|
Grex > Coop11 > #105: Seeking sexually explicit material on Grex | |
|
| Author |
Message |
aruba
|
|
Seeking sexually explicit material on Grex
| 
Jun 11 15:35 UTC 1999 |
I have been charged with finding some examples of sexually explicit
matrerial on Grex which we can submit as part of our "declaration" (the
document describing why Grex has standing in the case the ACLU is bringing
against the new Michigan law).
The law in question defines "sexually explicit verbal material" as
"an explicit and detailed verbal description or narrative account of
sexual excitement, erotic fondling, sexual intercourse, or
sadomasochistic abuse."
I'd like to choose a few items which
1. contain content which fits that definition, and
2. also contain some serious discussion.
I realize it is a value judgement to decide whether discussion is serious
or not.
I picked out one item, about pornography (item:femme,34) which I think
fits those criteria pretty well. It also has the advangtage that the
sexually explicit content in it is not gratuitous, but central to the
discussion. I also get a kick out of the fact that by submitting it we'll
be saying to the government - "this is how *we* deal with sexually
explicit material - we talk about it, rather than banning it."
This item is a request for pointers to other items that fit the criteria
above. I looked through the sex conference, with help from gypsi, and
couldn't find much that fit both points. I'd appreciate references that
were as specific as possible.
|
| 36 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 36:
|
Jun 11 15:41 UTC 1999 |
Of the items I looked at in the sex conference, item:cflirt,300 looks the
most like a good example to me. But I'm not sure.
|
keesan
|
|
response 2 of 36:
|
Jun 11 16:40 UTC 1999 |
Try the agora items Black, black, black.... and Right leg, left leg (or is
it left leg, right leg?), where bdh attempted to talk about his penis and sort
of got booed down. The first item was pretty explicit.
Glb conference probably does not have anything sufficiently explicit, but
might be an example of something Michigan would try to ban anyway. There have
been discussions of dictionary definitions, and of on-line sex, but people
tend to be rather vague about actual details.
|
janc
|
|
response 3 of 36:
|
Jun 11 16:55 UTC 1999 |
Borderline examples might be fine - the vagueness of the definitions is such
that either organizational censorship or people's self censorship is likely
to err on the side of caution - so the Act could chill discussion even on
subjects it doesn't actually ban.
I'm especially interested in examples where either the sexual material itself
has redeaming value, or the responses by other users shows community standards
being applied to material with little redeaming value.
|
toking
|
|
response 4 of 36:
|
Jun 11 17:29 UTC 1999 |
I'm not sure that it would be usefull, but there are a few (I think)
items in poetry that get a little explicit....
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 36:
|
Jun 11 18:42 UTC 1999 |
Could you be specific, Joe?
|
toking
|
|
response 6 of 36:
|
Jun 11 19:48 UTC 1999 |
I haven't gone through poetry1 yet, but:
item:poetry2,200
item:poetry2,399
item:poetry2,434
item:poetry3,22
|
toking
|
|
response 7 of 36:
|
Jun 11 19:54 UTC 1999 |
item:poetry1,742
|
ryan
|
|
response 8 of 36:
|
Jun 12 01:57 UTC 1999 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 9 of 36:
|
Jun 12 02:07 UTC 1999 |
Of the poetry items, item:poetry3,22 is probably the most appropriate.
It's a poem about a rape, leading to some concerned discussion - it
gives a reasonable portrait-in-the-small of sexually explicit material
being discussed within a community.
I agree that item:femme,34 is a good choice - it only has a few points
where it is sexually explict (mostly Mary's responses), but it is a nice
example of a serious discussion that couldn't be discussed in quite the
same way under this law.
item:cflirt,300 is about masturbation. Definitely "sexually explicit".
Has at least some redeaming value.
