Leia Slave Story Excerpt
Richard Taupin
TALES FROM JABBA'S PALACE - The Dancing Slave Girl's Tale
Chapter 5: "The Gamorrean Gang Rape"
"Come on, get in there," Ortugg growled, shoving Leia into the
dark, damp dungeon cell.
Leia flashed a look of vehement anger at the guard, but he slammed
the steel door shut in her face before she could recieve any
satisfaction from it. There was barely any light in the cell except
for the dim glow shining through the narrow-slitted window in the
door. Leia peered through it and saw several Gamorreans in a grimy
little room across from her. Two of them sat at a wooden table
drinking grog and talking to each other in their incomprehendable
language of grunts and snorts. Ortugg, the chief guard who brought
her down to the dungeon, walked over and sat on a stool near the
table, joining the other two guards in their meaningless conversation.
The princess' attention was then drawn to a gentle sensation on her
hind leg. Leia looked down and saw a spindly sandspider crawling up
her shin. She shrieked as swatted the insect away. The Gamorreans
across the hall looked over at her cell for a moment, but then went
back to their conversation.
* * * * * *
Rogua, Ortugg's arrogant brother, stared at the face of the
prisoner peeking through the cell door across from them.
"Who's the girl?" he asked.
Ortugg turned around in his stool and looked at Leia. "She's
Jabba's new pet," he replied. "The Hutt wants us to rough her up some
and teach her a lesson.
"Like that Twi'lek girl?" replied Rogua.
"Yes... I guess Jabba thinks it'll make her more obedient."
"Pretty," said Gartogg, the other guard sitting at the table. He
wasn't as smart as the rest of them and generally disliked by his
fellow Gamorreans because of his stupidity and incapability to master
the Basic language as they had.
"Pretty? You mean that girl?" Ortugg asked. Gartogg nodded
affirmatively.
"Hmm...I'm gonna get a better look at her," Rogua said.
He stood up and sauntered over to Leia's door.
* * * * * *
Leia stood in the center of the room, folding her arms and lightly
shivering from the damp coldness of the cell. At that moment, she
recalled the detention block cell on the Death Star and how it seemed
like palacial suite compared to this. Leia almost wished she was
there rather than this terrible place. The irony of that thought made
her smile just a little.
Her comtemplation ceased when the metallic door rattled open and
one of the pig guards tromped inside and grabbed her by the chain
around her neck. Leia gasped from the tight stranglehold of her neck
collar as the Gamorrean dragged her out of the cell into the other
room.
*What's her name?* he snorted to Ortugg in Gamorrese.
Ortugg shrugged unknowingly.
"What's your name, girl?" Rogua asked in plain Basic.
Leia said nothing at first, but then decided it would be pointless
to play stubborn games with these ruffions.
"Leia," she mumbled.
"What? Speak up!" the guard demanded.
"Leia," she angrily shouted.
*Pretty name,* Gartogg blurted out, watching them innocently from
the table.
"Hmmph," Rogua grunted. He looked at Leia up and down with squinty
yellow eyes, leering at her half-naked figure.
*Not bad,* he said to the others in Gamorrese. *A little pale,
and much too skinny, but okay for a human I guess.*
*She pretty huh?* Gartogg asked Ortugg, nudging the guard with his
elbow. Ortugg pushed away the annoying runt, ignoring his comments.
*I heard she's a real princess or something,* he told Rogua.
*Huh, really?* Rogua said with interest. "So you're a princess,
Lay-uh?" he asked the girl.
Leia looked up at him in surprise. How did he know that? Did
_everyone_ in this palace already know her true identity? That wasn't
good at all. Now she had to contend with the fear of being turned
over to the Empire. However, that didn't seem much worse compared to
her current situation.
Rogua smiled wickedly at his fellow Gamorreans. *You think she's
a virgin?*
Ortugg laughed.
*Virgin?* Gartogg questioned, not understanding what they meant.
Nobody bothered to explain it to him though.
*If she is, she won't be for long!* Rogua declared, shoving
Leia over to the table.
"Unngh, watch it," Leia grumbled, tired of being pushed around like
some kind of animal.
Ortugg stood up, clearing the way for Rogua and the slave girl.
He pushed Gartogg back, forcing him to move out of their way.
*Go over by the door and sit down,* he said, handing the younger
Gamorrean his stool. *Watch for anyone who might be coming down the
hall.*
*What you going to do?* Gartogg asked.
*You'll see. Just stay out of the way.*
* * * * * *
Rogua slid his stubby fingers under one of the straps connecting
the bottom of Leia's costume and easily pulled it loose. He yanked
off the costume piece, revealing her bare ass to all in the room.
Rogua pushed her down, forcing Leia to lean forward over the end of
the table. Fear began to well up inside of the princess as she
realized what they were going to do.
"No! Let me go!" she screamed, struggling desperately for release.
Rogua replied to that by slamming her face down against the table's
hard surface and mounting her from behind. It wasn't long before
he had his furry tunic pulled up over his belly and his stubby green
cock shoved into her tight little hole.
"Uuuunnnngghh!" Leia cried out with the first painful thrust of
Rogua's thick greasy dick squinched inside her taunt inner rims.
"You disgusting pigs!!" she shouted between slow, deep moans of
anguish.
Rogua lunged into her with a vicious screwing motion, his burly
arms shaking with exertion as he gripped her sweaty buttocks for
additional leverage.
*Urrk! She's so tight,* he exclaimed, stuffing his bloated organ
into her sweet socket.
The force of Rogua's battering squinched open Leia's narrow passage
and suddenly the entire weight of his lust was poised on the
stretching membrane of her aching loins.
Leia moaned and wept, screaming for him to stop. Tears flowed
down her cheeks as she gritted her teeth, bearing the pain of the
pig's penis pounding harder and harder into her ass...
* * * * * *
Just as Leia began to abandon herself to the spasms with which her
untutored innards responded to the rutting, she felt the Gamorrean's
prick being roughly pulled out of her anal passage.
*Hey! I'm not finished!* Rogua shouted as Ortugg pushed him back
out of the way.
*Yes you are. I'm the head guard and it's my turn now!* Ortugg
grunted.
Rogua fought back by pushing Ortugg, but the chief Gamorrean decked
him, knocking Rogua out cold. Gartogg laughed with amusement at
that but quickly turned his attention back to Leia and Ortugg. He was
still perplexed about this new form of "roughing up the prisoners".
Ortugg grabbed Leia by the hips and tossed her down onto the floor.
She fell hard and winced at the pain of her aching pelvis. Ortugg
got on top of her, spreading Leia's legs apart and holding her arms
down to keep the princess from squirming.
* * * * * *
"Aaaaaiiiee!" Leia's throaty voice screeched as the bulk of
Ortugg's stony staff jacked her cuntal rims apart and plunged deep
into her body. The feeling of her vagina stretching like a slippery
skin over the immensity of his thick log of flesh inspired Ortugg to
an animal rhythm of frenzied fucking, ripping his cock in and out of
her nubile narrows until he was reaming Leia like a wild beast. His
buttocks jumped with each mad humping thrust that buried his root deep
in the rippling freshness of her billowing belly.
Arching her body like a person possessed, Leia was unable to resist
the intense sensations of the pigs smooth, slippery penetrations as he
slid his slimy wet cock in between the pouting pink lips of her
burning clitoris. Soon she began to feel the shockwave of vibrations
as his organ rippled inside of her. Then the tidal wave of come hit
her.
"Ohhhh! OHHHHHHHH!" Leia howled, arching her back as the strain in
her bloated cunt exploded with a savage series of convulsions that ran
up and down the churning channel, stroking and sucking at Ortugg's
skewering hard staff. The pig snorted and grunted loudly and he
expelled a load of icy cold fluid inside Leia, sending a chill up
through her spine. The Gamorrean's creamy wet slime filled her pussy
and gushed out onto her abdomen and between her thighs.
"Unnnnnnhhhh...," she moaned and heaved one final exhausted sigh.
Ortugg rolled off her sweat-drenched body and collapsed to the floor.
Leia's bare body quivered with the exhileration of her climax. She
reached for her throbbing pussy and massaged the gleaming gorge,
trying to ease the pain in her loins.
She was terror-stricken and repulsed by the grotesque beasts who had
raped her, one of whom had flooded her insides with his greasy semen.
She prayed that this animal would not spawn strange half-human,
half-Gamorrean children inside of her body. Leia wiped the tears from
her eyes and rolled over on her back.
* * * * * *
*My turn?* Gartogg asked anxiously.
Ortugg looked up at him in surprise and chuckled.
*Sure, go right ahead,* he said with amusement.
Gartogg rushed over to Leia and plopped onto the floor next to her,
yanking his tunic up. Leia inched back from him, looking up at the
pig who hovered over her and fondled his small, knobby penis with
his hands.
Fear returned to Leia as she watched the lump of flesh grow in size
and thickness until it became a long meaty mass covered in warts and
oozing of greasy juices from the tip.
*What now?* Gartogg asked Ortugg.
*Put it in her mouth,* he replied, stifling his own laughter.
Gartogg sat on top of Leia, nearly crushing her with his weight.
She gasped with all his bulk smothering her. Gartogg leaned forward
and tried putting his dick in her mouth, but just kept poking Leia in
the face with it. She twisted and turned, trying to avoid the
disgusting protrusion being thrust at her.
"Swallow it, girl," Ortugg ordered. "Don't upset my friend here,"
he said to Leia with a sneer.
She flinched some more but then she saw Ortugg standing up and
grabbing his axe off the table. Leia finally gave in. She looked
directly at Gartogg's lumpy prick in front of her and then tilted her
head up and took it into her mouth.
God, the taste made her sick. It was like kissing a tauntaun
square on its mouth, but she dared not stop for fear of getting
beheaded by the chief guard standing only a few feet away.
Gartogg just sat there and let Leia do all the work. He squealed
with delight as she slid her tongue around the tip of his cock and
took it deeper into her mouth with her one free hand gripping its
thick shaft, massaging it with her small nimble fingers. This was
fun, Gartogg thought to himself. Much better than beating prisoners
on the head with the end of his axe.
Leia stroked and sucked the fat pig's cock for several minutes
until he finally came. She choked on the first eruption of his cream
down her throat, but as it started flowing with each spasm of his
cock, Leia swallowed more and more, sucking him dry. She hated this
more than anything in the world and damned herself for going through
with it. At that point, she decided she could no longer do this.
With a sudden violent crunch, Leia bit down hard on Gartogg's cock and
spat it out of her mouth.
Gartogg screamed out in pain and crawled back against the wall,
clutching his wounded groin. Rogua, who was now awake and watching
them from the table where he was sitting, laughed long and hard until
he fell back in his chair onto the floor.
Leia spat and threw up what little of the terrible pig slime she
could. Ortugg came up from behind her and jerked Leia to her feet
with the chain attached to her collar. He pushed her back into
the dungeon cell across the hall and closed the steel door. A moment
later, the door opened again and Ortugg threw the rest of her costume
in onto the dirty cell floor, slamming the door shut again. Leia put
on the rest of her costume and curled up on the floor in the corner of
the cell, listening to the grunts and snorts of the Gamorreans
outside, and the painful squealing of the one she had wounded. It
gave her little satisfaction that she had hurt one of them, and it
surprised her that they had done nothing to punish her afterward as
she had expected. But then raping her had been punishment enough.
Leia started to cry again and soon fell asleep on the dirty dungeon
floor.
Michael Niles
What a sick bastard.
Nexus.net is a Mexican web service, and I don't speak Spanish...
..But, maybe someone out there who DOES speak Spanish can send a
message to the Webmaster for nexus.net regarding the posting of
this sick story...? I'm not sure how that would help, as far as
if they can cancel Richard Taupin's service, but it never hurts
to try...
Their homepage is at http://nexusparc.acnet.net/
We should replace every mention of the name "Leia" in the
story with the name "Richard Taupin", then send mass emails of
the new and improved story to that pervert.
Mike *:o)
Visit the 77's Homepage:
http://web77.biola.edu/~steve/77s/
\\|//
(o o) man...@worldnet.att.net
~~~~~~~~~~~oOOo~(_)~oOOo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Gonzales
Richard Taupin wrote:
>
> TALES FROM JABBA'S PALACE - The Dancing Slave Girl's Tale
>
> Chapter 5: "The Gamorrean Gang Rape"
called me up today and told me about some "really gross story on the
news group." I can't believe somebody would post this shit. If you
feel this desperate need to send your sick fantasy out, post something
that says "If your interested in some sexual star wars fan-fic, e-mail
me. I really hope we can get enough complaints to his server to shut
his account down.
-Cheech
Scott Chitwood
Howdy!
Tell me what I need to do to get this guy shut down and I'm willing to
do it.
Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
I really don't see any other way to get rid of all these perverts until
it's too late.
Scott
Steven Gonzales wrote:
>
> Richard Taupin wrote:
> >
> > TALES FROM JABBA'S PALACE - The Dancing Slave Girl's Tale
> >
> > Chapter 5: "The Gamorrean Gang Rape"
char...@mail.idt.net
Scott Chitwood wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> Tell me what I need to do to get this guy shut down and I'm willing to
> do it.
>
> Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
> newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
> I really don't see any other way to get rid of all these perverts until
> it's too late.
Until it's too late for what? Here's an idea: you don't like offensive
posts? DON'T READ THEM. I had a pretty good idea from the subject
heading what the post was all about. And damn thing was even titled
"The Gamorrean Gang Rape!" How much more of a clue did you need?!
What's worse is you suggest that *Lucasfilm* set-up a moderated
newsgroup. Swell. I can't imagine there would be much tolerance for
any even remotely critical analysis of anything regarding Star Wars. It
would read like the letters to the editor from the Star Wars Insider or
Star Wars Galaxy Magazine. Essentially, such a newsgroup would become
one big press release for LFL -- everything would be mindlessly
promotional. And forget about any news leaks (factual or otherwise)
about new Star Wars projects. We wouldn't hear anything until Lucasfilm
wanted us to hear about it. Where's the fun in that?
Don't get me wrong: I'm not specifically supporting the "literary" work
of Richard Taupin -- but I passionately support free speech, something
you seem to be very much against in both points of your post. And I
find that far more offensive than anything in Taupin's post.
Gus Lopez
In article <32469B...@otrc5.tamu.edu>,
Scott Chitwood <sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu> wrote:
> Tell me what I need to do to get this guy shut down and I'm willing to
>do it.
Are you suggesting that someone get shut down for posting a "literary
work", no matter how crude and offensive to some? I can understand in
the case of something illegal like MAKE MONEY FAST or a ripoff scam, but
this guy posted a "story".
> Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
>newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
First comment, Lucasfilm doesn't need to be contacted to create a
moderated newsgroup. The process is to go to news.groups and
news.announce.newgroups to present an RFD.
As much as I support LFL for their projects, I think they would make a
lousy choice as moderator for a SW newsgroup. Would you expect such a
newsgroup to allow some of the criticism of particular aspects of the Star
Wars universe that we currently see on RASSM? *Any* newsgroup run by a
license owner (e.g. Star Wars, Disney, Star Trek, whatever) is likely to
sound more like an informercial than a marketplace of ideas. Put yourself
in LFL shoes...would you want to approve posts that criticized your
business and creative decisions? They probably wouldn't want the job
anyway.
I've seen moderated Star Wars forums. They are generally terrible since
certain topics are cut off arbitrarily and certain topics are taboo. No
thanks. (BTW I'm not including RASSI in this group since it's a place to
make announcements not to discuss topics).
With free speech, we sometimes have to put up with offensive and insulting
language, but it's amazing how quickly people jump to "remedies" to
silence people who say such offensive words. The idea of silencing these
people for their words is much more offensive than anything they could
ever say.
