cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-30 - Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

Header Data

From: Alan <alan@ctrl-alt-del.com>
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Message Hash: 63e1c63c22c220c241beb9385110cb2d3e0c9872e7cc19011b31537a7a12b718
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970730115207.32596A-100000@www.ctrl-alt-del.com>
Reply To: <33DF81CF.1662D004@cptech.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-30 19:29:05 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 03:29:05 +0800

Raw message

From: Alan <alan@ctrl-alt-del.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 03:29:05 +0800
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <33DF81CF.1662D004@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970730115207.32596A-100000@www.ctrl-alt-del.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

> Paul Bradley wrote:
> > 
> > >    What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
> > > parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
> > > sexual acts?  Good luck.
> > 
> > Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people
> > that
> > censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.
> 
>      Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about
> anyone's views on this?
> 
>     On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
> take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
> People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
> basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
> protect children.

This makes an assumption that sexual material harms children.  Do you have
any data or studies that actually shows that to be true?

Curiosity about sex and sexuality is a normal part of growing up.
Protecting them from any sort of information on sex or sexuality does not
provide them any sort of service, and may in fact, cause them harm.

Pornography is a nice buzz word, but it hides the real issue.  Pictures
and words intended to describe sexual behaviour.  How this became such a
touchy issue is not due to any factual findings, but more due to moral and
emotional responses to the material by adults.  It is because of the
sheltering attitudes by the adults claiming the moral high ground that we
have so many people with confused attitudes about sex and sexuallity.
This is where the real harm comes in.  Ignorance helps no one.  (Except
the moralists pointing fingers and screaming "I told you so!".

The idea that children are somehow scarred and harmed by sexually explicit
material is without any foundation or evidence.  (Assuming they are able
to get real unfiltered information to make a correct descision and are not
getting guilt tripped for wanting that information.)

Note, I am not talking about sexual contact or any of the other boogie
men that the moralists and control freaks try to bring up.  Adolecence is
supposed to be a time to prepare for adulthood.  They are going to form
some sort of opinion one way or another.  If they get no information or
support before they are 18/21, they are going to wind up pretty screwed
up.


alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.

Thread