From: Chuck Thompson <chuck@nova1.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:27:48 +0800
To: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960911030546.006c224c@mail.nova-net.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04:09 PM 9/10/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>From:	tcmay@got.net 
>>
>>My point is this: For anyone who claims that "thoughtcrime" is something
>>the Evil Empire specialized in, i.e., totalitarian communist regimes, look
>>to the enforcement of laws about what can be viewed or accessed from the
>>United States. Thougtcrime.
>>.........................................................................
>>
>>
>>Those laws obviously (to me) don't have all that much to do with legality nor
>>all that much with thought, either;  but more with a government aiming to
>>"looking good" in front of an audience of voters, presenting an image of
>>being more moral, or "better-than-thou" -  in front of other nations, etc.;
>>that is, to gain favor, and therefore political support, from the Citizen
>>Units by sounding like Mother Superior/fatherly figures who are going to look
>>after All The Little Children (tm), plus all the similarly weak &
>>dispossessed.

Let's see if I understand you correctly.  The anti-child porn advocates are
only interested in votes and positioning themselves as more moral or
"better-than-thou"... 

>>This posturing gives all the un-selfconfident people someone to look up to,
>>even if they don't really get anything (their memories being too short to
>>notice the failed promises, lack of follow-through, and blatant
>>inconsistencies, not to mention the 'legal' crimes committed along the way).

in order to provide an icon for the "citizen units" to worship...

>>Many people seek after sympathy towards their feelings (present and/or future
>>pain) more than to be respected for the ability to think.

because they are too stupid to think for themselves, and therefore are
reduced to going on their intuition...

>>I imagine this
>>develops into a reduced sympathy towards certain kinds of thought or towards
>>thinking per se, eventually, promoting a general atmosphere of tolerance for
>>offenses like "thoughtcrimes".

causing them to be unsympathetic to thinking?  

What in the devil are you trying to say?  Maybe I'm one of those stupid
citizen units.  I just don't get it - I'd like to, but I don't.  How about
rephrasing your comments so that us average citizen units can understand
your wisdom.
   
>>
>>And of course anyone who is free to think about anything & everything (who
>>could therefore potentially think about what everybody else has forgotten)
>>will seem dangerous to those who wish to appear to be in total, beneficent
>>control.

If there is logic to the wind-up, it escapes me.  It seems to me that the
appearance of being in total control (dictatorship) is the last thing any
politician in this country would want to be seen (seen being the operative
word) as attempting.  Is this message spoofed from that juno kid?
Regards,

Chuck Thompson