Gus
--
_________ _ ____ __ __ __ _ ____ _____ | Gus Lopez
| \ \ \ \ / \ \ | | lopez@cs.
( | \ |_ / / \ |_ / ( <O> washington.edu
__ \ | /_ \ \___ / /_ \ \___ \ |O
/ | / \ | | / / / \ | / /|L\==_
\
The Star Wars Collectors Archive
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lopez/collectors.html
Gus Lopez
In article <32469B...@otrc5.tamu.edu>,
Scott Chitwood <sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu> wrote:
> Tell me what I need to do to get this guy shut down and I'm willing to
>do it.
work", no matter how crude and offensive to some? I can understand in
the case of something illegal like MAKE MONEY FAST or a ripoff scam, but
this guy posted a "story".
> Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
>newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
First comment, Lucasfilm doesn't need to be contacted to create a
moderated newsgroup. The process is to go to news.groups and
news.announce.newgroups to present an RFD.
As much as I support LFL for their projects, I think they would make a
lousy choice as moderator for a SW newsgroup. Would you expect such a
newsgroup to allow some of the criticism of particular aspects of the Star
Wars universe that we currently see on RASSM? *Any* newsgroup run by a
license owner (e.g. Star Wars, Disney, Star Trek, whatever) is likely to
sound more like an informercial than a marketplace of ideas. Put yourself
in LFL shoes...would you want to approve posts that criticized your
business and creative decisions? They probably wouldn't want the job
anyway.
I've seen moderated Star Wars forums. They are generally terrible since
certain topics are cut off arbitrarily and certain topics are taboo. No
thanks. (BTW I'm not including RASSI in this group since it's a place to
make announcements not to discuss topics).
With free speech, we sometimes have to put up with offensive and insulting
language, but it's amazing how quickly people jump to "remedies" to
James Trory
In article <84345203...@pc21wilmez.stflabs.okstate.edu>, Richard
Taupin <Tau...@nexus.net> writes
>TALES FROM JABBA'S PALACE - The Dancing Slave Girl's Tale
>
>Chapter 5: "The Gamorrean Gang Rape"
Hmmm, two in two days huh? Very good!
-- James "the Sith Master", icon to the disciples of the JTFC
*** Author of the Official RASSM Homepage ***
*** http://members.aol.com/jtrory/rassm.htm ***
(and don't ask why it's on AOL, it just is!!)
Scott Chitwood
Howdy!
'Before it's too late' means that there's really nothing that we can do
about pornographic posts until after they have already been broadcast
worldwide. Hence, 'too late'.
Next, I suggested Lucasfilm moderate a group because, after all, it's
their property. They have the money to do it. (I should know, I've
given them enough cash to do it!) While discussions may be limited, I
know what I am getting.
Just because I suggested it does not mean I think RASSM should
disappear. I think that, as a Star Wars fan, I should be able to have
the option to go to some place to discuss Star Wars without seeing
Princess Leia Gang Rape posts. They have the right to 'free speech',
but I have the right to go someplace and not have to see it in any way
shape or form. Including titles to posts.
Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
let my children go to talk about Star Wars without me having to explain
to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
So in the meantime, until you come up with a better way for me to avoid
these types of posts (other than totally leaving), this is the best
solution I have to offer. Perfect? No way! But it's all I can think
of at the moment. Have you got something better? I would really
appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm fresh out of ideas.
Scott
> Scott Chitwood wrote:
> >
> > Howdy!
> >
> > Tell me what I need to do to get this guy shut down and I'm willing to
> > do it.
> >
> > Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
> > newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
char...@mail.idt.net
Scott Chitwood wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> 'Before it's too late' means that there's really nothing that we can do
> about pornographic posts until after they have already been broadcast
> worldwide. Hence, 'too late'.
And again I ask the question, if these posts bother you so, why are you
reading them? Personally, I hate reading moronic posts, but there's
little I can do about it until "it's too late." At least pornographic
posts usually label themselves as such and can be avoided. Morons have
no such "respect" when they post mindless drivel. For example, you
rarely see a post entitled "My idiotic praise of Ewoks." (Please note
Scott, I am not equating you with "morons," merely pointing out that
everyone has things they love and hate -- why are you trying to impose
your own taste unto others?)
> Next, I suggested Lucasfilm moderate a group because, after all, it's
> their property. They have the money to do it. (I should know, I've
> given them enough cash to do it!) While discussions may be limited, I
> know what I am getting.
"Star Wars" might be Lucasfilm's property, but the Internet is not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of the Net to
facilitate the sharing of information and ideas? Seems like you're more
interested in an LFL Police State. All information presented in a
LFL-moderated newsgroup would most likely reflect LFL's point-of-view.
How boring would that be.
>
> Just because I suggested it does not mean I think RASSM should
> disappear. I think that, as a Star Wars fan, I should be able to have
> the option to go to some place to discuss Star Wars without seeing
> Princess Leia Gang Rape posts. They have the right to 'free speech',
> but I have the right to go someplace and not have to see it in any way
> shape or form. Including titles to posts.
You have the freedom in RASSM not to read pornographic posts. Whether
the pornography starts at the subject heading or deep within the text of
the post, you have the ability to look away, close that post, even turn
off the damned computer. Why would you continue to read something you
find offensive? Although the text of Richard Taupin's was certainly,
shall we say "controversial," the title of the post ("Leia Slave Girl
Exerpt") was certainly acceptable within most parameters -- but it also
clearly informed the reader what was in store.
> Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
> let my children go to talk about Star Wars without me having to explain
> to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
So you want others to be responsible for what your children see? If
you're so concerned about them, why aren't you supervising their online
sessions? It's not the Internet community's fault that you have no
control over your children -- if that is indeed what you're suggesting.
> So in the meantime, until you come up with a better way for me to avoid
> these types of posts (other than totally leaving), this is the best
> solution I have to offer. Perfect? No way! But it's all I can think
> of at the moment. Have you got something better? I would really
> appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm fresh out of ideas.
Sigh. Been there. Done that. If you're not willing to take
responsibilty for your own actions, why would anyone else?
Personally, I think George Lucas is essentially "raping" the Star Wars
movies with certain elements of the upcoming special editions. I
complain about it and the response I usually get is, "You don't like it,
don't go see them." Well, if you have a problem with certain posts on
RASSM or elsewhere, why not follow the same advice?
James Trory
In article <3246C4...@mail.idt.net>, char...@mail.idt.net writes
>Scott Chitwood wrote:
>>
>> Howdy!
>>
>> Tell me what I need to do to get this guy shut down and I'm willing to
>> do it.
>>
>> Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
>> newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
>> it's too late.
>
>Until it's too late for what? Here's an idea: you don't like offensive
>posts? DON'T READ THEM. I had a pretty good idea from the subject
>heading what the post was all about. And damn thing was even titled
>"The Gamorrean Gang Rape!" How much more of a clue did you need?!
>
>What's worse is you suggest that *Lucasfilm* set-up a moderated
>newsgroup. Swell. I can't imagine there would be much tolerance for
>any even remotely critical analysis of anything regarding Star Wars. It
>would read like the letters to the editor from the Star Wars Insider or
>Star Wars Galaxy Magazine. Essentially, such a newsgroup would become
>one big press release for LFL -- everything would be mindlessly
>promotional. And forget about any news leaks (factual or otherwise)
>about new Star Wars projects. We wouldn't hear anything until Lucasfilm
>wanted us to hear about it. Where's the fun in that?
>
>Don't get me wrong: I'm not specifically supporting the "literary" work
>of Richard Taupin -- but I passionately support free speech, something
>you seem to be very much against in both points of your post. And I
>find that far more offensive than anything in Taupin's post.
You've not been here long, have you? You obviously haven't witnessed all
the crap we get here, especially in the last month. Two perverted
stories in two days is just too many for it to be tolerable anymore!
Moderation by LFL wouldn't work, and I don't suppose moderation by
*anyone* would be popular or practical, but the level of such posts has
to drop soon. It's getting ridiculous. One of these posts a month is
tolerable, once a week is dumb, once a day is just plain infuriating!
James Trory
In article <526nlb$e...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, Gus Lopez
<fe...@u.washington.edu> writes
>>do it.
>
>work", no matter how crude and offensive to some? I can understand in
>the case of something illegal like MAKE MONEY FAST or a ripoff scam, but
>this guy posted a "story".
Yeah, but most of us find this type of "story" offensive and unecessary.
Plus, not only have we been receiving too many of these in the last
month, this is the second such "story" in two days! It's getting beyond
tolerable now!
>> Maybe it's time we all petitioned Lucasfilm to set up a moderated
>>newsgroup for us so that we can all talk about Star Wars in peace, eh?
>
>First comment, Lucasfilm doesn't need to be contacted to create a
>moderated newsgroup. The process is to go to news.groups and
>news.announce.newgroups to present an RFD.
>
>As much as I support LFL for their projects, I think they would make a
>lousy choice as moderator for a SW newsgroup. Would you expect such a
>newsgroup to allow some of the criticism of particular aspects of the Star
>Wars universe that we currently see on RASSM? *Any* newsgroup run by a
>license owner (e.g. Star Wars, Disney, Star Trek, whatever) is likely to
>sound more like an informercial than a marketplace of ideas. Put yourself
>in LFL shoes...would you want to approve posts that criticized your
>business and creative decisions? They probably wouldn't want the job
>anyway.
I'll agree here. I also think LFL is a lousy choice, because as you say,
they would be more concerned about their business and image. But then,
who would moderate RASSM? Who has the time? If RASSM isn't moderated,
then how do we stop this sort of regular abuse? We can't without
moderation. It might seem slightly irrasional, but it is turning into a
necessary argument. At first, I was the only one here who was fed up
with all the smut, but now it seems others are beginning to agree with
me. What's the answer? I don't know!
>I've seen moderated Star Wars forums. They are generally terrible since
>certain topics are cut off arbitrarily and certain topics are taboo. No
>thanks. (BTW I'm not including RASSI in this group since it's a place to
>make announcements not to discuss topics).
I have to say, I lean towards the "opposed" section when it comes to
RASSM moderation, for one reason; the moderator himself. The moderator
who have to truely understand what the majority want on this NG, and
some people might take their job too seriously and delete stuff
unnecessarily. But then others might be too lax.
>With free speech, we sometimes have to put up with offensive and insulting
>language, but it's amazing how quickly people jump to "remedies" to
>silence certain people. The idea of silencing these people for their
>words is much more offensive than anything they could ever say.
But it's not the language or the personal opinions that we're bothered
about. It's about these "stories", these trolls. They aren't personal
opinions, they're just revolting scripts with no meaning or purpose, and
hardly any relavence to SW! There's no need for them.
M L G Moore
In article <526nlb$e...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, fe...@u.washington.edu says...
>
>
>Are you suggesting that someone get shut down for posting a "literary
>work", no matter how crude and offensive to some? I can understand in
>the case of something illegal like MAKE MONEY FAST or a ripoff scam, but
>this guy posted a "story".
He posted a story using copywrited characters, who do not belong to him, to
create a situation that the rightful owner of the characters would almost
certainly NOT approve of. No one's rights allow him or her to steal from
another. While most studios/producers/PTB take the attitude of looking the
other way at fanfic, it must always be remembered that the characters are
legally copywrited here and around the world. Surely you believe that artists
have the right to protect their work and profit from them?
Also, I'm interested in why you are so quick to support the right of
free speach for those who make degrading and sexist postings and at the
same time be so quick to speak to to critize Scott and others for using
their right of free speech to tell people such as this they dislike
their stories and would rather not have them on the newsgroup.
Let me go on record as saying that I believe that posting this story on
this newsgroup was highly inappropriate. This newsgroup is for the
discussion of Star Wars. Simply putting the names of characters and
planets from the movie does not make something Stars Wars. Also, I find
sexism and the degradation of the human spirit always inappropriate.
>With free speech, we sometimes have to put up with offensive and insulting
>language, but it's amazing how quickly people jump to "remedies" to
>silence certain people. The idea of silencing these people for their
>words is much more offensive than anything they could ever say.
>
And you don't think that people posting violent and degrading stories about
women doesn't silence many people? I do not believe in censureship. I would
not silence even this very offensive man, but I would also not censure the
cries for the end of seeing violence and degradation of women as
entertainment.
I am depressingly certain that I have been contributing to the ACLU,
supporting, voting and working for political candidates that support the
widest possible view of human and political rights than many people in this
newsgroup have been alive. And I still believe that the story was wrongly
posted in this group and we should all speak up and say so.
M.L.G. Moore
Michael Niles
The post about Leia getting gang raped was sick, disgusting, and
horrible.
Does Richard Taupin have "the right" to post such stories? Yes--
BUT, just because he has that right does not mean that he is
required to exercise it. The fact that he did exercise his right
to free speech to post such an offensive post demonstrates that
he is a complete bastard. ("Offensive to whom?" I can hear the
cries now. Here's the answer: offensive to most people (99% or
more). Offensive to me, yes. Offensive to lots of people).
Anyone who exercises their right to free speech by posting such a
horrible "story" is a sick disgusting, perverted individual.
Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot else we can do, because
of "free speech"-- certainly a mixed blessing. However, I don't
think that an Internet provider is censoring someone if it
chooses to cancel someone's service because that person posts
offensive (i.e. to 99% or more of the population) messages. The
provider isn't preventing such a person from expressing his/her
speech, the provider is simply choosing not to do business with
such a person.
Internet providers-- and other publishing businesses, such as
newspapers, magazines, book companies, etc.-- are not
compelled to provide a person with a forum. "Not providing an
outlet" for a person's views is NOT "censoring" the person. If
it is, then I guess all of those publishers who rejected the
manuscript of my first novel are censoring me!
I think that people on RASSM who are offended by Taupin's post
have EVERY right to try to get his service cancelled. It's not
censorship; it's just providing a hassle in return for being an
asshole (Hey! That rhymed!)
It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
as sodomizing a woman against her will.
To everyone who is arguing for free speech, I respectfuly
understand your views (and agree with them, to an extent), but
please don't forget that we're talking about someone who posted a
story about the rape and torture of a woman.
Mike *:o)
___STAR___________________
/ \
| "I've participated in the |
| Orgies of Spunchina |
| and lived." |
| --Jabba the Hutt |
\__________________ ____/
WARS
Michael Niles
Gus Lopez
In article <324752...@otrc5.tamu.edu>,
Scott Chitwood <sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu> wrote:
> Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
>let my children go to talk about Star Wars without me having to explain
>to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
>
>these types of posts (other than totally leaving), this is the best
>solution I have to offer. Perfect? No way! But it's all I can think
>of at the moment. Have you got something better? I would really
>appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm fresh out of ideas.
Scott--I think you raise some valid points, but as I said in my previous
post, I have to disagree that censoring the poster or starting a moderated
newsgroup is the answer. Here are some suggestions:
1. Start a Star Wars mailing list.
2. Don't read articles with titles that could offend you.
3. Use killfiles for certain topic headings.
4. Monitor your children when the use the net. It seems unrealistic to
hope that the net community will monitor your children for you.
Gus Lopez
In article <527at4$1v...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
M L G Moore <mgm...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>He posted a story using copywrited characters, who do not belong to him, to
>create a situation that the rightful owner of the characters would almost
>certainly NOT approve of. No one's rights allow him or her to steal from
>another. While most studios/producers/PTB take the attitude of looking the
>other way at fanfic, it must always be remembered that the characters are
>legally copywrited here and around the world. Surely you believe that artists
>have the right to protect their work and profit from them?
Whoa, tiger! People were not speaking out about the Gamorrean Guard Gang
Rape because of copyright violations. If you want to police copyright
infringements on Star Wars, you are going to have your hands full in the
newsgroups and on the web--this particular post was not the first
copyright infringement in these parts.
