You said:
>>From: hk512_at_cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph Delacroix)
>
>I know you asked for replies to you not the list, but hopefully the
>following will be both relevant and short enough to be OK:
Well, the only reason I said to send it to me was because I fear
the wrath of Ratman. Otherwise, I'd go ahead and send everything to
the list I damn well pleased. =) However, I think replying
directly to the list this time won't bother anyone, either. If
anyone does mind, however, make your voice known, and I'll reply directly
to everyone from now on.
[deletae]
>>Sir, do you wish to say that you would take away David's right to
>>free expression, just because it *supports* the limitation of said right?
>
>I'm sure Chris can speak for himself, but I think you misinterpreted him.
I might have over-reacted a tad, but I believe that my interpetation
of the point that he was sending to me was valid. (See below)
>Here's what he said:
[deletae]
>Here's my short version of what Chris said:
>
>If you want to send a message, call Western Union.
>
>IMHO, the issue isn't free speech vs. censorship, but rather what's
>appropriate for fan-fic. Some people like/don't like TTBS/sex stuff in it,
>others like/don't like politics, or religion, or violence. My feeling is
>that people should be free to write what they want (I'll not get into the
>copyright/trademark aspect of it), but I suggested a while ago that
>somebody (preferably the authors) rate the fan-fic in terms of sex and
>violence so that people like myself who care for neither could skip it.
>Apparently this hasn't happened.
Well, that's a pretty challenging thing to do, considering that
everyone's view of certain factors is different. It's hard to
find impartial people to do that sort of thing. (Besides, it's a
pain in the rear to do! =)
However, in my eyes, the issue is not only `what's appropriate for
fanfic' but also `what's appropriate, period'. Of course, I have,
of late, bcome rather annoyed with people who SAY they back the
anti-CDA movement, but at the same time try to censor something
THEY don't like. THAT's what irks me, and THAT is what I responded
to. The other things just happened to follow along as supporting
elements...man, I must have said those words a thousand times to
a thousand people over the last few months.
>You could argue that it's hard to know where to draw the line on these
>ratings; given the preceding two messages, we should at least add politics
>to the ratings, and a previous thread (either started or continued by me)
>implied grimness should be added. I suppose religion should be added too,
>though it's not usually relevant to most fan-fic, at least Sonic stuff...
Well, to tell the truth `rating' literature has always been
something of a heartburn-inducing thing with me. I don't like
the idea of a book (or a story) being judged by others to be
"bad" or "good" because of X amount of sex or X amount of politics
in it. I know that wasn't your intent, but that's how people seem to
judge the ratings in movies sometimes.
But hey, I'm not saying *I'm* right. I just happen to have a strong
dislike of rating things because of X variable...I believe that the
content of a story, not a property of it, determines its value.
Of course, the film industry's been using it for ages now. Maybe I'm
just old-fashioned.
>Just some more rambling,
>
>RDB
Joe.
--
FurryMUCK: furry.org 8888 (Joe_Fox) | Joseph deLaCroix hk512_at_po.cwru.edu
SPR: svansmoj.ctrl-c.liu.se (Joe) | The CDA is bad.
http://www.eff.com/
FT: 198.211.131.13 9999 (Joe) | StH Fanfic --
http://rat.org/bookshire
FurryFuzz: yiff.azaccess.com 8888 | ObMedia:
http://www.suck.com/
Received on Wed Apr 17 1996 - 21:59:13 PDT