Topic awaiting preservation: Why PC sucks and doesn't belong in our schools

So I'm just posting lotsa articles today. This one really got me steamed. This is a university, not a junior high, and from what I've heard, this is not an isolated occurrence of this sort of thing. What do you think?

Keep your websites to yourself: law school Maxim
By: Erik Ball

10/17/02
--------------------------

A law student who was referred for disciplinary action when two female students objected to his looking at a sexually charged website during class will not face harassment charges, according to UNLV Judicial Affairs Officer Philip Burns.

The issue of a possible harassment investigation arose after an incident where Clarke Walton was asked by his law professor not to read from the Maxim website on his laptop. Two female classmates brought the issue to the professor's attention.

"I was scared to death," Walton said. "I thought being in a writing class the professor wanted to bring up a plagiarism issue. Maybe I didn't site a source somewhere." Walton continued, "I was absolutely shocked. Bewildered, floored, absolutely blown-away from this accusation."

"What happened was that the student, Mr. Walton ? had on his computer screen in the classroom had some images of scantily clad women," said Law School Dean Richard Morgan. "Whether they were provocative or not, I'm not here to say. But in any event, there were students who did complain to the faculty member about those images."

Walton agreed to remove the website from his computer's home page.

"I considered it to be the men's Cosmopolitan," Walton said. "It's a public medium in my opinion. There is no age restriction to buy it. I did tell my professor that I would no longer view this magazine on my computer screen."

Morgan commented, "Faculty members control their class and if they don't want people playing solitaire or reading the Wall Street Journal or looking at images on their computer screen during their class and would rather them pay attention in class, it is certainly in their purview to say stop that."

According to Walton, his professor then went on to explain that she would need to "share this with (her) peers."

"I didn't know what type of privacy I had," Walton said. "My second thought was, that by asking that I not view Maxim magazine on my personal computer that the request was in some way an infringement on my constitutional right to free speech."

Walton continued, "Some of the faculty were bringing the incident up in class. I figured if these guys are saying this to my peers, I can only image what's being said behind closed doors."

Shortly after this incident, however, Walton's accusers noticed that he posted a memo on the law school's website admonishing them in what seemed to be an act of spite.

"There's a list serve by which law students can communicate with each other and Mr. Walton put out a message on that, and then that resulted in what they thought was an effort on his part to ostracize to retaliate against them," Morgan commented. "I talked to Mr. Walton yesterday and he denies that he even knows who his accusers were. He denies trying to ostracize them, or do anything."

"I wrote two statements. One regarding the Boyd Law School Honor Code and that it needed more speculation. In my second email I wrote that I was informally accused of sexual harassment," Walton said. "It was a proactive measure. It certainly incited controversy. I received close to 50 to 100 responding emails."

That action in turn generated students to issue a complaint to UNLV's Vice-President of Diversity, Ann Casados-Mueller.

"Her email said, ' Clark, you're under investigation for sexual harassment," said Walton. "She essentially accosts me. She insists Maxim magazine is pornographic. By her definition it's soft porn. In my opinion, she made antagonistic comments. She showed me a picture of a women from Maxim magazine?and asks me 'how does this make you feel? Does this picture sexually arouse you? I said it doesn't sexually arouse me at all." Walton continued, "She said by her standards and her definition that Maxim was in no way Cosmo and in her opinion it was pornography. We butted heads."

According to Walton, he pointed out the code prevision that stated it had to be a repeat occurrence. Walton claims that Mueller and Burns, who accompanied Mueller in the meeting, stated that "in a court of law this may not be sexual harassment. But for the purposes of this investigation, we believe you sexually harassed these women and you are responsible."

While a formal complaint has yet to be generated in writing, according to Burns, Walton has already been asked to write an essay to the law students and RJ columnist Steve Sebelius apologizing for his actions and to attend a diversity seminar taught by Mueller. They also, according to Walton, "chastised" the fact that he cooperated with the press on this issue.

The Yell contacted Mueller for comment and she refused stating that this particular issue is no longer in her office.

"In my opinion, that is completely ridiculous," Walton said. "I never knew who my accusers were. They responded, 'It doesn't matter what your intent was, these women perceived this as offensive and we hold you responsible."

"What we have is a situation with law students which has escalated to a point to where they are concerned with each others' education and at least a couple of them have gone through the university process to seek relief," said Morgan.

"I'm absolutely not planning on attending a seminar. I'm absolutely not planning on writing a letter of responsibility. I may do it on my own volition, but I will not do it because school asked me to," said Walton.

