"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:408c7354$1@news.povray.org...
> "pan" <pan### [at] syixcom> wrote in message news:408c6054@news.povray.org...
> > How sad that news.povray.,org is now officially censored.
>
> People love to throw the word "censored" around.
>
> I open my home and allow guests to come in and discuss things within it,
and
> I provide food and a place to hang their artworks.  The guests know what I
> consider acceptable behaviour in my home and they're all rational people
and
> they feel happy to be there - they have a great time - but one guest
becomes
> disruptive and starts abusing my other guests and constantly consuming
wall
> space with artworks that are offensive to me and my guests.  I warn him
that
> his aggressive and disrespectful behaviour isn't acceptable as a guest in
my
> home and that if he continues I'll have no choice but to throw him out.
Yet
> he continues, knowing that what he is doing is wrong, and taking
> entertainment in it.  Is throwing him out censorship?  No, it's exercising
> my right as the owner, for the protection of my home, myself, and my
guests.
>

Yes, the owner of news.povray.org may exercise total contro, over the
content of what is posted. No argumenbt there.
However, ownership of a news group server does not necissarily invalidate
the idea that banning a a contributer solely on the basis of content
is irrational.

> IMBJR knew what constituted acceptable use of this server, and he decided
> that he wanted to cause trouble.  Thankfully, people like that aren't
> tolerated around here, nor should they be.
>

What is acceptable is clearly up to Chris Cason alone.
What is the prupose of denying that the AUP is subkective and capricious?
Clearly, Chris has the right to deny certain content from being posted
to his news server, but that rioght, by itself, does not provide compelte
absolution from criticism.

> > Are there any existant forums not  subject to peculiar and
> > religous censorship where artists may post their work without
> > any fear of irrational opposition?
>
> He has his own server to post any material he wants, but this isn't his
> server.  I don't see how the owner of a server kicking someone off their
> server is irrational - they own it, they can do whatever they want with
it.
> We're just lucky that this server even exists, in my opinion.  99.999% of
> users have absolutely no problems on this server because they exercise
> common sense and respect the other members of the community.
>

Yes, I agree. But, twhat you term 'common sense' is nothing but
Chris' version. Let's not deny the truth of that. To ascribe one
person's view of what is 'proper' to some general definition is
not logical or rational.
Some people actually do view  natural sexual content as both
healthy and beneficial. YMMV.

> > Pan
>
> We have a great community of talented, enthusiastic, inspirational and
> respectful people here and I'm happy that this action has been taken to
> ensure the continued existence of that community.
>
The community will suffer to the extent that a small number of nosiy
objectors can successfully demand censorship of images that they,
the minority, find uncomfortable or in discordance with their version
of what is "acceptable".

How can you deny that some, including  myself, experience sadness
that news.povray.org is now characterized as having a narrow
and conservative threshold of acceptabiltity.

Remember, no one bothered to survey the actual feelings of all of those
who read news.povray.org. All that has happened is that a very small
number of people have successfully caused a banning of a poster
of sexual material. Who knows how many of us agree with the
noisy minority?

Pan

Post a reply to this message