People are criticizing the story based on the violent and sexual nature of
the post.
>Also, I'm interested in why you are so quick to support the right of
>free speach for those who make degrading and sexist postings and at the
>same time be so quick to speak to to critize Scott and others for using
>their right of free speech to tell people such as this they dislike
>their stories and would rather not have them on the newsgroup.
You completely misinterpreted my post. I never criticized Scott or anyone
else for finding that story offensive. Scott has every right to criticize
that story. In fact, I share Scott's view that it was vulgar and
offensive. I must part company, however, when people try to silence the
poster or get him booted off his system for posting that message.
You suggest that I only stand for the rights of these vulgar and degrading
people. I suggest that you do a little background on me before making
such a ludicrous claim.
>Let me go on record as saying that I believe that posting this story on
>this newsgroup was highly inappropriate. This newsgroup is for the
>discussion of Star Wars. Simply putting the names of characters and
>planets from the movie does not make something Stars Wars. Also, I find
>sexism and the degradation of the human spirit always inappropriate.
That is a perfectly valid view to hold, and I more or less agree with it.
The poster of the article might disagree with it, and it is his right to
post it. Until I get appointed Ayatollah, just because I find a post
offensive does not mean I can prevent someone from posting it. :^)
>And you don't think that people posting violent and degrading stories about
>women doesn't silence many people? I do not believe in censureship. I would
>not silence even this very offensive man, but I would also not censure the
>cries for the end of seeing violence and degradation of women as
>entertainment.
The best thing you can do to put a stop to the depiction of violence
against women is to publicly criticize it and educate people about how
common it is fiction.
Gus Lopez
In article <527sdr$4...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot else we can do, because
>of "free speech"-- certainly a mixed blessing. However, I don't
>think that an Internet provider is censoring someone if it
>chooses to cancel someone's service because that person posts
>offensive (i.e. to 99% or more of the population) messages. The
>provider isn't preventing such a person from expressing his/her
>speech, the provider is simply choosing not to do business with
>such a person.
So if you believe that, my question for you is "What would be a violation
of one's free speech?" Based on your view where providers have a right to
revoke access based on a viewpoint, how could a free speech infringement
possibly arise in *any* context?
>Internet providers-- and other publishing businesses, such as
>newspapers, magazines, book companies, etc.-- are not
>compelled to provide a person with a forum. "Not providing an
>outlet" for a person's views is NOT "censoring" the person. If
>it is, then I guess all of those publishers who rejected the
>manuscript of my first novel are censoring me!
That is not a valid analogy. Newspapers, magazines, and book companies
have to make decisions based on content. An ISP does not. A better
(although not ideal) analogy would be a phone company that revokes access
to you because they don't like the fact that you "talk dirty" with your
significant other in conversations.
>I think that people on RASSM who are offended by Taupin's post
>have EVERY right to try to get his service cancelled. It's not
>censorship; it's just providing a hassle in return for being an
>asshole (Hey! That rhymed!)
I completely disagree. This is a blatant example of censorship. They are
trying to silence someone to prevent him from ever expressing his views
since his views are not "correct" by the majority's standards.
>It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
>"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
>speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
>raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
>a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
>as sodomizing a woman against her will.
I don't think we need to decide between choosing free speech or preventing
rapes.
As offensive as I found that story, no one here was raped. Talking about
rape is not the same as committing rape. Talking about destroying a
planet with a deathstar is not the same as committing war atrocities.
Look, most of us here are disgusted with the idea of rape. But, as
supportive as I've always been for women's rights, I really think the
discussion has gotten too patronizing with a bunch of sanctimonious men
speaking about how horrible it is for women. It sounds like a "Save the
Children" commercial. I'd really like to hear some female readers comment
on this thread before blindly following a few courageous men out to
"protect women" from these evil words about rape.
Rakelle
Gus Lopez wrote:
>
> In article <527sdr$4...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot else we can do, because
> >of "free speech"-- certainly a mixed blessing. However, I don't
> >think that an Internet provider is censoring someone if it
> >chooses to cancel someone's service because that person posts
> >offensive (i.e. to 99% or more of the population) messages. The
> >provider isn't preventing such a person from expressing his/her
> >speech, the provider is simply choosing not to do business with
> >such a person.
>
> So if you believe that, my question for you is "What would be a
> violation of one's free speech?" Based on your view where providers
> have a right to revoke access based on a viewpoint, how could a free
> speech infringement possibly arise in *any* context?
IMO, Americans are too fixated on the free speech issue. I believe in
free speech myself, but not at all costs. I do not believe in having
freedom to express grossly offensive stories in public. And a newsgroup
such as this IS public -anybody can go there.
If you bought something like Reader's Digest (poor example, but I don't
know many US magazines), opened it, and found an explicit story about
rape/torture, wouldn't you be offended?
Sex stories are for the sex newsgroups. Even though certain elements
out there might think so, most of us here do not like this stuff.
The fact that they have 'freedom of speech' does not mean they have to
express it to the fullest degree, and does not mean we have to accept
their use of it.
> >Internet providers-- and other publishing businesses, such as
> >newspapers, magazines, book companies, etc.-- are not
> >compelled to provide a person with a forum. "Not providing an
> >outlet" for a person's views is NOT "censoring" the person. If
> >it is, then I guess all of those publishers who rejected the
> >manuscript of my first novel are censoring me!
> That is not a valid analogy. Newspapers, magazines, and book
> companies have to make decisions based on content. An ISP does not.
> A better (although not ideal) analogy would be a phone company that
> revokes access to you because they don't like the fact that you "talk
> dirty" with your significant other in conversations.
Talking to one person is private. A more suitable analogy might be
somebody who got hold of a radio channel and began reading crap for
the world to hear. Anybody who happened to tune in would get an earful
the wouldn't in most case liked to have been without.
> >I think that people on RASSM who are offended by Taupin's post
> >have EVERY right to try to get his service cancelled. It's not
> >censorship; it's just providing a hassle in return for being an
> >asshole (Hey! That rhymed!)
>
> I completely disagree. This is a blatant example of censorship. They
> are trying to silence someone to prevent him from ever expressing his
> views since his views are not "correct" by the majority's standards.
OK. Go to a pro-life rally with a free abortion poster. You have the
right to do it.
> >It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
> >"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
> >speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
> >raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
> >a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
> >as sodomizing a woman against her will.
>
> I don't think we need to decide between choosing free speech or
> preventing rapes.
Unfortunately we can't decide that. But many felons are inspired by
stuff they've heard/seen. Reading a 'hot' story might well encourage
a guy to go and try it first hand (yes, I'm being extreme)
> As offensive as I found that story, no one here was raped. Talking
> about rape is not the same as committing rape. Talking about a
> destroying planet with a deathstar is not the same as committing war
> atrocities.
'No one here was raped'. Sure. No one REAL was raped. Most fictitious
smut stories are (thank God!) just that: Fiction. But the point of
fiction is to express something that could happen. It is supposed to
depict a 'real' scene. Having people tortured and killed in fiction
does usually affect us -because at the time of reading/seeing it, it
'is' real. In this story, Leia 'was' raped.
> Look, most of us here are disgusted with the idea of rape. But, as
> supportive as I've always been for women's rights, I really think the
> discussion has gotten too patronizing with a bunch of sanctimonious
> men speaking about how horrible it is for women. It sounds like a
> "Save the Children" commercial. I'd really like to hear some female
> readers comment on this thread before blindly following a few
> courageous men out to "protect women" from these evil words about
> rape.
Now you have a female's comment. We don't want these stories. Real
life crimes are bad enough as it is without getting more crap through
some idiot's demented fantasies.
Rakelle
David Zeiger
James Trory (che...@trory.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Yeah, but most of us find this type of "story" offensive and unecessary.
: Plus, not only have we been receiving too many of these in the last
: month, this is the second such "story" in two days! It's getting beyond
: tolerable now!
I can give you two really easy reasons for this.
1) Check the calender
2) Note that every time somebody *does* post such a thing, they
get a 30-post thread started up. If you would *ignore* the twits,
instead of giving them the attention they want, a lot of them
would go away--particularly the ones who are doing it due to #1
above..
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
The world's smallest boulder fits easily inside an ordinary hatbox.
--Abrell's and Thompson's Actual Facts
James Howison
I would like to add my support to the message that argues that curtailing
violence towards women comes before the 'right' of publishing offensive,
non constructive crap!!!
This message perpetuates the myth that women enjoy, scream in pleasure
indeed, at rape! This is nothing more than providing excuses and
justification for rape and violence against women.
James Howison
"I might hate what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to
stop you from encouraging violence and rape"
Love James
Scott Chitwood
Howdy
As far as throwing someone off the net for posting stories of violent
rape of a woman, I believe that the ISp is well within their rights to
do so. All I would do is bring it to their attention. Let the ISP and
the pervert fight the 'free speech' battle.
Still, I think the point is being missed.
How old were you when you were introduced to Star Wars? I was three.
Since the first time I saw the film, I was hooked. I devoured anything
that had Star Wars on it.
If I were to jump on Star Wars today and I was 7 or 8, I might get on
the net and post something like "Where can I find Star Wars pictures?"
I predict the reply would be probably a picture of two people in some
strange sexual act, probably somebody else who would flame me for asking
for pictures to be posted, then twenty post battling about the freedom
of the pervert to post the picture.
If I were a kid, I might ask a question like, "Did you see the
Stormtrooper hit his head?" Twenty post flame me.
I believe you see what I am getting at. The internet is no place for
young Star Wars fans. That's a terrible shame, because my best Star
Wars memories were from when I was young. I would like to share the
experience again with the younger generation.
You can tell me to skip the disgusting posts. You can tell me to use a
kill file, but stuff always gets through. I'm not asking the internet
to censor messages for my kids. It shouldn't have to. You're right,
that was not what it was intended for.
However, there should be a place where I could let my kids go without
worrying what they are seeing. It would be much like setting them down
in front of the TV with a Star Wars video tape and knowing they are
having good clean fun. The film is not going to suddenly be interrupted
by 'Bowler Bimbos from Boston'.
By the way, I don't have any kids right now. You see, I'm trying to be
far sighted (which seems to be a non-existant trait these days). I want
there to be a place where kids can play on the net and talk about Star
Wars without me having to chase of perverts and people writing about
stories of violent rape of Princess Leia.
Did you have to deal with it when you were a kid playing Star Wars?
Our kids shouldn't have to either.
Scott
Gus Lopez wrote:
>
> In article <324752...@otrc5.tamu.edu>,
> Scott Chitwood <sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu> wrote:
> > Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
> >let my children go to talk about Star Wars without me having to explain
> >to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
> >
> > So in the meantime, until you come up with a better way for me to avoid
> >these types of posts (other than totally leaving), this is the best
> >solution I have to offer. Perfect? No way! But it's all I can think
> >of at the moment. Have you got something better? I would really
> >appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm fresh out of ideas.
>
> Scott--I think you raise some valid points, but as I said in my previous
> post, I have to disagree that censoring the poster or starting a moderated
> newsgroup is the answer. Here are some suggestions:
>
> 1. Start a Star Wars mailing list.
> 2. Don't read articles with titles that could offend you.
> 3. Use killfiles for certain topic headings.
> 4. Monitor your children when the use the net. It seems unrealistic to
> hope that the net community will monitor your children for you.
>
Kate Hagerty
char...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> Scott Chitwood wrote:
> > Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
> > let my children go to talk about Star Wars without me having to explain
> > to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
>
> So you want others to be responsible for what your children see? If
> you're so concerned about them, why aren't you supervising their online
> sessions? It's not the Internet community's fault that you have no
> control over your children -- if that is indeed what you're suggesting.
And how do you propose one go about "supervising" what a child of twelve
or thirteen sees on newsgroups? Should a parent come home early from
work, to sit next to their child and read over their shoulder ever post
on here? Parents cannot watch their children 24 hours a day; this
doesn't mean that they "have no control," it just means that they are
normal parents.
Everyone should bear some responsibility for protecting children from
violence in *any* form. The "right" to free speech -- along with all
other rights, does not come without responsibility, something too many
people gleefully forget. It is apparent that there are young teenagers
(and children younger) on this NG and there are some things (a rape
scenario presented as pornography, for example) which should not be seen
by people that young. They may make the choice to read such a thing,
but that does *not* mean it is okay for them to do so. People should
have the intelligence and the self-control to post such material to
appropriate NGs, or to say that they will send stories out by email to
all interested.
Beannacht a Ti,
kate
Gus Lopez
In article <3247DF...@otrc5.tamu.edu>,
Scott Chitwood <sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu> wrote:
> How old were you when you were introduced to Star Wars? I was three.
>Since the first time I saw the film, I was hooked. I devoured anything
>that had Star Wars on it.
>
> If I were to jump on Star Wars today and I was 7 or 8, I might get on
>the net and post something like "Where can I find Star Wars pictures?"
>
> I predict the reply would be probably a picture of two people in some
>strange sexual act, probably somebody else who would flame me for asking
>for pictures to be posted, then twenty post battling about the freedom
>of the pervert to post the picture.
I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it
can be expected that the net will have to adapt to the whims of a majority
opinion so that some parents can raise their kids unsupervised. The net
epitomizes pluralism and diversity, and parents who do not want their kids
wandering the streets, magazine shops, and cable television unsupervised
are going to have a tough time adapting to services like netnews and
should consider censored services such as AOL or moderated email lists.
Large binary files bring up other issues such as policies on posting high
bandwidth files to newsgroups.
> I believe you see what I am getting at. The internet is no place for
>young Star Wars fans. That's a terrible shame, because my best Star
>Wars memories were from when I was young. I would like to share the
>experience again with the younger generation.
In many ways, this issue is truly an american one, where we have to dumb
down everything for kids to produce such "high quality" material such as
"America's Funniest Home Videos". If you've ever watched television in
most of Europe or seen anime from Japan, the rest of the world seems to
allow kids to be exposed to more sex and violence, yet these kids seem to
grow up healthy with lower crime rates, lower teenage pregnancy, lower
drug usage, and so on.
It's most striking if you've ever watched Japanese anime that has been
dumbed down for american audiences. The innuendo, nudity, death,
swearing, and anything that could possibly hurt our delicate little
darlings is eliminated from the "sanitized for US" versions in the hopes
that children will grow up in isolation to any of these influences.
However, the Japanese versions are almost always more complex,
intelligent, entertaining, and thought-provoking as a result.
> However, there should be a place where I could let my kids go without
>worrying what they are seeing. It would be much like setting them down
>in front of the TV with a Star Wars video tape and knowing they are
>having good clean fun. The film is not going to suddenly be interrupted
>by 'Bowler Bimbos from Boston'.
The net is not a service or product like a home video where you can rely
on a manufacturer to supply a certain level of material. Would you like
yours kids to run free through a video store and play what they want? If
not, would you suggest that particular videos be banned because your kids
might encounter them?
>there to be a place where kids can play on the net and talk about Star
>Wars without me having to chase of perverts and people writing about
>stories of violent rape of Princess Leia.
I think the strong reactions *encourage* more of this behavior.
> Did you have to deal with it when you were a kid playing Star Wars?
>
> Our kids shouldn't have to either.
Actually, I started reading netnews a couple of weeks after ROTJ came out
in 1983. In those days of the net, we never worried about sanitizing
netnews so that it would have a "Leave it to Beaver" wholesome image. As
the net expanded and had a large influx of suburban white middle class
parents, the new majorities in the changing demographics have attempted to
influence the subject matter in different directions.
James E. Doyle
In article <527sbh$3...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Niles
<man...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
> "free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
> speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
> raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
> a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
> as sodomizing a woman against her will.
