>From: "Elizabeth Childs" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Additional thought on Crocker's Laws
>Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:37:46 -0700
>From: phil osborn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I would certainly fear to be part of an upload culture in which people
> > 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.