Some of these items, like the pornography one, are very long. We had
hoped to be able to get permissions from the authors to make use of
these items. That's a lot of authors. It might be hard to round out
those permissions in the time we have. Hard choice.
|
janc
|
|
response 10 of 36:
|
Jun 12 02:08 UTC 1999 |
I had wondered what, if anything, we have to say about the whole genre
of "hot chats". It's probably the most common type of sexually explicit
material on Grex.
|
void
|
|
response 11 of 36:
|
Jun 12 02:16 UTC 1999 |
grex is welcome to use anything i've ever posted on grex, if there is
anything that would be helpful in this case.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 12 of 36:
|
Jun 12 03:59 UTC 1999 |
Though it is courteous, is it really necessary to get permission of authors,
if, as I have suggested, you extract only the content and not the userIDs of
the authors?
|
aruba
|
|
response 13 of 36:
|
Jun 12 04:51 UTC 1999 |
I think we should do our best. I've heard back from more than half of the
authors of the pornography item, saying it's OK to use their writings.
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 36:
|
Jun 12 05:54 UTC 1999 |
I think item:poetry3,22 is a good choice, and I've written to the authors
to ask permission.
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 36:
|
Jun 12 06:04 UTC 1999 |
the permission seeking is strictly a courtesy.
there is no legal obligation to obtain it, since the material is posted in
a public and anonymously accessible forum. i believe current legal precedent
is that a person can have no binding expectation of privacy in regard to
speech made or actions performed in a public place.
therefore, let us choose the best material and obtain permission if at all
possible within the timeframe available.
i believe any concerns over copyright issues can be covered by fair use
provisions.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 16 of 36:
|
Jun 12 09:47 UTC 1999 |
Also, on that point, there are some authors that no longer use Grex, but
their login is preserved in the item. Therefore, it would be almost
impossible to track them down and ask permission.
Eric (other) made a good point about it not being a legal obligation.
There was some discussion in the past regarding copyrights, etc, led
pretty much by brighn. I couldn't remember the decision since I bowed
out due to the repetitive whining on his part. Anyway, a lot of people,
(including me), don't use their real name or use a pseudo; So, another
point is that you can't prove who wrote something.
|
void
|
|
response 17 of 36:
|
Jun 12 15:40 UTC 1999 |
there are some items from the glb conference which are not
explicitly pornographic, but would probably not even have been
entered had a law like this one been in effect. you might want to look
at glb items 2, 5, 8, 12, 20, 27, and 32.
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 36:
|
Jun 12 17:53 UTC 1999 |
Thanks void, I'll check those out.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 19 of 36:
|
Jun 12 18:53 UTC 1999 |
How about an item not intended to be sexual but gets drifted
into it?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 20 of 36:
|
Jun 12 20:32 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:19 - The original intent of the item is irrelevant; the content is
the thing. (to paraphrase the Bard)
|
zoe
|
|
response 21 of 36:
|
Jun 12 21:25 UTC 1999 |
you can use my peice item:poetry3,22 in any way you see fit... i
support grex all the way on this one.
|
aruba
|
|
response 22 of 36:
|
Jun 12 23:46 UTC 1999 |
Thanks zoe.
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 36:
|
Jun 13 00:35 UTC 1999 |
I hereby grant my permission for Cyberspace Communications, Inc.,
for the sole purpose of its participation in the lawsuit to overturn
Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999, to make use of any postings i have
made, or will make, to GREX through the end of July 1999.
now if only i can come up with some really morbidly sexually
explicit, deviant materials with clear redeeming social value, i'd be
all set..
;-)
|
mdw
|
|
response 24 of 36:
|
Jun 14 03:56 UTC 1999 |
Regarding ownership of responses -- that actually opens up a huge can of
worms we've never really had to face here. I know of two places that
*have* run into this problem. UM has run into this, with Confer II and
several law suits. Also, the community of users represented by the well
& the river, which has a large % of professional writers, and which as a
result advertises rather prominently that the response authors "own
every word". Of these two situations, UM may be more germane because
it's in michigan and directly involves the law. Ken Ascher was involved
in some of these cases and so may be a good resource for the michigan
cases.
As a matter of past policy & precedent, I'd say that grex has taken the
position that it has the right to "publish" material submitted on grex
in any manner it sees fit, excepting that authors have the right to
withdraw material if they are not satisfied with the manner of
presentation. The specific case I am thinking of is that when backtalk
was introduced; it was decided to introduce a "new" method of
publication (the web, in some cases anonymously). A small but vocal
group protested grex's decision to do this, and in a few cases withdrew
much of their material posted on grex, and withdrew from participation
on grex.
|