From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 00:07:15 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960719095559.00692920@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage
>being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific
>American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the
>sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and
>"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing
>about.

Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your
children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't
say filtering was wrong,  I said censorship was wrong.

>If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away
>from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where
>there views are already basically set.

I am sorry to hear.  I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide
for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate 
desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves
is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access
to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more
harm than good.  I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will
leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong
arguements in my support.

>I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to
>set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed.

I absolutely agree.  Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing
allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently".  

>And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can
>and can't do.

Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear.  However, that doesn't mean
we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level.  I repeat: just
because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't
make it OK.

>Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic"
>notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from
>filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex."

I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians,
and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your
son's) life.  However, I would still argue that restricting your son's
access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing
why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such 
things.  I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no 
right to force you to raise your child in any way.  But, as I stated in 
another post, the problem is not just the government.

>Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo
>the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two
>Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in
>religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for
>schools their own children are no longer using).

I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is
"propaganda".  The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching 
acceptance, not necessarily approval.  You say you tolerate homosexuals,
but that is not a wide-spread practice yet.  Violence and ridicule is the
more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant
to stop such bigoted reactions.  You'll note that nowhere in the book does 
it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you 
are and you should accept others who are.

>Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their
>AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but
>I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid
>their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which
>I don't).

Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would
have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public
school or shown on a web page.  Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life-
style's practices forced on you are not the same.  Would you allow your 
children to learn about Nazi Germany?  I find the lifestyle of the Nazi
positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning
about it.  Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles,
etc.  The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears
no significance to the arguement.  A child (or any other person) should not
be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic,
unless she is restricting her own access (filtering).

<garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored>

//cerridwyn//