Uhm, look...as vile as that little story was, let's keep such
nonsensical either/or statements out of it. No one will EVER force you to
make that choice, nor would elimination of free speech ever logically
result in a perfectly safe world for my niece to walk through. Discussions
of serious issues like this are rarely enriched by such intellectually
sloppy statements.
> To everyone who is arguing for free speech, I respectfuly
> understand your views (and agree with them, to an extent), but
> please don't forget that we're talking about someone who posted a
> story about the rape and torture of a woman.
...and every time I read one of the all-too-common hate postings from
some web-toed Hitlerite butt-boy, or some idiot who hates homos so much it
makes his ears bleed, or some clueless woman-hating fanboy wanker whose
great joy in life seems to be imagining himself as a large green latex pig
sodomizing Carrie Fisher, I heave a heavy sigh and remind myself that this
is the not-so-pleasant price we pay as Americans for being (supposedly)
able to speak our minds, on any subject, in any way we please, without
fear of persecution.
The posting was inappropriate for this group. However, there is no
alt.sex.fetish.starwars for him to take it to (perhaps there should be?),
and as someone else pointed out, the title of the thing was pretty much a
dead giveaway. Lynch the guy who wrote it, if you want to, but
remember....you participated in this "outrage" by reading at least part of
the thing in the first place.
Donning my asbestos skivvies, now...
James E. "T.H.A.I. Bomber" Doyle
--
"Toll the bell... pay the private eye...
All's well...twentieth century dies..."
D. Bowie
Michael Mierzwa
Rakelle (s7...@ii.uib.no) wrote:
: IMO, Americans are too fixated on the free speech issue.
^^^^^^^^^^^
That is very interesting. In this American's opinion, to many
non-Americans do not share (or at least advocate) for the same level of
free speech. I'm not saying that non-American's don't believe or even
practice the like, however, this brings up a very interesting point ...
the internet is a global creature. It is common to see any discussion to
wander into a free speech issue, however, freedom of speech and expression
are not quite the same for each country ... each having it own level of
freedoms (and I really can't "officially" say anything more than that).
BTW: I've heard the above stated by many non-American students. They
always are facinated be the "passion" that Americans hold for these
issues.
: I believe in free speech myself, but not at all costs. I do not
: believe in having freedom to express grossly offensive stories in
: public. And a newsgroup such as this IS public -anybody can go there.
True, very true. So what do we do?
But, I do hold freedom of *thought* and possibly freedom of expression at
what might be a higher level. For once our first freedom erodes, the
others *may* quickly follow ... this is why so many Americans get so
PASSIONATE about free speech.
: Talking to one person is private. A more suitable analogy might be
: somebody who got hold of a radio channel and began reading crap for
: the world to hear. Anybody who happened to tune in would get an earful
: the wouldn't in most case liked to have been without.
The problem I see with this analogy is that we all have access to the same
radio station. You broadcast on it. I broadcast on it. And
occassionally (with an increasing frequency) somebody broadcasts something
on it that offends the segement of the population.
If I don't like the format of a radio station, I skip it. Although this
can be done "here", it really is *more* of a hassel ... and it really is.
: > I completely disagree. This is a blatant example of censorship. They
: > are trying to silence someone to prevent him from ever expressing his
: > views since his views are not "correct" by the majority's standards.
:
: OK. Go to a pro-life rally with a free abortion poster. You have the
: right to do it.
And people do! At political campaigns, people often protest. etc. etc.
Again the question is, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose
begins." The problem is defining where "my nose" begins ... and where
"your fist" ends.
: > >It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
: > >"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
: > >speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
: > >raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
: > >a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
: > >as sodomizing a woman against her will.
: >
: > I don't think we need to decide between choosing free speech or
: > preventing rapes.
And even if we did have to choose between #1 & #2, each of us *might*
choose something different. Sure, the choices presented "here" are binary
in nature ... problems NEVER are.
: Unfortunately we can't decide that. But many felons are inspired by
: stuff they've heard/seen. Reading a 'hot' story might well encourage
: a guy to go and try it first hand (yes, I'm being extreme)
I'm afraid that this is true. But most of us are too young to appreciate
the freedoms that we are given. Freedom is not a gift. It is not
something to be taken lightly. It is something for which we must make
sacrafices. Constantly pay the price ...
: > As offensive as I found that story, no one here was raped. Talking
: > about rape is not the same as committing rape. Talking about a
: > destroying planet with a deathstar is not the same as committing war
: > atrocities.
:
: 'No one here was raped'. Sure. No one REAL was raped. Most fictitious
: smut stories are (thank God!) just that: Fiction. But the point of
: fiction is to express something that could happen. It is supposed to
: depict a 'real' scene. Having people tortured and killed in fiction
: does usually affect us -because at the time of reading/seeing it, it
: 'is' real. In this story, Leia 'was' raped.
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Niles
fe...@u.washington.edu (Gus Lopez) wrote:
>>I don't
>>think that an Internet provider is censoring someone if it
>>chooses to cancel someone's service because that person posts
>>speech, the provider is simply choosing not to do business with
>>such a person.
>
>So if you believe that, my question for you is "What would be a violation
>of one's free speech?" Based on your view where providers have a right to
>revoke access based on a viewpoint, how could a free speech infringement
>possibly arise in *any* context?
>
Answer: A violation of one's free speech would occur if the
GOVERNMENT attempted to silence a person. The whole idea of
"free speech" has to do with preventing the government from
censoring people (i.e. if the government were to throw someone in
prison or have someone executed because of what he/she said or
believed, that would be an example of someone's free speech being
violated). Free speech has to do with protecting a person from
THE GOVERNMENT.
When you go into the business world, it's a whole new ball game.
An ISP cancelling someone's service is not the same as violating
a person's free speech rights; it's just business, and I believe
they have every right to do such a thing. If the government of
whatever country Taupin is from arrested him for posting the Leia
story, I would NOT be supportive of that; however, I have no
problem with having his account cancelled. He can easily go out
and find another ISP anyway, so it's not like he's being
"silenced" or "violated", he's just being provided with a hassle.
Sorry, but I have no problem hassling people like Taupin.
>
>>I think that people on RASSM who are offended by Taupin's post
>>have EVERY right to try to get his service cancelled. It's not
>>censorship; it's just providing a hassle in return for being an
>>asshole (Hey! That rhymed!)
>
>I completely disagree. This is a blatant example of censorship. They are
>trying to silence someone to prevent him from ever expressing his views
>since his views are not "correct" by the majority's standards.
Well, this gets into the whole question of morality and ethics.
Its sounds very grand to talk about defending things which aren't
"correct" by "majority standards", but there DOES come a point
where certain views are unacceptable by ANY humanitarian society.
Raping and torturing women for fun and pleasure is not simply a
"minority" view; it is something which is unacceptable in any
society.
Also, these are not just "views" about women, as someone else
pointed out. This was just a meaningless story which had little
to do with SW and was clearly designed to offend. Taupin thumbed
his nose at all of us; I'm not responding by trying to censor him
(i.e. completely silence him, or have him thrown in prison), I'm
just thumbing my nose back.
Jen
In article <5280dv$6...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, fe...@u.washington.edu (Gus
Lopez) wrote:
> In article <527sdr$4...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip snip snip]
> >It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
> >"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
> >speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
> >raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
> >as sodomizing a woman against her will.
>
> I don't think we need to decide between choosing free speech or preventing
> rapes.
Okayyyy... then what about the guy, whose name I can't recall, who got in
serious trouble for writing "snuff" (rape, torture, etc.) stories online
that had characters who were people in real life? Anyone here hear of
that? I wish I remembered his name... He was bad news, like a stalker.
Frankly, even though I have a slightly twisted sense of humor, and don't
think all sexual humor is perverted (as some here seem to), I won't read
rape stories and will condemn them.
However, I'll also say that perhaps this crap keeps getting posted
*because* people are screaming about it so much. If people could learn to
not react too much and to throw these freaks in their kill-files (and
maybe report them to their sysadmins), maybe it'd settle down. Maybe
creeps are doing this because they know it upsets others?
> Talking about destroying a planet with a deathstar is not the same as
committing
> war atrocities.
> Look, most of us here are disgusted with the idea of rape. But, as
> supportive as I've always been for women's rights, I really think the
> discussion has gotten too patronizing with a bunch of sanctimonious men
> speaking about how horrible it is for women. It sounds like a "Save the
> Children" commercial. I'd really like to hear some female readers comment
> on this thread before blindly following a few courageous men out to
> "protect women" from these evil words about rape.
Yeah, I get a bit amused with the sanctimonious men speaking for women,
because some of them seem to think that talk of *any* sex is bad. :-)
However, sex with love is one thing, and rape is something else, and I
know what I think is perverted. But people will do and write as they
please, even if reported, so what can you do about that? I'm just trying
to be realistic here...
--
j...@sirius.com/ jenni...@aol.com/ rha...@marinet.lib.ca.us
"Cannot run out of time. Time is infinite. You are finite. Zathras is
finite. This... is wrong tool." -- Babylon 5, "War Without End"
...Darth Vader, Librarian: "If you only knew the power of the Dark
Side <heavy breathing>, you would return your books ON TIME."
<casually chokes patron> ;-)
Gus Lopez
In article <5295cb$r...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Answer: A violation of one's free speech would occur if the
>GOVERNMENT attempted to silence a person. The whole idea of
>"free speech" has to do with preventing the government from
>censoring people (i.e. if the government were to throw someone in
>prison or have someone executed because of what he/she said or
>believed, that would be an example of someone's free speech being
>violated). Free speech has to do with protecting a person from
>THE GOVERNMENT.
>
>When you go into the business world, it's a whole new ball game.
> An ISP cancelling someone's service is not the same as violating
>a person's free speech rights; it's just business, and I believe
That is absolutely incorrect. There are many legal rulings where a firm
or an individual is found to be restricting someone's free speech rights.
This is *not* a right that only the government can violate (at least in
the United States).
> Raping and torturing women for fun and pleasure is not simply a
>"minority" view; it is something which is unacceptable in any
>society.
Death and violence in the SW universe has been discussed for years on
RASSM (and RASS before that). Obviously, a majority here does not approve
of murder, yet I've never heard anyone get sanctimonious about how all the
discussion of murder is condoning murder or is going to lead to more
murders or is going to hurt children in some bizarre way. Discussing
murder is very different from committing murder.
Pamela Green
Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
>"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
>speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
>raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
>a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
>as sodomizing a woman against her will.
Your logic is faulty. There is absolutely no evidence that suppressing
pornography will somehow "protect" women.
I'm a great fan of Japanese manga. As many of you know, comics are much
more pervasive in Japanese society--everyone reads comics, from little
kids, to businessmen running for their train. And, as westerners often
note, these comics depict a shocking level of sex and violence, including
violence against women, all the way from sexual harassment of women, to
rape, torture and murder of women. Yet, the rape and murder rates in
Japan are a *fraction* of what they are in the US. Sure, there are other
differences, but the equation pornography---->rape is simply not valid.
Pro-censorship is *not* mainstream feminist opinion. Censorship of
pornography for "feminist" ends has been advocated by marginal nut-cases
like Andrea Dworkin. Dworkin believes that *all* sex is rape. You read
that right--ALL sex is rape! Hardly mainstream views. Dworkin and her
ilk have a lot more in common with characters like Ed Meese and the
Christian Coalition--hardly people who are out to protect women.
Mainstream feminists know that picking some arbitrary standard of what's
"acceptable," as some of you have suggested, in the long run plays against
their own interests. What if some of you were to find information
disseminated at a rape crisis center "objectionable?" Or materials
discussing birth control? Or what about a photoessay spotlighting media
images that are demeaning to women? What if I wrote a post about how
women are objectified in Star Wars fan fiction, with examples? I think
we'd go over a lot of territory that someone is going to find
"objectionable."
If you object to the story someone posted, then ignore it, killfile it, or
post that the guy is an idiot (this is the net, so your free speech is
protected too, at least for now). But don't go off on some misguided
crusade about how censorship protects women. It doesn't.
--Pam <pkg...@u.washington.edu>
The Boba Fetish Page--Home of all things Bobesque
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~pkgreen/boba/bobaindex.html
Michael Mierzwa
Kate Hagerty (khag...@cyberscan.com) wrote:
: char...@mail.idt.net wrote:
: >
: > Scott Chitwood wrote:
:
: > > Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
: > > to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
: >
: > So you want others to be responsible for what your children see? If
: > you're so concerned about them, why aren't you supervising their online
: > sessions? It's not the Internet community's fault that you have no
: > control over your children -- if that is indeed what you're suggesting.
:
: And how do you propose one go about "supervising" what a child of twelve
: or thirteen sees on newsgroups? Should a parent come home early from
: work, to sit next to their child and read over their shoulder ever post
: on here? Parents cannot watch their children 24 hours a day; this
: doesn't mean that they "have no control," it just means that they are
: normal parents.
Very good points. Some parents who wish to prevent their children from
watching too much TV or violent programs purchase blocking devices to do
just that. Although not easy, you could "killfile" / prescreen threads
before your children are exposed to similar acts.
Another option is the formation of a moderated newsgroup. This group
could remain unmoderated ... and subject to postings in the poorest of
taste (of which I found the infamous post to be). Children could then
read the moderated group.
************************************************************************
Question: Is it possible for a all posts to go to *1* moderated group.
The moderator (who in my opinion should not be connected in any way with
Lucas Films) could screen out inapropriate material sent to both groups.
The end result: *1* complete unmoderated group & *1* smaller moderated and
less offensive group.?
************************************************************************
: Everyone should bear some responsibility for protecting children from
: violence in *any* form. The "right" to free speech -- along with all
: other rights, does not come without responsibility, something too many
: people gleefully forget.
^^^^^^^^^
I would not describe the advocation and concerns for free speech as
gleeful. This undermines the _passion_ some associate with its
protection. Much as we choose to pick our own issues to debate and
discuss (for some it is the environment, others crime, and yet others
taxation), I would not say that one person's stance on free speech and
censorship is any less important than another person's belief and support
of any other political issue.
: It is apparent that there are young teenagers
: (and children younger) on this NG and there are some things (a rape
: scenario presented as pornography, for example) which should not be seen
: by people that young.
I agree. And I would have missed it, if not for the long thread ... to
which I'm now a part. :(
: They may make the choice to read such a thing,
: but that does *not* mean it is okay for them to do so. People should
: have the intelligence and the self-control to post such material to
: appropriate NGs, or to say that they will send stories out by email to
: all interested.
Yes, and people ... *all* people should have the intelligence and
self-control:
... to not commit violent crimes
... to not steal
... to not promote the destruction of the environment
(which as you can see is a VERY subjective crime)
... to harm another (EXTREMLY subjective)
... to invest in the future (do we have any right to say this at all?)
The sad fact is people don't all exhibit intelligence ... we're illogical,
impulsive, and often selfish.
Again, it seems that one *solution* is for group MODERATION. I would be
interested in seeing how this debate evolves over time.
: Beannacht a Ti,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not familar with this?
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Pamela Green (pkg...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
:
: >It's amazing that the argument about this post has now shifted to
: >"free speech". If I had to choose between 1) providing "free
: >speech" to everyone, or 2) making sure that NO woman is EVER
: >raped and tortured EVER again, I'd pick #2 hands down. Violating
: >a person's free speech (while serious) is not NEARLY as serious
: >as sodomizing a woman against her will.
:
: Your logic is faulty. There is absolutely no evidence that suppressing
: pornography will somehow "protect" women.
Wow, I could have heard myself saying the exact same thing. (Referencing
Pam's comments, not Michael's.)
