Homo Postmortemus :
jello viagra
In article <6n68fe$d...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>The legal point in the US Constitution is predicated on a philosophical
>point that free speech is a right, not a privilege.
Rights are recognized by the community; if they ain't, then they're not.
The only rights you have are the ones that the government gives you and
the ones that you take for yourself. In this country, the government
grants you the privilege of free speech and calls it a right simply as
a euphemism.
rone
--
Why bother spending time
reading up on things?
Everybody's an authority
in a free land
John C. Mozena
In article <kBE*m-...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Christi Alice Scarborough <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Free speech is a privilege, not a right.
Um, no.
A soapbox is a privilege. A Web page is a privilege. Free speech is a
right.
--
John C. Mozena [=-=+=-=] m...@mich.com [=-=+=-=] http://www.mich.com/~moz/
Co-founder and PR Droid, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail
Fight spam, join CAUCE | "There is no reason anyone would want a computer
<http://www.cauce.org> | in their home." -- Ken Olsen, DEC founder, 1977
Wednesday
This whole situation is ringing bells.
I'm reminded of living in Canada with pornography laws that made it
illegal for anything that [various government agencies and other
random people, including Customs] considered to be degrading to women.
The problem is that, once they started, they couldn't stop, and we
lost academic essays on rape, we lost works of fiction that never
hurt anyone, and we lost quite a bit of affirming erotica and other
sexual foo that was healthy and good, because some people believed
that it would be harmful if the stuff existed in Canada.
I really don't want people making that kind of decision for me, because
it's things like erotica that have helped me to heal sexually and other-
ly (in part). The law may have been designed to keep out horrible awful
no-good-to-anyone stuff, but yon slipepry slope sucks.
--
wedn...@chiark.greenend.org.uk / wedn...@tezcat.com / like, see, and
I just wanna say that being voted as this month's Miss August is, like,
a compliment I'll remember for as long as I can... -- Miss Julie Brown
Bill Cole
In article <6xJZ4...@khms.westfalen.de>,
kaih=6xJZ4...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>bi...@scconsult.com (Bill Cole) wrote on 27.06.98 in
<bill-27069...@192.168.1.1>:
>
>> It is impossible for me in the US to avoid being confronted with the
>> availability of the drug I am addicted to almost every time I enter a
>> grocery store, gas station, or drug store. I cannot drive on any highway
>> without being subjected to advertisements for it. No one is handing me the
>> cigarettes and lighting them up. Perhaps that is a better analogy.
>
>And there are lots of people around that think the situation you describe
>is deeply wrong. Me, for example.
>
>Outlawing drugs is stupid. So is not outlawing advertisements for them.
I strongly disagree.
I don't think it's right to outlaw the drugs OR the advertising, but I
think the normal rules on product safety and advertising misrepresentation
should apply to everything. In the US, tobacco has special status in law
(yes, I'm absolutely serious) that protects the purveyors from normal
legal consequences of lies and from the disclosure obligations that the
makers of aspirin have to meet.
I think it is terribly wrong to sell a product that is reliably lethal. I
don't think it should be illegal to sell it to adults as long as every
time you offer it you have to start and end with the simple statement that
it will eventually kill the user, and to be held responsible for failing
to adequately warn customers.
IF the US tobacco industry was held to that standard, they would be out of
business today, at least as currently constituted. That would make for a
radically different world tobacco market.
--
Bill Stewart-Cole
BOFH at large
LARTing, no charge
Sam Trenholme
exactly where]
>free speech is a right, not a privilege.
There is no such thing as 100% pure free speech. Some speech is
considered obscene. Then there is the whole spam issue, where people on
n.a.n-a.email consider a list of email addresses something that is not
protected free speech.
If a web page is spamvertised, we say it is right to pull the web page.
- Sam
Bill Cole
(Sam Trenholme) wrote:
>[This belongs elsewhere, but I don't know UsenetII well enough to say
> exactly where]
Note crosspost and followups
>
>>free speech is a right, not a privilege.
>
>There is no such thing as 100% pure free speech. Some speech is
>considered obscene.
Sure it is, and that's a shame[1].
There is a lot of confusion and muddled thinking on the whole issue of
free speech. Usually in the US the concept derives from the US
Constitution, but is too often applied far from the space where the
Constitution has any power.
Legally speaking...[1] in the US and some other places, *the government*
has only very limited power to silence speech. They have some slightly
greater power to restrict time, place, and manner of speech. Note that
this says NOTHING about the power of anyone who is NOT the government to
control how they assist others in speaking. This whole thread started with
outrage about a website that eroticizes pathological malnutrition. The
government is not involved in that speech. The ISP refuses to squelch it.
They are flying the flag of free speech. Wrongly.
The ISP robably has a good LEGAL reason to not take down that site, but it
is tangential to free speech. The legal status of ISP's or other online
service providers is not well-established in law, but it is increasingly
looking like Lofty Becker was right in his U. Conn. Law Review article a
decade ago. He argued that BBS sysops and services like CompuServe were
'secondary publishers' in the same manner that bookstores are. They have a
RIGHT to make editorial decisions in what they present, but the closer
they come to weeding material on specific content, the closer they edge
towards being *primary* publishers, at which point they may find
themselves legally liable for the damage done by speech they publish.