According to Student Conduct Code and Policies, in order to successfully file a complaint need to be filed with the Administrative Officer of the Vice-President for Student Life. Such complaints must be in writing, signed, included detailed information regarding the specifics of the incident and the name of a person who may have witnessed the alleged prohibited conduct should be listed.

"Now any complaint of harassment has to be dealt with very very delicately," stated Morgan. "Because harassment issues involve free speech very often."

Walton confirmed that he was contacted by Gary Peck of the ACLU and was pledged full support of the ACLU legal council. Walton stated that all correspondence regarding this issue with the university will go through his council at this point.

Morgan concluded, "Law school are places that are built with energetic people of different views and different perspectives. That's what makes law schools interesting places. You can't expect a law school to be free of controversy. All we can do is attempt to deal with controversy and criticism in responsible ways. Of course I wish I would be spending my time in ways other than talking with the press about this issue. I wished this issue had resolved itself earlier on. Things don't always work out the way you want them to. All we can do is try to deal with the problems?better yet. Try to present the problems in a way that offers opportunity for growth."

Walton concluded, "I will admit that I was responsible for looking at Maxim magazine on my computer. I accept responsibility for looking at it. God bless it."
--------------------------
Story Source: Rebel Yell

. . : slicePuzzle

What a total crock of shit... In general...

Then this just takes the cake:

quote:

---

She insists Maxim magazine is pornographic.

---

Hell, I read Maxim... It is nowhere even near pornagraphic. Hell, Playboy isn't even pornography, it's erotica. Playboy could be considered "soft core," but Maxim? Give me a fucking break.

It's people like this that need to be eliminated from the planet entirely...

Of course, I could be wrong... But I'm not

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693

This is what happens when ugly women with stupid opinions are allowed out of their cages.


It had to be said.

oh my god, lol

about half way down the page i thought to myself "what a fucking croc of shit"

then i scroll down and see fukutoku's post and low and behold

"what a total crock of shit"

roflmao,

And yea. What a fucking crock of shit that is, peices of work I tell you.

The thing is, that this 'crock of shit', as is mentioned several times above, was taken seriously.

I find this sort of thing very alarming. One should consider several things here - if it was pictures (and that's what we are talking about, right? Pictures) of other objects, say, computers, or cars, then no fuss, right? But because they are of women (and consenting women, to be blunt), now there is an issue? This is madness!

And who 'forced' these other women (who complained) to look at the pictures? No one. If they had been minding their own business, and not 'sneaking' looks at other peoples screens, nothing would have happened...not to mention paying attention to the class subject at hand!

*Shakes head* I strongly feel that this falls into the 'right to privacy' sphere...what one 'displays' on ones own personal screen is ones own choice...nobody is being forced to look at it...

Females of this type...the ones that registered the complaint, piss me off. What the hell were they thinking? If they have a problem with such photos, then they can express their 'opinions' to the Editor of the magazine...instead of harrassing (yes, that's what I call it) someone looking at it...or start a legal process against the Mag.

IMHO, this kind of stuff is abuse of the system...and is one of the reasons that there is 'backlash' against Feminism...

My heart goes out to the guy being 'barbequed' for this...of all the stupid things I've ever heard...and he's been caught right in the middle of it.

And, of course, there is the 'reaction' of the board of the school. Or should I say overreaction. Unbelievable! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Normally, this kind of stuff should be laughed off.

I can just see it now...Law number 19384756GHT - No person or persons shall diplay on any electronic device, in public, any information, or otherwise, that may be construed to be pornographic in nature, under penalty of death.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

They should be happy he is 'goggling' pictures in a mag...and not them. Or maybe, that is the issue here...*shrugs*

I personally would hate to see these women (that complained) in a position of power where they can 'express' their 'opinions' in a legal form...this situation is proof enough, of what could happen...*Shakes head again*

Christ, one should at least do a little forethought on the consequences of ones actions, before setting something like this in motion...for, as one can see in this example, it is very easy to inflict damage on others...and to start things, that rapidly spin out of hand.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-22-2002).]

First of all, I guess I was the only one who saw this topic title and thought it would be an argument for Macs in schools...

Secondly, my biggest beef with this is something WS mentioned: no one forced these girls to look at this guy's screen. I mean, come on, what is up with that? Granted, maybe the guy should have been paying attention in class rather than surfing the web, but where does this sexual harassment crap come in? When did he actually harass anybody? That's what really steams my turnip.