: I'm a great fan of Japanese manga. As many of you know, comics are much
: more pervasive in Japanese society--everyone reads comics, from little
: kids, to businessmen running for their train. And, as westerners often
: note, these comics depict a shocking level of sex and violence, including
: violence against women, all the way from sexual harassment of women, to
: rape, torture and murder of women. Yet, the rape and murder rates in
: Japan are a *fraction* of what they are in the US. Sure, there are other
: differences, but the equation pornography---->rape is simply not valid.
However, the sad fact is that the way women are treated in Japan is not
the same as it is here in the US (I can say this having been the Tokyo
within the last year and having direct contact with the corporate and
limited contact with the political societies there). Yes, this difference
can be attributed to cultural differences. However, this same cultural
difference explains why the reading of manga is *not* frowned upon in
Japanese society, but *is* in American.
This then raises many questions. Are the manga comics are reflextion of
the societies feelings? Probably not. Then are the manga comics helping
to slow the progress of elevating the value of female employees in the
cooperate and political worlds? Maybe so.
Why does NBC use the Friends and other "Must See TV" stars to send a
message to American youth that ... protection is necessary? Simple, the
public is in *some* way influenced by mainstream elements. The same
arguement (in a lesser form) can be applied to the "infamous" post and the
ideas that it spreads.
: Pro-censorship is *not* mainstream feminist opinion. Censorship of
: pornography for "feminist" ends has been advocated by marginal nut-cases
: like Andrea Dworkin. Dworkin believes that *all* sex is rape. You read
: that right--ALL sex is rape! Hardly mainstream views. Dworkin and her
: ilk have a lot more in common with characters like Ed Meese and the
: Christian Coalition--hardly people who are out to protect women.
Good! However, at times ... esp in newsgroups such as this ... a vocal
minority can claim to represent the majority.
: Mainstream feminists know that picking some arbitrary standard of what's
: "acceptable," as some of you have suggested, in the long run plays against
: their own interests. What if some of you were to find information
: disseminated at a rape crisis center "objectionable?" Or materials
: discussing birth control? Or what about a photoessay spotlighting media
: images that are demeaning to women? What if I wrote a post about how
: women are objectified in Star Wars fan fiction, with examples? I think
: we'd go over a lot of territory that someone is going to find
: "objectionable."
And this is a good reason for an unmoderated newsgroup.
: If you object to the story someone posted, then ignore it, killfile it, or
: post that the guy is an idiot (this is the net, so your free speech is
: protected too, at least for now).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My fear as well ...
: But don't go off on some misguided
: crusade about how censorship protects women. It doesn't.
Now to defend those crusaders ... I've felt that their points were rooted
(not necessarily expressed as such, but rooted none-the-less) in the
degragation of the character of Leia. It was unpleasant to think ... to
even read the "story" ... I stopped.
Michael Mierzwa
Brad Smith
Regardless of any real or imagined legal issues regarding free speech,
this "Story Excerpt" (I use the term very loosely) is the most vile and
disgusting thing I have ever read. My revulsion is matched only by my
inability to conceive why anyone would want to write something like
this.
Brad Smith
smit...@aol.com
James Trory
In article <dzeigerD...@netcom.com>, David Zeiger
<dze...@netcom.com> writes
>James Trory (che...@trory.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Yeah, but most of us find this type of "story" offensive and unecessary.
>: Plus, not only have we been receiving too many of these in the last
>: month, this is the second such "story" in two days! It's getting beyond
>: tolerable now!
>
>I can give you two really easy reasons for this.
>
>1) Check the calender
>
>2) Note that every time somebody *does* post such a thing, they
>get a 30-post thread started up. If you would *ignore* the twits,
>instead of giving them the attention they want, a lot of them
>would go away--particularly the ones who are doing it due to #1
>above..
What do you mean, "check the calender"?
[Re: #2]
As I've said before, ignoring this stuff is easier said than done with a
tolerance like mine!!
Amara
To Scott Chitwood
<clapclapclapclapclap>
I couldn't have said it better myself. People shouldn't jump down
eachother's throats so easily. And although moderation may not be the
way to go, at least curb the assholes so that kids can have a go at the net.
<amara puts up an asbestos fence>
And I am going to ignore any flames.
Amy
"We are all in the gutter.. but some of us are looking at the stars"
-Oscar Wilde
http://rat.org/amara ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au :)
Furry code: 1.2.. FCFpf3adm A+++$ C++ D H++ M++ P++ R T+++ W Z+++ Sf#
RLS*/A a c++dblw d- e++ f++ h+ i+ wf p- sf#
David Zeiger
Jen (j...@sirius.com) wrote:
: Okayyyy... then what about the guy, whose name I can't recall, who got in
: serious trouble for writing "snuff" (rape, torture, etc.) stories online
: that had characters who were people in real life? Anyone here hear of
: that? I wish I remembered his name... He was bad news, like a stalker.
I can't remember his name either, but I don't recall any evidence
of him being a stalker. As I understood it, he never had any
contact with the girl, other than being in the same class or a
neighbor or whatever--the story itself was the only potential
indication of any stalker-like activity.
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
In cosmic terms, the real universe may be about the size of a
small peach.
David Zeiger
Michael Niles (man...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Sorry, but I have no problem hassling people like Taupin.
Just remember, when you start claiming that it's OK to
get someone kicked offline because a couple dozen people find
what you say offensive, that you, too, have to watch what you
say. After all, there's no telling what some people might
find offensive.
And I alone have a half-dozen accounts... :-)
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
Just as Blake called our eyes "the windows of the soul," he referred
to our ears as "the ventilator shafts of the liver."
David Zeiger
Scott Chitwood (sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu) wrote:
: I believe you see what I am getting at. The internet is no place for
: young Star Wars fans. That's a terrible shame, because my best Star
: Wars memories were from when I was young. I would like to share the
: experience again with the younger generation.
No, this *group* is not necessarily the place for young starwars
fans whose parents feel that it's best to shelter them from
potentially harmful content.
Usenet != internet for one thing :-)
Usenet (as in the Big 8 + alt) is not designed to be sanatized
for children. There is no "overall" netiquitte rule that sex
posts are not allowed unless specified by charter (like it is
for the binary groups). Rather, it's the opposite.
the k12.* groups, on the other hand, *are* set up to be "kid-safe."
Heck, you're free to create your *own* hierarchy with whatever
rules you want.
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
The remarkable skelosaur was so primitive, it actually had no skin.
Michael Niles
I have found myself spending way too much time on this newsgroup
lately! One good thing DID come out of the Gang rape post, and
that was an interesting discussion on free speech, etc. Some of
you have given me things to think about.
I will not be commenting further on this particular topic,
because this thread could go on forever, and I honestly do not
have the time to spend posting reply after reply. Also, I come
to this group mainly to discuss SW, and I haven't been doing much
of that lately, what with this sociological turn.
Anyway, I just hope it's clear that my main point was not that
such posts don't have a place ANYWHERE, and it was not that I am
out to "protect women from violence" by starting a crusade
against pornography, or some such nonsense (nothing of the sort!
I don't have any problem with pornography).
My main point was simply that the original post was posted by
someone who was trying to offend, belittle, and make fun of all
of the fans of SW who hang out on this group, and that annoyed
me. I felt that we should make it clear that such posts aren't
welcome here on this particular newsgroup (BTW, I hope THAT point
isn't debated-- Regardless of free speech issues and rights, the
post WAS unwelcome HERE, right?). As someone else said, maybe
Taupin could have just made a post stating "I have some hard-core
sexual SW stories; if anyone's interested, please email me" or
something like that. Or, he could have posted it to the alt.sex
groups.
I posted "in the heat of the moment" when I suggested tyring to
get his service cancelled. OK, point taken; that was going too
far. Am I forgiven? :-)
Also, one last point regarding the assertion that there is no
evidence linking stories about violence against women and actual
violence against women... There actually IS evidence. Ted Bundy
testified that violent pornography was what initiated his spree
of rapes; this has been found to be the case in other situations
as well (and, of course, there are some rapists who never see
pornography and commit rape.... ). I'm not suggesting any course
of action; I am simply stating that there is SOME evidence
linking the 2. Also, I'm not trying to sound sanctimonius by
"defending women"... I'm just stating the facts.
Thank you everyone who contributed to this thread, and thanks for
keeping the discussions civil. Now, back to work...
Rakelle
Michael Niles wrote:
[snip]
> My main point was simply that the original post was posted by
> someone who was trying to offend, belittle, and make fun of all
> of the fans of SW who hang out on this group, and that annoyed
> me. I felt that we should make it clear that such posts aren't
> welcome here on this particular newsgroup (BTW, I hope THAT point
> isn't debated-- Regardless of free speech issues and rights, the
> post WAS unwelcome HERE, right?). As someone else said, maybe
> Taupin could have just made a post stating "I have some hard-core
> sexual SW stories; if anyone's interested, please email me" or
> something like that. Or, he could have posted it to the alt.sex
> groups.
The discussions that start from these smut posts are rather tragic:
A person can post as bad a story as he would want to. After one day
with flames, people will forget how degrading, sick, and perverted his
'work' was, and begin defending his 'right' to express his emotions
and start flaming the flamers for begrudging him that right. Pretty
soon the perverse post is comepletely forgotten, and the people who
aired their disgust find themselves having to defend their views for
longer than they flamed the post.
> I posted "in the heat of the moment" when I suggested tyring to
> get his service cancelled. OK, point taken; that was going too
> far. Am I forgiven? :-)
Sure you are. Not that there was anything to forgive in the first
place IMO.
> Also, one last point regarding the assertion that there is no
> evidence linking stories about violence against women and actual
> violence against women... There actually IS evidence. Ted Bundy
> testified that violent pornography was what initiated his spree
> of rapes; this has been found to be the case in other situations
> as well (and, of course, there are some rapists who never see
> pornography and commit rape.... ). I'm not suggesting any course
> of action; I am simply stating that there is SOME evidence
> linking the 2. Also, I'm not trying to sound sanctimonius by
> "defending women"... I'm just stating the facts.
Reading and seeing bad stuff can 'numb' the brain -after enough, you
don't react anymore, and it becomes less vile in your mind. Letting
this stuff flow freely is not beneficial to anybody, male or female.
Rakelle
Gus Lopez
In article <3248DA...@ii.uib.no>, Rakelle <s7...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>A person can post as bad a story as he would want to. After one day
>with flames, people will forget how degrading, sick, and perverted his
>'work' was, and begin defending his 'right' to express his emotions
>and start flaming the flamers for begrudging him that right.
I don't believe there was a single person on this newsgroup who argued in
support of the content of that sicko story.
Ironically, by trying to silence him, people gave this fellow a legitimate
issue, rather than using ridicule and outrage to counter this clearly
offensive and disgusting post.
>Pretty
>soon the perverse post is comepletely forgotten, and the people who
>aired their disgust find themselves having to defend their views for
>longer than they flamed the post.
To many people here, the idea of censorship is far more offensive than any
story some weirdo can write.
James Watson
Amara wrote:
> <amara puts up an asbestos fence>
>
> And I am going to ignore any flames.
Damn!!
We're going to have to get a bigger rock for her............
;)
James Watson
Gus Lopez wrote:
> I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it
> can be expected that the net will have to adapt to the whims of a majority
> opinion so that some parents can raise their kids unsupervised. The net
> epitomizes pluralism and diversity, and parents who do not want their kids
> wandering the streets, magazine shops, and cable television unsupervised
> are going to have a tough time adapting to services like netnews and
> should consider censored services such as AOL or moderated email lists.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. The Net is NOT
a place for children to be wandering aimlessly without parental control.
It is also an incredibly diverse medium in which different cultures
can come together to discuss a common interest. And in *NO* way
should RASSM ever be moderated.
HOWEVER, there is a certain etiquette to be observed on the
various newsgroups and this post violated those of RASSM. Even
though it was quite obvious as to the nature of the post, there
are more appropriate places to post such a story. There is an
entire hierarchy under alt.sex.stories that is designed for that
type of material.
When pornographic ( I purposally avoided the
word 'obscene' ) material is posted to the NG it strikes at
the very core of the spirit of Star Wars. SW is a fantasy
encompasing the struggle of good versus evil, dark versus
light. It is a combination of old and new world mythology
that appeals to the child in everyone. By twisting a few characters
into a immature rape fantasy, a person cheapens the memory and
destroys a little part of the SW universe. And this reflects
poorly on those of us who are part of that culture.
One of the best methods of avoiding censorship is for people to
practice self regulation. If a nude dance bar wanted to open in my
neighborhood and the block was zoned to allow it, I am willing to bet that
most of the people in my 'community' would rally against such
an action. The same can be said for sexually explicit posts, they
are not appreciated by the RASSM 'community.'
> It's most striking if you've ever watched Japanese anime that has been
> dumbed down for american audiences. The innuendo, nudity, death,
> swearing, and anything that could possibly hurt our delicate little
> darlings is eliminated from the "sanitized for US" versions in the hopes
> that children will grow up in isolation to any of these influences.
> However, the Japanese versions are almost always more complex,
> intelligent, entertaining, and thought-provoking as a result.
Partailly correct. 'Popular' anime has always been
cropped in the US, mainly because the average Japanese patron
is middle aged male, while the typical US viewer is between
12 and 18. However, there is a good deal of pedophiliac material
distributed as well. The fact that some of the most popular anime
in Japan depicts nude pre-adolescent girls with strong sexual
overtones, reflects poorly on the Japanese. 'Sailor Moon' is a prime
example of material that seems to cross the thin line between
'intelligent, entertaining, and thought-provoking...' material
and plain prurient material.
> The net is not a service or product like a home video where you can rely
> on a manufacturer to supply a certain level of material. Would you like
> yours kids to run free through a video store and play what they want? If
> not, would you suggest that particular videos be banned because your kids
> might encounter them?
Of course not, and thanks for the analogy. Different communities
have different community standards and dictate what sort of material
can be sold or offered to the public. In East Baton Rouge Parish,
sexually oriented videos ( obscenity ) are not permitted to be sold.
So I do not have to worry about my child coming accross a copy
of 'Deep Throat.' So it is with NG's. Various newsgroups have their
own standards. This post went beyond what is considered 'proper.'
The RASSM 'community' spoke out and condemed it.
> Actually, I started reading netnews a couple of weeks after ROTJ came out
> in 1983. In those days of the net, we never worried about sanitizing
> netnews so that it would have a "Leave it to Beaver" wholesome image. As
> the net expanded and had a large influx of suburban white middle class
> parents, the new majorities in the changing demographics have attempted to
> influence the subject matter in different directions.
And will continue for many years to come. As the Net
matures, so will the attitudes of those that post ( hopefully ).
If we don't stand up for what we believe is decent now.... who
will stand up for us when we cannot?
James Watson
Gus Lopez wrote:
> Scott--I think you raise some valid points, but as I said in my previous
> post, I have to disagree that censoring the poster or starting a moderated
> newsgroup is the answer.
I do not agree with Scott on the issue of censorship
or moderation by LFL. Moderation by *ANY* individual or
organization would have a negative influence on the group.
> Here are some suggestions:
> 1. Start a Star Wars mailing list.
> 2. Don't read articles with titles that could offend you.
> 3. Use killfiles for certain topic headings.
> 4. Monitor your children when the use the net. It seems unrealistic to
> hope that the net community will monitor your children for you.
5. Flame the SOB to Hell and back so he will not make
the same mistake a second time.
No one wants to turn RASSM into 'Leave it to Beaver,' but
many of us would like it to remain a decent place for humorous
stories, thought provoking discussions, new fanfic, answers to
questions, etc. By letting people know that this sort of material
is not appreciated, we can strive to keep the level of maturity
above that of a wet dream.
James Watson
Pamela Green wrote:
> If you object to the story someone posted, then ignore it, killfile it, or
> post that the guy is an idiot (this is the net, so your free speech is
> protected too, at least for now). But don't go off on some misguided
> crusade about how censorship protects women. It doesn't.
