🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:30:46 +0100, news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote:

>In article <34f22ed0.1063991@news.demon.co.uk>,
>malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>
>>>Unless you are talking about self-censorship carried out by users (which
>>>isn't censorship by any normal definition of the term) that's ansolute
>>>nonsense. What evidence *at all* do you have for that silly statement?
>>
>>Censorship of what you're children view, whether you consider it right
>>or wrong, is still censorship.
>
>Only from the childs point of view. Parents may see it as
>informed guidance or assisted choices or some such.
>

.. and governments may see it as preserving societies core values, or as
part of the process of preserving social order. It's still censorship
whyever you do it.

>>The idea that lots of people are going to set PICS filters for
>>_themselves_ seems incredible to me. 
>
>Why? If people *are* offended by this stuff, they won't 
>have any more excuse to complain about it's availability
>if they set filters, will they? When they come here whining
>about porn on the net, we can tell them to "fuck off and
>set your PICS filters, fuckwit!"
>

The really dangerous anti-porn people will be using PICS to seek out the
smut on the net, the better to complain about it. You'll get the
webcrawlers collecting ratings as well as titles and people using them
to find all the high rated sites.

>>What you've got to understand is
>>that moral outrage is an emotional reaction which people _enjoy_.
>
>You wouldn't be suggesting we *censor* this sordid vice,
>would you? :-)
>

No, if people wish to indulge in moral outrage that's up to them. I
think maybe it should cary a government health warning, though. It can
leed to smug self-righteousness and, in the worst cases, elephantiasis
of the ego.