As WS pointed out, this could have dangerous consequences--the definition of sexual harassment could be blown out of proportion, and it would just become a weapon for radical feminists to basically get rid of whatever they don't like. Sounds like censorship to me...

But if you think this is bad, you should see the military. My cousin is in the Navy, and he got caught looking at porn on a government computer (moron). He is now on record as a sexual offender. A sexual offender, people. Who did he offend? No one, but that doesn't matter. Granted, he did a very stupid thing, but does he deserve to be branded for life like that?

This is starting to piss me off now. I'll be back--I'm going for some shock therapy.





Cell 270

I was about to say... what's this? A pro-Mac debate?

But on the topic at hand, while I completely agree with pretty much everyone here's views that it's nothing but PC-run-amok, I still almost think the chicks have a bit of a hand here. Call me a traitor to the male gender, kick grogg out of cave... but think about it for a second. While surely there's nothing wrong with reading a magazine in public (a classroom, moreover), perhaps that could be considered one of those that you don't.

There's a certain degree at which we, as the prim and proper group we are, will begin to find something (searches for word) distastefull. Though I'm sure they wouldn't have had any problem with it should they have opted to look at a different time, when the pages were turned to one of the many articles in Maxim. Hell, I'm sure if the big ol' name Maxim was visible, but no women-folk, they wouldn't have batted an eye. Switch the 'M' to a 'Pl' and the 'xim' to 'boy' and you got yourself an issue, chickiee or no chickee.

Point of the above? It got me to use words such as 'chickiee', and 'women-folk'. But more to the point, sure Maxim isn't nearly as offensive to women (some) as Playboy is, but the image of a scantily clad woman is. They see no difference between nip and no-nip, it's all gross and disgusting and vile to them. Icky nudity, right gals? *halo*

Do I believe it should be made against the rules to read Maxim in the classroom? Nope, but I believe it's a more personal decision. Guys: hey, if it'll avoid a conflict and more senseless drama in life, keep in minimized for a while. Chicks: Offended? Go ahead, be offended. But don't try and make a big issue out of it simply because you don't want to see Titny Spears and her booty all up in yo' boyfriend's grill. It's not that big of an issue, and it tends to just add to the daily mumble of lawsuits and offense claimings from an overly political correct society that's become a metephorical earthquake of annoyance and dissapointment in your fellow man. Hehe... Titny Spears.

... I think I need some sleep ...

Well, that regarding the military...if he did this on duty, it's his own damned fault. One does have to remember, even when not on duty, that as long as one is in the military, that one functions as a representitive of the military. That being so (and it is also in the contract that one signs upon entering...though I believe the wording is somewhat different), and because the 'sexual harrassment' thing is strongly looked down upon by the military (it's an image thing), what this guy did was plain and simple, stupid.

However, in the case that Bugs posted, it's downright...sickening, what has happened to that guy. An outrage, and one that cannot be tolerated.

I strongly feel, that such things are rapidly getting out of hand, and largely crossing the border, between what is construed as 'damaging', or sexual harrassment in this case, and what is not (at least in my mind) a case of such.

And the followoing 'reactions' of the institute in question are also highly suspect, IMHO. It is one thing, to react accordingly in a 'Sexual harrassment' case. It is quite another to let 'personal' interpretations of such influence ones behavior, especially considering the possible repercussions of such (in this case, the possible 'ruining' of a young mans future). Are we then to say, that any showing of 'naked' females (irregardless as to the extent of the 'nakedness') is therefore 'pornography' and sexually discriminate against females?

If so, then what are men then to do, pull out their eyeballs, as to avoid being 'tempted'? How about censoring the types of clothing that women are allowed to wear (that would help, wouldn't it)?

And what about 'computer generated', or 'hand painted' graphics, of said female bodies? Does that also fall into the catagory of pornoghraphy? If so, then how? How can something that doesn't exist in real life (i.e. it is not a picture of a real woman) be constuered as pornography? And because most 'pictures', esp. those in magazines, are computer 'doctored', what, then, is that saying?

Does that mean that women strolling down the beach in a bikini are also 'pornographic'? Where does this end? Hell, where does it start?

Personally, I feel that this is no way for adults to conduct themselves. Though I do agree, that very pornographic material should be left in the private realm, I do think that a laptop display is rather in the privacy area. Therefore, who cares what one displays on his/her own laptop display? Rediculous, if you ask me...don't like it? Don't look at it. Display something else on your own display...and quit looking at your neighbors...