Which is what has been done. The RASSM community has spoken
out against a post that violated our 'community standards.'
You are correct in stating that censorship does not
protect women, however, pornography does nothing to advance the
position of women either. The fact is that some forms of
pornography degrade and dehumanize women ( and, consequently, men
as well, since we are projected as being less than human
by our actions ). Should magazines that depict violent rape
be censored? Tough question. In the final analysis, I would have
to say no, because who is to decide what is morally 'acceptable?'
Therefore, it is up to communities of individuals to adopt their
own moral code as to what is deemed acceptable and defend their
actions. This is what has been attempted here. The original post
violated the 'community standard' that has evolved in RASSM.
Censorship? Hell, no!
Self regulation? Please.
James Watson
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> I'm afraid that this is true. But most of us are too young to appreciate
> the freedoms that we are given. Freedom is not a gift. It is not
> something to be taken lightly. It is something for which we must make
> sacrafices. Constantly pay the price ...
Exactly. And we pay that price through blood, sweat, tears...
and self regulation. When a community gets out of hand, the powers that
be crack down. So we must be ever vigilant to those people that
choose to cross the line and let them know of our displeasure. And
if we don't, then we deserve what ever power chooses to regulate
us without our blessings.
James Watson
Michael Niles wrote:
> Answer: A violation of one's free speech would occur if the
> GOVERNMENT attempted to silence a person. The whole idea of
> "free speech" has to do with preventing the government from
> censoring people (i.e. if the government were to throw someone in
> prison or have someone executed because of what he/she said or
> believed, that would be an example of someone's free speech being
> violated). Free speech has to do with protecting a person from
> THE GOVERNMENT.
Incorrect. This reminds me of MTV's version of the definition
of 'censorship.' Your definition places the term 'government' in
place of 'indidiual/organization of power.' A government is not the
only body that can censor. Any person or organization that wields
power over people can censor information. The prime example of this
was the Catholic church during the middle ages.
Free speech entitles any person to speak his mind
on any subject he so wishes on public property without the
intervention of a controlling power.
James Watson
Gus Lopez wrote:
> Death and violence in the SW universe has been discussed for years on
> RASSM (and RASS before that). Obviously, a majority here does not approve
> of murder, yet I've never heard anyone get sanctimonious about how all the
> discussion of murder is condoning murder or is going to lead to more
> murders or is going to hurt children in some bizarre way. Discussing
> murder is very different from committing murder.
Hopefully more than just the majority disapprove of murder.......
;)
You must remember, though, it the execution has a lot to do with
the message. Violence is accepted on RASSM, as is sex. *HOWEVER*,
glorified violence and sex presented for the sole reason as to
appeal to the prurient interests is not accepted. When sex (or violence)
is presented in such a manner as to degrade, debase and dehumanize,
God forbid the day when people choose to keep silent.
Scott Chitwood
Howdy!
But don't you think that if people WANT a moderated group (moderated by
whomever, that's not the issue), that they should have one to go to?
There's obviously a number of people who would like one.
I'm not saying get rid of RASSM. I'm just saying make the option
available if someone would like it.
It's been said that the abusenet is a public place. Isn't it my right
to be able to go to a moderated group as much as someone has a right to
post pornographic posts?
Why should a moderated newsgroup NOT be created just because one guy
thinks it's a bad idea?
Scott
P.S. This is my last post on this subject. I'm getting tired of it,
the original perverts message is being referenced again and again, we're
giving that potential rapist the attention he wanted, and this has
little to do with Star Wars anymore.
Gus Lopez
In article <3248FF...@iamerica.net>,
James Watson <wat...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> HOWEVER, there is a certain etiquette to be observed on the
>various newsgroups and this post violated those of RASSM. Even
>though it was quite obvious as to the nature of the post, there
>are more appropriate places to post such a story. There is an
>entire hierarchy under alt.sex.stories that is designed for that
>type of material.
This "etiquette" is certainly not defined in the charter or in the FAQs.
Sex-oriented posts have existed on RASSM (and RASS before that) for years.
> Partailly correct. 'Popular' anime has always been
>cropped in the US, mainly because the average Japanese patron
>is middle aged male, while the typical US viewer is between
>12 and 18. However, there is a good deal of pedophiliac material
This is completely incorrect. Anime hits a wide range of the population
in Japan. The largest audiences for Sailor Moon in particular are little
girls and teenage boys, *not* middle-aged men.
>distributed as well. The fact that some of the most popular anime
>in Japan depicts nude pre-adolescent girls with strong sexual
>overtones, reflects poorly on the Japanese. 'Sailor Moon' is a prime
>example of material that seems to cross the thin line between
>'intelligent, entertaining, and thought-provoking...' material
>and plain prurient material.
This is not correct. Reflects poorly on the Japanese? They have almost
no rapes and murders! However, I can think of a different culture that
might have to worry about how their treatment of sex and violence reflects
on their culture...
>So I do not have to worry about my child coming accross a copy
>of 'Deep Throat.' So it is with NG's. Various newsgroups have their
>own standards. This post went beyond what is considered 'proper.'
>The RASSM 'community' spoke out and condemed it.
I wrote the charter for RASSM. As much as that rape post was offensive,
tasteless, and disgusting, it is completely consistent with the charter of
RASSM.
However, it did offend lots of people, and people protested it ...
rightfully so. The point is that there's nothing "in the rules" against
such material.
Bill Sier
Oh, just SHUT UP already!
The message above and everything in it was written by me, the Blueslurker
formerly known as Thany. Don't like it? Well, pbbthht. :P
"Eh'tu cha!" - Anonymous 3PO unit in The Empire Strikes Back
[read alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, you big idiot.] . [MHM: (7x2)]
Daniel Miller
In article <3248F2...@iamerica.net>,
James Watson <wat...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>Amara wrote:
>> <amara puts up an asbestos fence>
>> And I am going to ignore any flames.
> Damn!!
> We're going to have to get a bigger rock for her............
> ;)
.............And drop it on her from orbit.
:)
--
Dan'l sha...@expert.cc.purdue.edu JTFC#11 <*>
This is a .signature, somewhat in the style of the .signatures of the planet
Tralfamadore, where the flying saucers come from. Peace.
*****"And we just remove this molecuele, and viola! Legal as sea salt!"*****
Gus Lopez
Michael Mierzwa
Gus Lopez (fe...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: James Watson <wat...@iamerica.net> wrote:
: This is not correct. Reflects poorly on the Japanese? They have almost
: no rapes and murders!
No reported rapes. And very few guns. It is hard to be objective.
: However, I can think of a different culture that
: might have to worry about how their treatment of sex and violence reflects
: on their culture...
leaving us hanging ...
: I wrote the charter for RASSM. As much as that rape post was offensive,
: tasteless, and disgusting, it is completely consistent with the charter of
: RASSM.
Still a question that can be asked is to what extent was the story Star
Wars related. It used similar names, _might_ be of interest to a few, and
seemed be have a Star Wars physical setting ... but not a Star Wars
flavour, style, or intent. Then again, it could be pointed out that this
discussion does *not* have Star Wars characters, questions, or even
setting.
: However, it did offend lots of people, and people protested it ...
: rightfully so. The point is that there's nothing "in the rules" against
: such material.
How could I see the "rules" ... they aren't in the FAQs are they? I'm not
familiar with doing much other than reading and posting. I would like (if
it is not a problem to see a copy myself. Thanks,
Michael Mierzwa
Kate Hagerty
James Trory wrote:
[snip]
> >I can give you two really easy reasons for this.
> >
> >1) Check the calender
[snip]
>
> What do you mean, "check the calender"?
September is Here! College! Freshmen! Shiny, brand new internet
accounts! High-school mentalities! Hurray!
What fun.
Beannact a Ti,
Kate
(No offense intended to those actually *in* high school who may actually
have a brain in their heads...trust me, in a few years, you will be
saying the same thing)
James E. Doyle
In article <324904...@iamerica.net>, James Watson
<wat...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> (a fair amount of admirable stuff)
Indeed. And let me add to my earlier comments on this subject by
pointing out that taking our personal responsibility is the only viable
option we have to deal with situations such as this. It's far too popular
in this country today to cave in to the Victim Mentality....instead of
dealing with difficult issues and enacting change through their own
efforts, too many people want someone else to deal with it for them. This
is a prescription for catastrophe, 'cuz if you're willing to give up the
awesome power of your own decision-making and action on issues that are
important to you, you've given up any right to be outraged should the
powers that you delegated it to decide they have to control more aspects
of your life than you'd bargained for...possibly a LOT more. We've seen it
happen in more than one society in the last 60 years, and I still haven't
counted out the possibility of it happening here in the next 50 years if
the majority continues to sit in front of its tube and wring its hands and
cry "Something must be done!!!" while doing little but bemoan the
situation.
I'm not going to flounder and froth at the mouth over the "perverts"
who keep shoving their unwelcome posts down the throats of this
readership, but I can assure you that the next hapless fool who tries to
foist his badly written jerkoff fantasies onto this group is going to be
on the receiving end of some VERY unflattering verbiage on my part ....
I've been savin' 'em up special, for just such an occasion....and YOU, who
disapprove of such things appearing here, have far more power against
these buffoons than any SysAdmin ever could. Get 'em booted, and they'll
be back on some other account, stinkin' up the joint in no time. Public
disdain and humiliation, however, might just persuade these losers that
it's no fun any more, and perhaps they will cease their prurient efforts
entirely....I could be TOTALLY wrong, of course, but it sure seems the
more attractive option to me....
The feebs, goons, and deves all have a right to express their opinion.
WE all have the right to tell them they're full of it. Use it or lose it,
kids, use it or lose it....
James E. "Armored Punch" Doyle
P.S. If you can make them laugh at the same time you've gravely
insulted them, then you've REALLY won!
P.P.S. Weird Sex Rules!!! (just not here) >=)
--
"Toll the bell... pay the private eye...
All's well...twentieth century dies..."
D. Bowie
Pamela Green
James Watson <wat...@iamerica.net> writes:
> Which is what has been done. The RASSM community has spoken
>out against a post that violated our 'community standards.'
> You are correct in stating that censorship does not
>protect women, however, pornography does nothing to advance the
>position of women either.
Silencing those who violate "community standards" of indecency has, I
think, hurt the cause of women more than any pornography, no matter how
graphic or objectionable, ever will.
Remember Margaret Sanger, and her fight to bring birth control to this
country? A valiant woman, who's crusade was thought to violate the
"community standards" of an era when you weren't supposed to mention
pregnancy, or women's bodies. Wonder why you never used to hear about
rape, or domestic abuse? In another era, those kinds of things were not
talked about. Once again, "community standards" and "self-censorship"
silenced women's (and others's) voices. Some people nowadays think
education about HIV prevention violates "community standards." They'd
like to silence all this talk about safe sex, which I think is a
ludicrous, and ultimately suicidal point of view.
I have absolutely no objection to the people who are calling that Leia
rape story "perverse" and "degrading." I agree with them! However, I
think calls to silence one's opposition, no matter how much their views
might shock or offend you, are misguided, and ultimately
counterproductive.
--Pam <pkg...@u.washington.edu>
Attack of the Anime Toys!
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~pkgreen/anime/anime.html
Gus Lopez
In article <52bu17$a...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Michael Mierzwa <ez06...@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>How could I see the "rules" ... they aren't in the FAQs are they? I'm not
>familiar with doing much other than reading and posting. I would like (if
>it is not a problem to see a copy myself. Thanks,
I'm not sure if the FAQ includes the charter, but the official charter to
RASSM from the Request for Discussion (RFD) and Call for Votes (CFV) is:
rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
This newsgroup will be open to discussion of all miscellaneous
issues and topics pertaining to Star Wars not covered by other
newsgroups in the rec.arts.sf.starwars hierarchy.
Michael Mierzwa
Gus Lopez (fe...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: I'm not sure if the FAQ includes the charter, but the official charter to
: RASSM from the Request for Discussion (RFD) and Call for Votes (CFV) is:
:
: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
: This newsgroup will be open to discussion of all miscellaneous
: issues and topics pertaining to Star Wars not covered by other
: newsgroups in the rec.arts.sf.starwars hierarchy.
Great, thanks Gus.
I think you can see where I was planning on going with this. But if this
is the entire charter ... it appears that the "infamous" post _might_ be
judged to *not* pertain to Star Wars.
As I said before, same setting, same names, but very different style
(IMO). Where do _we_ (and this is where all that group responsibility can
take place) draw the line? I'm not qualified or prepared to do so ... but
somebody can take a shot.
However, if there is more to the charter or any assumptions that any
newsgroup have built in (like Common Law), then the above could be false.
But, it seems like one way to look at things.
PROBLEM: Not much we can do after the fact. :(
Michael Mierzwa
John Wooten
In article <AjAI+GAb...@trory.demon.co.uk>, James Trory <che...@trory.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have to say, I lean towards the "opposed" section when it comes to
>RASSM moderation, for one reason; the moderator himself. The moderator
>who have to truely understand what the majority want on this NG, and
>some people might take their job too seriously and delete stuff
>unnecessarily. But then others might be too lax.
Aww...come on Gus, everyone knows you want the job. You certainly must
have the time :^)
>
>>With free speech, we sometimes have to put up with offensive and insulting
>>language, but it's amazing how quickly people jump to "remedies" to
>>silence certain people. The idea of silencing these people for their
>>words is much more offensive than anything they could ever say.
>
>But it's not the language or the personal opinions that we're bothered
>about. It's about these "stories", these trolls. They aren't personal
>opinions, they're just revolting scripts with no meaning or purpose, and
>hardly any relavence to SW! There's no need for them.
Bah! I couldn't care less about what they say. The point is, they are
allowed to say it, and a lot of people will have a lot of ideas about what
is proper on this newsgroup. I say leave it alone. It is up to each and
every person on here to read what they want. If something looks offensive
or begins that way, STOP READING.
Better yet, lighten up. These posts aren't the spawn of Satan for crying
out loud...It's a big world, live in it.
John
*******************************************************
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is putting up with all the idiots in the world."--Calvin
"I'm tryin' to think, but nothin' happens."--Jerome Horwitz
OSU 21 nd 14
GO BUCKS!!!!!!
John Wooten
In article <dzeigerD...@netcom.com>, dze...@netcom.com (David Zeiger) wrote:
>James Trory (che...@trory.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Yeah, but most of us find this type of "story" offensive and unecessary.
>: Plus, not only have we been receiving too many of these in the last
>: month, this is the second such "story" in two days! It's getting beyond
>: tolerable now!
>
>I can give you two really easy reasons for this.
>
>1) Check the calender
Why? Is there cheese stuck in the blades? :^)
>2) Note that every time somebody *does* post such a thing, they
>get a 30-post thread started up. If you would *ignore* the twits,
25 of which are moderation arguments....
Amara
On 25 Sep 1996, Gus Lopez wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96092...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,
> Bill Sier <sher...@ksu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Oh, just SHUT UP already!
>
> Excuse me...who died and made you Pope?
He has a point, gus, can you guys take this to email or a more
appropriate forum? After all, the same things are being said over and
over and over.
Amy
John Wooten
In article <EjDJOKAX...@trory.demon.co.uk>, James Trory <che...@trory.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You've not been here long, have you? You obviously haven't witnessed all
>the crap we get here, especially in the last month. Two perverted
>stories in two days is just too many for it to be tolerable anymore!
>Moderation by LFL wouldn't work, and I don't suppose moderation by
>*anyone* would be popular or practical, but the level of such posts has
>to drop soon. It's getting ridiculous. One of these posts a month is
>tolerable, once a week is dumb, once a day is just plain infuriating!