Cubby v. Compuserve, Cyberpromo v. AOL, a 1996 case against Prodigy, and a
recent case whose litigants escape my memory altogether have all been
consistent with this. ISP's who do not vette every word have some
protection from legal liability for what is published via their
facilities, but they definitely don't have to allow all speakers to say
anything they like.
Note how far that is from the principle of free speech. In the instance
that spawned this in net.support.psych.misc, Best wrapped itself in the
flag of free speech, but in reality they are just protecting their legal
position: They are not acting *within their legal rights to squelch*
because it may mean that acting that way would make the NEXT site with
harmful speech that they fail to kill could result in their being a
co-defendant in a defamation, libel, or other 'harmful speech'
litigation. I'm sure anyone willing to indemnify Best against such suits
could get them to yank that site.
>Then there is the whole spam issue, where people on
>n.a.n-a.email consider a list of email addresses something that is not
>protected free speech.
HUH?
I am a nanae regular, and was hit by the "BlueLister" who made pages of
such lists, and I was listed in the NetScum pages, and I certainly
consider those web pages protected speech. Note that protected speech is a
LEGAL TERM in the US and has nothing to do with a web hosting provider's
decision to host a site. "Protected speech" has very little relevance when
it comes to a secondary publisher's decision to carry certain material or
decline to do so, with the possible exception that declining to not carry
unprotected speech is likely to have no argumentative weight in
determining their primary/secondary status.
However, the BlueLister pummelled me with spam including his various
URL's, and THAT is a different issue altogether...
>
>If a web page is spamvertised, we say it is right to pull the web page.
Yes, but not because the page is not protected speech (a list of e-mail
adresses almost certainly is) but because it is probably against a
relevant AUP/TOS to do such advertisement. Not that Terms of Service which
include an Acceptable Usage Policy are part of a commercial contract which
is usually well outside the legal reach of government in the US. You could
set up an ISP in the US which forbids all use not in the promotion of
Christian Identity theology and the government could not mess with your
TOS. You could also set up an ISP with NO usage limits, and the government
could not force you to have one. They could go after users engaging in
illegal activities, but they'd have a very hard time going after the ISP
unless the ISP knowingly and materially assisted illegal activity.
[1] The fact that any speech is legally considered "obscene" in the US and
is hence unprotected is itself an obscenity. The legal definition is a bad
joke. The core of the legal argument is the simple and vicious idea that
the government should be able to make it impossible for people to
privately discuss and demonstrate ideas which offend others who are not
involved. I DO NOT mean I think it should be legal to produce or sell or
even exchange all possible forms of 'pornography' because where the law
really has teeth there (in the US) is with child pornography that by its
nature must involve doing damage to minors to produce. I have small
arguments with the edges of kiddie porn law, but I think it is very
defensible ethically in its basic principles. What really irks me is that
material involving only consenting adults can be deemed 'obscene' and made
illegal to possess or exchange simply because some representative of The
People deems it wrong. I can agree with thin bright lines drawn around
lethal activities or kids, but the law goes past that in the US. I find it
personally offensive that one cent of my tax money would ever go to
preventing the BDSM community or people interested in sex with animals or
members of the same sex from talking to each other in any way they like. I
am not directly threatened by current 'obscenity' boundaries, but that
they can exist in a world where Pat Robertson and the current Catholic
hierarchy can wield significant political power makes me alert to the fact
that my own felony acts (I live in Missouri...) [3] which are relatively
tame could someday be deemed obscene to speak of, to depict in text,
drawings, or photographs, and might even be policed against people other
than the oppressed minorities which are now the sole victims of the law
where I live.
[2] Note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If you take
it as such, you are a fool. I have hereby protected myself from being sued
by the Missouri Bar. :)
[3] Aquinas would love Missouri's sodomy laws. Every sperm is sacred, and
women should not be having much fun at all. At least it is non-sexist, but
it sure would be a pain to NOT be a felon in Missouri, even as a pretty
conventional straight guy.
--
Bill Cole
rif...@cybernothing.org
>In article <bill-06079...@192.168.1.1>, Bill Cole wrote:
>IF the US tobacco industry was held to that standard, they would be out of
>>business today, at least as currently constituted. That would make for a
>>radically different world tobacco market.
>"SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER - Tobacco smoke contains many cancer
>causing chemicals including tar. When you breathe the smoke in,
[etc etc]
>Now, if that ain't a deterant, what is?
Ever heard Denis Leary's rant about cigarettes? He makes the very valid point
that you could call the cigarette brand "Tumors" and put it in a black box
with a skull-and-crossbones on it and people would line-up to buy them.
He was right of course.
rif...@afn.org : "Take my Worf, please."
Jeff The Riffer : --Star Trek : The Next Generation
Drifter... :
Homo Postmortemus :
Christi Alice Scarborough
<rif...@cyberNOTHING.org> wrote:
>Ever heard Denis Leary's rant about cigarettes? He makes the very valid point
>that you could call the cigarette brand "Tumors" and put it in a black box
>with a skull-and-crossbones on it and people would line-up to buy them.
In Britain a while back, there was actually a brand of cigarettes called
"Death" with exactly that design. Although I'm not a smoker myself, I
rather liked the refreshing honesty of that approach. Unfortuantely I've
not seen any for a couple of years now. I guess Dennis Leary may not
have been right after all.