It's that simple.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-22-2002).]

Suho1004: I'll admit to thinking it was a pro-Mac rant too

Lets strip this story down (no pun intended):

1. It is wrong to look at pornography in a classroom (in this day and age there is probably a charter around which deals with bringing 'offensive' material on to the school grounds). I first found out about rotten because one of the class was having a sneaky peek at it - I noted the URL down and asked them not to do that again or they could get themselves in trouble.

2. They have classed Maxim as pornography. I'd like to see that stand up in court (I seem to find myself on a slippery slope of doublle entendres) but it is a 'Lads mag' and others in the genre can contain strong imagery. This has to be a grey area - one persons porn is someone elses art etc.

quote:

---

Casados-Mueller says Maxim, which features scantily clad but not nude pictures, is "sexually provocative," although she admits it's not pornography. But even sexually provocative material can be banned in class, she says, although not from other areas of the campus.

---

from: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Oct-15-Tue-2002/opinion/19844708.html

3. The faculty haven't handled it very well but he hasn't helped himself by posting on the website. Another grey area?

From the same article:

quote:

---

Casados-Mueller says that's not an option once a complaint is filed. "We've got to protect all the students, both the ones with low tolerance and the ones who aren't offended," she said. "We've got to take action. We're legally bound."

---

Basically they have to take these things seriously or their asses would be toast - blame the legal system for being overly litigious (sp?) if you want to blame anyone.

See also:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Oct-10-Thu-2002/opinion/19814135.html

4. I'm also wondering if the report has glossed over any aspects in an attempt to pitch this as an anti-Pc article and there might be other aspects to this story.

The whole thing is pretty stupid - it could have been handled better (both by the students concerned and the staff) but who is to blame? Is this real a problem with PC or with the fear of getting taken to court? Even the dean says he hopes this can be settled without any kind of action being taken against the guy.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WS: I totally agree with you on your assessment of my cousin's actions. I haven't actually seen the kid (I still think of him as a kid) in over ten years, but I don't remember him being such an idiot. I also understand (believe me I understand) that he acts as a representative of the government when on duty. I also feel that he deserved disciplinary action. But you realize what it means to be labeled as a sex offender, right? He is screwed for life, basically. He is basically going to be a social pariah until the day he dies. Why? Because he looked at some porn sites.

I can hear it now: "Well, he should have thought of that before he looked at porn while on duty." Like I said above, I'm not saying he wasn't wrong--he was dead wrong. But I think the punishment was a bit severe for the infraction. The reason why I mentioned it here is because he was labeled as a "sex offender" when he didn't offend anyone. Yes, he broke the rules, but where is the victim?

OK, now I'm a bit aggravated here, so take what I say next with a grain of salt. US soldiers stationed in Korea have sexually assault Korean women, and not a single one of them has been labeled a sex offender. In fact, in such situations with US soldiers and Korean nationals, the US soldiers generally get off with a slap on the wrist (while the Koreans cry for blood). And yet a lonely sailor looks at some 'computer generated' pictures of female bodies and becomes a sex offender. Forgive me if I don't smell a double standard somewhere.

Bugs: I apologize for veering off course in your thread here. I didn't expect that my post would get no response, but I wasn't quite expecting such a response, especially from WS.

Since I don't want to hijack this thread, any responses regarding my cousin's situation may be directed to me through e-mail. Thank you.

Ok, I've already mailed you on this...sorry about the 'harshness' of my reply...and yes, I agree that it should be kept in the 'mail area'...

On with the thread!

I've been tired of hearing about this sort of thing for a long time. You can't hang swimsuit calendars in your cubicle(box) anymore. Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't even have HotRod magazine on your desk anymore. There isn't anything wrong with it. Women don't have to look at it.

This is all happening because someone decided that there was such a thing as 'indirect harrassment'. You can't indirectly harrass someone unless they are part of a group of people your chasing with a gun. Then yeah... you 'indirectly harrassed' them along with everyone else.

The other thing that gets me about this is that not all women would consider what is being done harrassment. Some might even be interested in flipping through the calendar/mag/website/whatever. Because some women would be uncomfortable being dressed like that doesn't mean that the woman in the pic feels the same way. Quit trying to 'indirectly save' her from the overbearing males who find her attractive.