I've been reading this group in its various incarnations for four years.
The crap has gotten worse, but I still vehemently disagree with moderation.
I am beginning to *really* dislike the way you are trying to force your
intolerances on the rest of us. Maybe if you can't deal with it that much,
you need a break.
I think someone has been up past their bedtime.
Criminy, if you want pure, good and wholesome, put in Sound of Music on a
loop....
John Wooten
>Better yet, lighten up. These posts aren't the spawn of Satan for crying
>out loud...It's a big world, live in it.
Let me add that I didn't know the story involved rape...see...when it began
to get weird, I did this really novel thing...what was it??? hmmm I
STOPPED READING THE FUCKING THING AND WENT ON ABOUT MY BUSINESS.
oh yeah! That's it!
John Wooten
>> Michael Niles <man...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot else we can do, because
>> >of "free speech"-- certainly a mixed blessing. However, I don't
>> >think that an Internet provider is censoring someone if it
>> >chooses to cancel someone's service because that person posts
>> >offensive (i.e. to 99% or more of the population) messages. The
>> >provider isn't preventing such a person from expressing his/her
>> >speech, the provider is simply choosing not to do business with
>> >such a person.
>>
>> So if you believe that, my question for you is "What would be a
>> violation of one's free speech?" Based on your view where providers
>> have a right to revoke access based on a viewpoint, how could a free
>> speech infringement possibly arise in *any* context?
>
>IMO, Americans are too fixated on the free speech issue. I believe in
>free speech myself, but not at all costs. I do not believe in having
>freedom to express grossly offensive stories in public. And a newsgroup
Who decides what is offensive and what isn't?
See?
John Wooten
>4. Monitor your children when the use the net. It seems unrealistic to
>hope that the net community will monitor your children for you.
>
>Gus
You're kidding! You mean they *shouldn't* sit them in front of the
computer and leave them be while they go watch "Must See TV"????
John Wooten
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96092...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>, Bill Sier <sher...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
>Oh, just SHUT UP already!
oh! I'm so sorry! I'll just...umm..go over here and....ummm...yeah...sit
down....yeah....u,mm...shut up? okay yes sir thank you sir! You won't
hear a peep out of me....yes!
*shhh*
John Wooten
In article <324932...@otrc5.tamu.edu>, Scott Chitwood <sc...@otrc5.tamu.edu> wrote:
>Howdy!
>
> But don't you think that if people WANT a moderated group (moderated by
>whomever, that's not the issue), that they should have one to go to?
>There's obviously a number of people who would like one.
>
> I'm not saying get rid of RASSM. I'm just saying make the option
>available if someone would like it.
>
> It's been said that the abusenet is a public place. Isn't it my right
>to be able to go to a moderated group as much as someone has a right to
>post pornographic posts?
>
> Why should a moderated newsgroup NOT be created just because one guy
>thinks it's a bad idea?
Go create one!
The main idea I am against is moderating RASSM.
It would be interesting to see the two side by side...
John
John Wooten
In article <3247EE...@cyberscan.com>, khag...@cyberscan.com wrote:
>char...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>>
>> Scott Chitwood wrote:
>
>> > Have all the freakin' free speech you want. I just want a place I can
>> > let my children go to talk about Star Wars without me having to explain
>> > to them what a smoot pleasurebut is.
>>
>> So you want others to be responsible for what your children see? If
>> you're so concerned about them, why aren't you supervising their online
>> sessions? It's not the Internet community's fault that you have no
>> control over your children -- if that is indeed what you're suggesting.
>
>And how do you propose one go about "supervising" what a child of twelve
>or thirteen sees on newsgroups? Should a parent come home early from
>work, to sit next to their child and read over their shoulder ever post
>on here? Parents cannot watch their children 24 hours a day; this
>doesn't mean that they "have no control," it just means that they are
>normal parents.
>
>Everyone should bear some responsibility for protecting children from
>violence in *any* form. The "right" to free speech -- along with all
If you bring a child up with the correct visions of what you believe make
up a good person, then whatever they see and hear outside of that should
have an ineffectual influence. Instead of shielding children, one should
simply teach them the difference between right and wrong for those times
they won't be around.
>other rights, does not come without responsibility, something too many
>people gleefully forget. It is apparent that there are young teenagers
>(and children younger) on this NG and there are some things (a rape
>scenario presented as pornography, for example) which should not be seen
>by people that young. They may make the choice to read such a thing,
>but that does *not* mean it is okay for them to do so. People should
>have the intelligence and the self-control to post such material to
>appropriate NGs, or to say that they will send stories out by email to
>all interested.
*???*
So kids won't find it in as long as it is in the appropriate newsgroups?
*???*
John Wooten
>If you object to the story someone posted, then ignore it, killfile it, or
>post that the guy is an idiot (this is the net, so your free speech is
>protected too, at least for now). But don't go off on some misguided
>crusade about how censorship protects women. It doesn't.
AMEN sister!
John
Gus Lopez
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960926062057.1597C-100000@cleo>,
>> Bill Sier <sher...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Oh, just SHUT UP already!
>>
>
>He has a point, gus, can you guys take this to email or a more
>appropriate forum? After all, the same things are being said over and
>over and over.
>
>Amy
OK, who died and made you Popette? :^)
Most newsreaders have this amazing feature that lets you skip certain
articles if you aren't interested in the subject in the title. :^)
David Zeiger
James Trory (che...@trory.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: What do you mean, "check the calender"?
September. Tens of thousands of new freshmen arrive in college.
Most of them get internet access.
A much higher percentage of freshman "newbies" (as opposed to
the average "newbie") seem to be highly immature and generally
disruptive--Beavis and Butthead mentalities on usenet. They
post trash with the specific aim of *causing* the type of
reactions you are giving them
: [Re: #2]
: As I've said before, ignoring this stuff is easier said than done with a
: tolerance like mine!!
And your thin skin is my concern how?
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
One of the least appreciated figures in American History was
President Leland Piatt.
--Abrell's and Thompson's Actual Facts
David Zeiger
Michael Mierzwa (ez06...@chip.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: I think you can see where I was planning on going with this. But if this
: is the entire charter ... it appears that the "infamous" post _might_ be
: judged to *not* pertain to Star Wars.
True, but (raise your hand if you saw this coming from me :-),
could not the same criteria be used against the Sith War posts,
or possibly the Jabba for President posts? How much does
"So I landed the Death Star on Dark Jedi Chitwood's lawn"
really relate to Star Wars, other than a couple of names?
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
On a smaller scale but more interesting historiclly than Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, is tiny out-of-the-way Lavern's Hole, Alberta, where Frank
Lavern holed up for 20 years after dreaming he robbed a bank.
David Zeiger
James Watson (wat...@iamerica.net) wrote:
: Which is what has been done. The RASSM community has spoken
Show me where you have anything even approaching a concensus
among the readers of this newsgroup. Remember, readership's
in the tens of thousands. Most of them seem to have gone
with the "ignore" option...
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
"Hail to the Chief" comes from the old English sea chanty "Hey Nonny
Nonny, Knock the Weevils off your Biscuit."
Rakelle
John Wooten wrote:
[large snip]
> Who decides what is offensive and what isn't?
>
> See?
I decide what offends me. And judging from these threads, what offends
me also offends others.
Perhaps you think we should let Charles Manson and those pedophiles in
Belgium decide what's offensive?
Rakelle
Michael Mierzwa
David Zeiger (dze...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Michael Mierzwa (ez06...@chip.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: : I think you can see where I was planning on going with this. But if this
: : is the entire charter ... it appears that the "infamous" post _might_ be
: : judged to *not* pertain to Star Wars.
:
: True, but (raise your hand if you saw this coming from me :-),
: could not the same criteria be used against the Sith War posts,
: or possibly the Jabba for President posts? How much does
: "So I landed the Death Star on Dark Jedi Chitwood's lawn"
: really relate to Star Wars, other than a couple of names?
First, I'm not going to take sides on the "Sith" stories. (I'd prefer to
sit on the fence on that "issue".) However, I find the charter to have a
great vaugeness about it ... which really allows the group to decide "what
is, and what is not" ... ("who lives, and who dies" <--- a fav. quote of
mine). So each issue *should* be dealt with on a case by case basis ...
much like our American (sorry for you non-Americans here) justice system.
It really does work ... sometimes!
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Distribution:
David Zeiger (dze...@netcom.com) wrote:
: James Watson (wat...@iamerica.net) wrote:
: : Which is what has been done. The RASSM community has spoken
: : out against a post that violated our 'community standards.'
:
: Show me where you have anything even approaching a concensus
: among the readers of this newsgroup. Remember, readership's
: in the tens of thousands. Most of them seem to have gone
: with the "ignore" option...
OK, now to follow the example of our Common Wealth friends (a reference to
Parliamentry forms of governence ... which some Common Wealth nations
use?) we could have a vote. Since the charter does not prescribe what a
voting majority is, nor what the voting population is, we could let a
simple majority decide ... those who "choose" not to vote would have to
count as nonexistant ... unless we knew the voting population, and then we
could count them as Not Present ... which is very different from
Abstaining (a neutral vote).
Michael Mierzwa
Kate Hagerty
John Wooten wrote:
> If you bring a child up with the correct visions of what you believe make
> up a good person, then whatever they see and hear outside of that should
> have an ineffectual influence.
That is a ridiculous assertion. A value system imparted to a child
through the family structure is but one influence on that child's life.
Granted, it is often the strongest influence, but not always, and the
others are not to be discounted. Children are *heavily* influenced by
their friends, and often flout their "family's values" (for lack of a
better term -- please do not confuse me with members of the Religious
Right) because of peer influence (I won't say pressure, because I don't
think that is always the case).
To suggest that external influences would have a negligible effect on
children raised within a particular structure is absurd. The oft-quoted
phrase "It takes a whole village to raise a child" is quite correct --
parents can do everything within their power to instill XYZ-value system
in their children, but if the community around them operates under
ABC-value system, which way do you think the kids are going to go? It
is *extremely* diffcult to be an island.
> Instead of shielding children, one should
> simply teach them the difference between right and wrong for those times
> they won't be around.
...and hope your kid was listening. I agree that children should not be
shielded from everyday events; I do think they should be shielded from
unecessary violence and sexual exploitation, for Heaven's sake.
> > [snip] People should
> >have the intelligence and the self-control to post such material to
> >appropriate NGs, or to say that they will send stories out by email to
> >all interested.
>
> *???*
> So kids won't find it in as long as it is in the appropriate newsgroups?
>
> *???*
Of course they will find it, if they look for it. My idea was to make
it just that much more difficult for kids to get their hands on things
they are not ready to see. It is one thing to post stories in alt.*
newsgroups; it is another thing entirely to place such posts directly in
the path of young users. A twelve or thirteen year old may think they
are old enough to see or read scenes of graphic violent sexual
encounters -- this does not mean that they *are*.
I can skip posts that I know will bother me; I don't believe a twelve or
thirteen year old can make such distinctions. What's more, *I* can't
always make such distinctions: I saw something attached to a post (not
in this NG) a couple of weeks ago that frightened me so much I was
afraid to be alone, and couldn't get to sleep that night. How was I to
know when I opened up the post that this would be waiting there?
I think many people have a reasonable expectation of what they will and
will not find on this newsgroup, and rape-as-pornography falls, I
suspect, into that "will not find" category.
Beannachtai,
Kate
James Trory
In article <52chbt$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, John Wooten
<woot...@osu.edu> writes
>In article <EjDJOKAX...@trory.demon.co.uk>, James Trory
><che...@trory.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>You've not been here long, have you? You obviously haven't witnessed all
>>the crap we get here, especially in the last month. Two perverted
>>stories in two days is just too many for it to be tolerable anymore!
>>Moderation by LFL wouldn't work, and I don't suppose moderation by
>>*anyone* would be popular or practical, but the level of such posts has
>>to drop soon. It's getting ridiculous. One of these posts a month is
>>tolerable, once a week is dumb, once a day is just plain infuriating!
>
>
>I've been reading this group in its various incarnations for four years.
>The crap has gotten worse, but I still vehemently disagree with moderation.
> I am beginning to *really* dislike the way you are trying to force your
>intolerances on the rest of us. Maybe if you can't deal with it that much,
>you need a break.
Did I say I agreed with moderation in the above post? No, I didn't! Read
what I say before you flame me please!
>I think someone has been up past their bedtime.
Ummm, don't you think slightly personal attacks are unnecessary? I think
you should learn to live with people who don't share the same views too.
You started on Alex Chabot, and now me! JamesK is enough to deal with,
not you too!
And FYI, I have stated many times that I'm not dictating to the NG!
>Criminy, if you want pure, good and wholesome, put in Sound of Music on a
>loop....
No thanks! SoM is eee-vil!
-- James "the Sith Master", icon to the disciples of the JTFC
*** Author of the Official RASSM Homepage ***
*** http://members.aol.com/jtrory/rassm.htm ***
(and don't ask why it's on AOL, it just is!!)
James Trory
In article <52chh9$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, John Wooten
<woot...@osu.edu> writes
>In article <52cguc$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, woot...@osu.edu (John
>Wooten) wrote:
>
>>Better yet, lighten up. These posts aren't the spawn of Satan for crying
>>out loud...It's a big world, live in it.
>
>
>Let me add that I didn't know the story involved rape...see...when it began
>to get weird, I did this really novel thing...what was it??? hmmm I
>STOPPED READING THE FUCKING THING AND WENT ON ABOUT MY BUSINESS.
>
>oh yeah! That's it!
HEY, DON'T FUCKING SHOUT AT ME!!!
I got that far and was immediately pissed off! I can't help it, these
things get me annoyed!
FREE SPEACH? THEN LET ME EXERCISE THAT RIGHT!!!
James Trory
In article <dzeigerD...@netcom.com>, David Zeiger
<dze...@netcom.com> writes
>James Trory (che...@trory.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: What do you mean, "check the calender"?
>
>September. Tens of thousands of new freshmen arrive in college.
>Most of them get internet access.
>
>A much higher percentage of freshman "newbies" (as opposed to
>the average "newbie") seem to be highly immature and generally
>disruptive--Beavis and Butthead mentalities on usenet. They
>post trash with the specific aim of *causing* the type of
>reactions you are giving them
Hey, I never thought of that! Well, I'm off to blow-up all the colleges
then! ;)
>: [Re: #2]
>: As I've said before, ignoring this stuff is easier said than done with a
>: tolerance like mine!!
>
>And your thin skin is my concern how?
It's not your concern, but you said you don't like it!
James Watson
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> much like our American (sorry for you non-Americans here) justice system.
> It really does work ... sometimes!
Unless, of course, you are a certain Bronco driving, ex-football
double murderer.....
John Wooten
In article <Td4QxcA1...@trory.demon.co.uk>, James Trory
<che...@trory.demon.co.uk>
<52chbt$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Did I say I agreed with moderation in the above post? No, I didn't! Read
>what I say before you flame me please!
No, not in this post, but you have advocated moderation on occasion. Fairly
enough, you've also said you were against it.
>
>>I think someone has been up past their bedtime.
>
>Ummm, don't you think slightly personal attacks are unnecessary? I think
>you should learn to live with people who don't share the same views too.
>You started on Alex Chabot, and now me! JamesK is enough to deal with,
>not you too!
