Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] LUG web space project
From: Five Senses Productions <fls@5senses.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:26:01 -0700

Thank you.

At 06:37 AM 6/18/70 , you wrote:
>Alf/All,
>
>Francesco has made an offer to the LUG membership that's both
extraordinarily kind 
>and of good heart; I thank him for making the offer. IMO your objections
have been 
>spoken with a kind of  'beneath us' disdain that's innappropriate, at
best; in effect 
>'criminalizing' Francesco for offering of himself.
>
>> I will not change my mind, and I refuse to accept, that essential parts of
>> the LUG might be managed by you.
>
>Your point of concern comes from the Playboy courtcase and the listing of
the 5senses 
>server as a 'pornographic' one. His explanation for what led to the court
decision was, 
>beyond being none of our business, credible. From what Francesco has told
us, he 
>participates in a genre of photography known as 'glamour' photography,
much the same 
>as the work of our own LUG hero Erwin Puts.
>
>Would you have a problem showing your photos next to Erwin's? 
>
>What if Compuserve offered us free space? I presume that the perception
Compuserve 
>promotes, that of a 'civilized neighborhood', would appeal to you?
>
>Here we have an established entity which includes a photoforum. Their
photoforum has 
>member rules which specifically permit the 'right' of the forum staff to
selectively 
>discriminate on the basis of POV (or for whatever reason best fits). They
also track 
>where their membership goes and make a 'profile' history available to
whomever they'ld 
>like (be they advertisers, spammers or maybe even religious zealots)
without notifying 
>the user. And they're owned by AOL, whose membership is notorious as the
most 
>prolific consumers of pornographic materials on the net.
>
>It would seem that finding a server innocuous enough to meet your
requirements would 
>be a rough task I'm fairly sure none of us are pure enough to undertake in
an honestly,  
>'personally pure enough' sense. 
>
>I say none of this to antagonize you and want you to understand that. I do
however, 
>object to claimed Puritanism as vocally as you object to pornography. 
>
>Men, glass houses, stones and all that.
>
>Regards,
>Danny Gonzalez
>