>From: "Elizabeth Childs" <echilds@linex.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: Additional thought on Crocker's Laws
>Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:37:46 -0700
>
>From: phil osborn <philosborn@hotmail.com>
>
> > I would certainly fear to be part of an upload culture in which people
>had
> > the power to cut me off just because I spoke unpopular truthes as I saw
> > them.
>
>With all due respect, Phil, you already are. You're uploading information
>to the net, and everyone has the choice to read or not read your words.
>
>The future is in beta, etc.
>
But not, as yet, to keep me from putting the information out there - unless,
of course, I were to discuss subjects that are extremely non-PC, such as
child-adult sex. This is WHY these topics cannot be presented, BTW. This
is the cutting edge of state censorship, the wedge to insinuate total
control.
You don't have to control everyone, any more than in war you have to shoot
all the enemy. You just shoot the ones who stick their heads up. Just as,
in the War on Drugs, it is incredibly easy to put someone who is politically
or economically unpopular away for life just by planting a gram or two of
controlled substance during a bust. The War on Drugs is clearly a failure
from the standpoint of controlling drug use, but it is an outstanding
success from the standpoint of putting undesireable people - from the
standpoint of the powers that be - away, and setting an example for the next
fool who might stick his head up.
Am I being paranoid. Perhaps not enuf. Consider that the anti-kiddie-port
sections of the CDA specifically, as I recall, include ANY depiction of
child sexuality. This includes - and there have been prosecutions on this
basis - comic art, furry art, etc., in which children obviously were not
employed. For that matter, the same kind of software that can age or un-age
a person's face could just as easilly do the same for the entire body. You
could digitize Deep Throat and run it through frame by frame and end up with
90 year olds having sex - or 9 year olds.
The alleged purpose of the law was to keep children from being exploited,
yet the language of the law is something else entirely, and, as I noted,
there have been prosecutions for such things as comic art depicting minors
having sex.
So, the standard has been set. If we are enough offended, then to hell with
the 1st Amendment.
Bottom line: if exropians, of all people, can seriously discuss whether or
not someone should be allowed to discuss certain topics, then perhaps the
future is already lost. Certainly anyone can filter out anyone else, and
certainly the extropian newsgroup can exclude anyone they choose from access
to their private area for stating unpopular opinions. Doing so, however,
would be the end of extropianism.