It isn't your views I disagree with. Let's make that distinction, okay. I
agree that there is too much crap, but it is a lot easier to avoid it on a
personal basis rather than draw attention to it by flaming and suggesting
someone moderating this newsgroup. The above was not a "slightly personal
attack," but an observation on the tone of your posts. You seem in a bad mood
more than usual lately and making a big deal out of every post you find
offensive will continue to burn yourself out. Take my suggestion as friendly
advice. If it is truly too much for you, take a break and email a few people
while staying off the board for awhile. This does not equate "Get the hell
out" by any means, nor were any of my posts meant as flames. I just have this
aversion to someone telling me what is offensive and so on when it is
obviously subjective. I also don't particularly care for the idea that,
because one person doesn't like something, it should be banned from all. The
"rape" story is not exactly what I am referring to, but more along the lines
of your responses for every off color post which comes along. Getting our
panties in a bunch over every little thing is the way to ensure it keeps
happening. This group has never and will never be fully. 100% on topic! I'm
afraid that you don't understand that you need to get over the occasional (and
I do mean occasional...two posts in two days sounds like a lot, but how many
total posts were there? 600? That's .3%!!!) off topic or "offensive" post.
BTW, I dunno what you mean, "you started on Alex Chabot," but if you think
that crass punk deserved better, then I just lost my opinion of you. I posted
to him all those times because I abhor that type of attitude. What is funny
is that, on many points, we actually agree...what the whole disagreement was
about was the needless religion bashing which served only to stir the pot and
inflame the opposing viewpoint.
John
<x-rich><color><param>8080,0000,0000</param>"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they' don't realize how hard it is putting up with all the idiots in the world."--Calvin
OSU 26 nd 21
<italic>GO BUCKS!!!!</italic></color></x-rich>
The Underoos Jedi Master
On 25 Sep 1996, Gus Lopez wrote:
> Excuse me...who died and made you Pope?
Oh, I'm sorry. That's right, I forget that this free speech discussion
simply states that I can state my opinions just so long as they don't
conflict with someone else's. :P
I was not ordering anyone around, I was expressing my anger at the entire
newsgroup falling into a giant fucking TROLL. Even the smarter Jedi
Masters here have fallen prey.
(somewhere in America, a man is laughing and checking on a chart...)
The message above and everything in it was written by me, the Blueslurker
formerly known as Thany. Don't like it? Well, pbbthht. :P
"Eh'tu cha!" - Anonymous 3PO unit in The Empire Strikes Back
[read alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, you big idiot.] . [MHM: (7x2)]
The Underoos Jedi Master
On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, John Wooten wrote:
> oh! I'm so sorry! I'll just...umm..go over here and....ummm...yeah...sit
> down....yeah....u,mm...shut up? okay yes sir thank you sir! You won't
> hear a peep out of me....yes!
Good boy. Here's a biscuit.
> *shhh*
Sarcasm? That's some sort of big hole in the ground, right? ;P
James Watson
David Zeiger wrote:
> True, but (raise your hand if you saw this coming from me :-),
> could not the same criteria be used against the Sith War posts,
> or possibly the Jabba for President posts? How much does
> "So I landed the Death Star on Dark Jedi Chitwood's lawn"
> really relate to Star Wars, other than a couple of names?
Since I was the one that posted the 'DS on Chitwood's
lawn', obviously I disagree.
The Sith war posts, as well as the Jabba for President
posts are all fan parodies. They are written by fans who
wish to exercise their creative side in poking fun at
the SW universe and ourselves. Of everything on RASSM, they
are perhaps the the biggest expression of fan
appreciation with the SW culture. All they are is one
big continous fan You can choose to
hate them, but they are VERY much relevant.
As for a sexual debasing rape story, do you
really feel that it belong here?
John Wooten
In article <52cpfj$l...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, fe...@u.washington.edu (Gus Lopez) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960926062057.1597C-100000@cleo>,
>Amara <ap...@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bill Sier <sher...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Oh, just SHUT UP already!
>>>
>>
>>appropriate forum? After all, the same things are being said over and
>>over and over.
>>
>>Amy
>
>OK, who died and made you Popette? :^)
>
>Most newsreaders have this amazing feature that lets you skip certain
>articles if you aren't interested in the subject in the title. :^)
>
>Gus
Okay...who died and made you Reasonable Person?
The Nerve!
*******************************************************
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is putting up with all the idiots in the world."--Calvin
"I'm tryin' to think, but nothin' happens."--Jerome Horwitz
John Wooten
In article <dzeigerD...@netcom.com>, dze...@netcom.com (David Zeiger) wrote:
>Michael Mierzwa (ez06...@chip.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>
>: I think you can see where I was planning on going with this. But if this
>: is the entire charter ... it appears that the "infamous" post _might_ be
>: judged to *not* pertain to Star Wars.
>
>could not the same criteria be used against the Sith War posts,
>or possibly the Jabba for President posts? How much does
>"So I landed the Death Star on Dark Jedi Chitwood's lawn"
>really relate to Star Wars, other than a couple of names?
\\\ba-dump-bump///
John Wooten
> The Sith war posts, as well as the Jabba for President
>posts are all fan parodies. They are written by fans who
>wish to exercise their creative side in poking fun at
The porn is nothing if not creative, though!
John
John Wooten
In article <324A7F...@ii.uib.no>, Rakelle <s7...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
>John Wooten wrote:
>
>[large snip]
>
>> Who decides what is offensive and what isn't?
>>
>> See?
>
>I decide what offends me. And judging from these threads, what offends
>me also offends others.
You miss the point. We all have different degrees of offensensitivity (
(c) Berkeley Breathed). what offends me may be different than what offends
you, so it is really difficult to apply broad definitions of what is
offensive over such a large group. Sure, there are things which are
obviously offensive to all, yet, the more we get into this, the further it
will go. Go ahead let people moderate this group. we can all debate for
years about what is offensive and what isn't. Why not take the self
responsible route and use your personal definiton of what is offensive to
make your own personal decision on what posts to read.
>Perhaps you think we should let Charles Manson and those pedophiles in
>Belgium decide what's offensive?
>
>
>Rakelle
Well, you obviously have me pegged. Nothing like a taking a position and
running it to the most obviously obscene limit.
David Zeiger
James Watson (wat...@iamerica.net) wrote:
: The Sith war posts, as well as the Jabba for President
: posts are all fan parodies. They are written by fans who
: wish to exercise their creative side in poking fun at
: are perhaps the the biggest expression of fan
: appreciation with the SW culture. All they are is one
: big continous fan You can choose to
: hate them, but they are VERY much relevant.
So you wish to accept or ban some stories (or discussions)
on what the *intent* of the person who wrote them was?
So tell me, James, just how do you judge intent? And what if
the person who wrote the rape story actually wrote it with
a "what Star Wars means to me" idea in mind? Or are you going
to claim that your view of what Star Wars means is more valid than
someone else's?
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
Just in case she got caught in a time warp, pioneer aviatrix
Amelia Earhart always carried an enormous bag of lucky nickels.
David Zeiger
Kate Hagerty (khag...@cyberscan.com) wrote:
: Of course they will find it, if they look for it. My idea was to make
: it just that much more difficult for kids to get their hands on things
: they are not ready to see. It is one thing to post stories in alt.*
: newsgroups; it is another thing entirely to place such posts directly in
: the path of young users. A twelve or thirteen year old may think they
: are old enough to see or read scenes of graphic violent sexual
: encounters -- this does not mean that they *are*.
You make an interesting--and incorrect--distinction here. There is
*no* difference in terms of the "adult suitability" of the alt
newsgroups as opposed to the rec newsgroups.
The *only* difference between the two sets is the manner in which the
groups are created. If it's *generally* suitable for alt, then it's
**generally* suitable for rec.
The k12.* hierarchy is the kid-safe hierarchy. There may be others.
--
David Zeiger dze...@netcom.com
The world's smallest boulder fits easily inside an ordinary hatbox.
mdb
The Smut Wars..... *sigh*
mdb
That's dirty pool! If I knew what was going on I'd really be indignant.
Marco C. van Bruggen
Scott Chitwood wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> But don't you think that if people WANT a moderated group (moderated by
> whomever, that's not the issue), that they should have one to go to?
> There's obviously a number of people who would like one.
>
> I'm not saying get rid of RASSM. I'm just saying make the option
> available if someone would like it.
The problem that would arise is that we'll get another split, but this
time it won't be divided by subject, like rass was. One group of people
here would stay at rassmisc, while another group would go to rassmod,
forcing people to try and keep up with both groups, and inevitably
resulting in cross-posting and such.
However, (I'm making this up as I go along, so bear with me), we *could*
created a moderated group that simply selects it's messages from rassm.
That way, all posts would still go to rassm, but only the non-sexual ones
would make it to the moderated group.
Hell, you could even make several groups, all with their own criteria on
which posts will be allowed to be put up there.
Marco v B
Rakelle
I grow tired of repeating myself so I'll say this for the last time
(for now):
John Wooten wrote:
> In article <324A7F...@ii.uib.no>, Rakelle <s7...@ii.uib.no> wrote:
> >John Wooten wrote:
> >[large snip]
> >> Who decides what is offensive and what isn't?
> >> See?
> >
> >I decide what offends me. And judging from these threads, what
> >offends me also offends others.
>
> You miss the point. We all have different degrees of offensensitivity
> ( (c) Berkeley Breathed). what offends me may be different than what
> offends you, so it is really difficult to apply broad definitions of
> what is offensive over such a large group. Sure, there are things
> which are obviously offensive to all, yet, the more we get into this,
> the further it will go. Go ahead let people moderate this group. we
> can all debate for years about what is offensive and what isn't. Why
> not take the self responsible route and use your personal definiton of
> what is offensive to make your own personal decision on what posts to
> read.
Well, if people post stuff I am offended by I feel I have the right to
express that I am offended by it, disregarding that some people might
not be offended. If nobody who was offended spoke up, where would we
be now?
And as for moderation -I commented on that once and voted NO.
But now I might be changing my mind.
> >Perhaps you think we should let Charles Manson and those pedophiles
> >in Belgium decide what's offensive?
> Well, you obviously have me pegged. Nothing like a taking a position
> and running it to the most obviously obscene limit.
Just to show you what having no standards can mean....
Rakelle
Rakelle
Brett Moseley wrote:
>
> Great argument, but it won't matter a lick to Rakelle (sp?), living in
> Norway (or is it Norge?). Since the Internet is international
> American law simply does not apply. If anything I would imagine laws
> that regulate conduct on international waters may be more relevent.
Thank you for the correct spelling ( :) ), but actually this argument
_does_ matter a lick to me, as it supports my view on the matter :)
> Of course, I'm a Bio major, not a Law major....
Not that one's major makes one more or less able to discuss anything....
> James Watson (wat...@iamerica.net) wrote:
> : Free Speech does *NOT* include 'obscene' material.
> : The Supreme Court has upheld this time and time again. The
> : only serious attempt at attacking this decision, was when it came
> : time to define the concept of obscene. Obscenity was defined as
> : "...whether the average person....would find that the work...appeals
> : to the prurient interest, ....describes, in a patently offensive
> : way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
> : and ...whether the work ...lacks serious literary, artistic,
> : political or scientific value."
> : For anyone that feels this is untrue or incorrect, I can
> : present the cases and definitions.... but don't argue these
> : points, they are irrefutable.
> : SO,
> : The original posted work *WAS* obscene, was *NOT* considered
> : 'free speech' and, as a consequence, ***cannot be referred to as a
> : censorship issue.***
> : So let's stop arguing this as a free speech issue. It is not.
This post quoted above I totally agree with. The fact that it mentions
American laws is irrelevant to the main message.
Thank you, James Watson.
Rakelle
Kate Hagerty
David Zeiger wrote:
>
> Kate Hagerty (khag...@cyberscan.com) wrote:
>
> : Of course they will find it, if they look for it. My idea was to make
> : it just that much more difficult for kids to get their hands on things
> : they are not ready to see. It is one thing to post stories in alt.*
> : newsgroups; it is another thing entirely to place such posts directly in
> : the path of young users. A twelve or thirteen year old may think they
> : are old enough to see or read scenes of graphic violent sexual
> : encounters -- this does not mean that they *are*.
>
> You make an interesting--and incorrect--distinction here. There is
> *no* difference in terms of the "adult suitability" of the alt
> newsgroups as opposed to the rec newsgroups.
>
> The *only* difference between the two sets is the manner in which the
> groups are created. If it's *generally* suitable for alt, then it's
> **generally* suitable for rec.
Apologies. I was obliquely referring to the alt.sex.* hierarchy. I
would suggest that they are not kid-suitable. I would also suggest that
rec.arts.sf.starwars certainly gives one reasonable expectations of
being PG-13 at least, but definitely not X.
Beannactai,
Kate
Michael Mierzwa
Marco C. van Bruggen (1342...@student.eur.nl) wrote:
: The problem that would arise is that we'll get another split, but this
: here would stay at rassmisc, while another group would go to rassmod,
: forcing people to try and keep up with both groups, and inevitably
: resulting in cross-posting and such.
This has been down in the past and is currently working with the
rec.arts.sf.babylon5 (I think that is the full name). *1* group is
moderated. *1* group is not. But the moderated group is really fine.
Lurk there for about 2 weeks and even post a few "Q: Who is Kosh posts"
and you'll: 1) get through, 2) have intelligent, if not humourous replies,
& 3) see how well moderation works ... i.e. you'll have very few personal
assaults. Cross-posting is *not* an issue.
: However, (I'm making this up as I go along, so bear with me), we *could*
: created a moderated group that simply selects it's messages from rassm.
I've been advocating this *exact* point for a week now! So I like it.
: That way, all posts would still go to rassm, but only the non-sexual ones
: would make it to the moderated group.
That is the idea.
: Hell, you could even make several groups, all with their own criteria on
: which posts will be allowed to be put up there.
Now, you're going a bit overboard ... slow down and let's tackle the first
problem.
Michael Mierzwa
PS I would put this under a new thread, but fear that it would go unheard.
:(
Michael Mierzwa
Brett Moseley (bre...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Great argument, but it won't matter a lick to Rakelle (sp?), living in
: Norway (or is it Norge?). Since the Internet is international American
: law simply does not apply. If anything I would imagine laws that regulate
: conduct on international waters may be more relevent.
Great point Brett. I'll go a step further. The US Supreme Court has been
know to overturn its own decisions. Furthermore, it is *us* not the US
Supreme Court that should decide what is posted and what is not.
: James Watson (wat...@iamerica.net) wrote:
: : Free Speech does *NOT* include 'obscene' material.
:
: : The Supreme Court has upheld this time and time again. The only
: : serious attempt at attacking this decision, was when it came time to
: : define the concept of obscene. Obscenity was defined as "...whether
: : the average person....would find that the work...appeals to the
: : prurient interest, ....describes, in a patently offensive way,
: : sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law and
: : ...whether the work ...lacks serious literary, artistic, political
: : or scientific value."
: : For anyone that feels this is untrue or incorrect, I can
: : present the cases and definitions.... but don't argue these
: : points, they are irrefutable.
Yes, I would like to see a bit more on how the US Supreme Court restricts
obscene material.
: : The original posted work *WAS* obscene, was *NOT* considered
: : 'free speech' and, as a consequence, ***cannot be referred to as a
: : censorship issue.***
By your interpetation of the US Supreme Court interpetation of some other
case.
: : So let's stop arguing this as a free speech issue. It is not.
The whole concept of a court system is each case might be unique and hence
subject to a trial (and I hope a trial by ones peers, not a series of
decissions dictated to a group). Q: Do cases before the US Supreme Court
appear in other courts prior to appearing before the SC Justices?
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Rakelle (s7...@ii.uib.no) wrote:
: This post quoted above I totally agree with. The fact that it mentions
: American laws is irrelevant to the main message.
: Thank you, James Watson.
Be very careful here. Allowing the American law to take presendence over
your own _laws_ is unadvisable. Although _laws_ are designed to be only
guidelines, another foreign law (which might not help a future position)
could similarily be invoked. I am _warry_ of the luxury to pick and
choose which laws apply to us. I would say that the end does not justify
the means.
Michael Mierzwa