Maybe this guy should file a sexual harrassment suit against these girls/women that are accusing him. He could file on the basis that they wouldn't have complained if he had been a woman looking at the website. I bet they wouldn't have said a damn thing. I mean lets be fair and equal in all things here folks.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

This kind of idiocy traditionally is attributed to the right wingers a la "religious right" and censorship attempts but it is running unrestrained on the left in our current political reality. Do you hate censorship and fascist tactics? Take a look at the left wing because that is the primary purveyor of it.

And more on topic, a few years ago here in LA, an employee was disciplined for having a picture of his bikini-clad wife in his own cubicle on his own desk at a company I'm aware of. A woman who didn't even work in his area happened to walk by his cubicle and complained.

There just has to be a way to stop this madness.

( Suho, I don't mind topics diverging. I posted this to stimulate discussion. No worries, mate. )

This is indeed disturbing.

At work there was a "hunk-calendar" posted on the wall by the coffee-machine. Nothing offending, just muscular guys without shirts.

We then go talking about what would happen if we would post a swimsuit calendar next to it. Somehow I don't think it would be very appreciated...

Eventually a few of the women in my dept. said that _they_ wanted to post the swimsuit calendar to see what would happen, but we ended up moving to another floor and it all just faded away.

I wonder if the reaction from the company would have been any different if the swimsuit calendar was put up by a woman or a man. Regretfully I think it would...

I have several things to say:

1. I originally thought that this was an anti-PC article/pro MAC rant

2. I think that, although stupid, what happened to your cousin (Suho) was a load of $hit. I mean, like what has been said already: What if it was a woman?

3. Several weeks ago, down in the computer lab at our school, after school, if it makes a diffrence, somebody was looking up there email, and evidently the computer lab lady had the MAC's set up so that she could monitor the screens...anyways, some of the things on his email were porno emails (he had signed up for them), and the computer lab lady decided to look at his screen, she thought it was offensive, got him expelled, labeled as a teenage sex offender and labeled as "looking at provocitave/pornographic pictures of woman while a minor." Anyways, here basis was that it offended him.

4. A guy teacher at my old school, who taught 6th, got fired for looking over a teacher. The teacher got so mad that they fined him, and got him suspended from teaching for five years, and sent to jail for 1 month. Turns out she was having an affair with another teacher, in the building, during breaks, and she never got fired for it, because she was labeling herself as a victim in the case.

5. I don't see why people call America a just country. (well, i don't know about you Euro people, but people in the US do)

CFB it seems that a lot of 'shit' happens at your school. Maybe too much shit. Maybe you are lying about some of this.

Because I have certainly never heard of all this 'shit' happening in one school/school system/state.

I may be wrong but you make things seem way fucked up on the west coast compared to my highschool.

You two a priceless - can we brick you both up in a cell for a month and see who emerges at the end of it?

cfb: You say "looking over a teacher" - do you mean he was standing behind here (for example) and wanted to see what was happening over the other side of her and so looked over her head? If so that is strange and I'm not sure what she objected to (did she think he was peeping down her top?).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Actually InSiDeR: I've been to 6 diffrent schools because of moving around, but, aside from that: A lot of things happen at your school too, it's just you don't know about it (probably). You'de be really suprised what goes on at some of the schools I've been too, but luckily I'm staying in one place now. Anyways: Yes, it might seem that I'm lying, but I'm not, beleive whatever you want to beleive. That is pretty much the extent of what happens: It just turns out that I am pretty involved, and know a lot of this stuff, anyways: The school system where I live is truly fucked up. Yes, though, this stuff does happen.

InI: I mean that the teacher was "checking her out," and why this is true is really, really, really beyond me, the teacher is plain out ugly, not the kind of person anybody would "check out"

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 10-23-2002).]

Uh, you mean Emps, right?

Anyway, I say we start a pool on that little idea of yours, Emps. Personally, I think we'll open up the cell at the end of the month and find that they have somehow both ingested each other. Yeah, I know that's not technically possible, but this is the Asylum...

Something I do want to come back to--primarily because I don't understand it--is the issue of being labelled a sex offender for looking at pornography. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the words "sex offender," because, to me, a sex offender is someone who has committed a sex offense (rape, molestation, even harassment, I suppose). How can looking at pornography be a sex offense?

Here's the way I see it: it's not illegal to look at pornography, right? But if someone happens to see you looking at it, and they are offended, it suddenly becomes a crime? Doesn't this mean that it's not the pornography itself that is getting you into trouble, but what the person who saw you felt that is getting you into trouble? Wouldn't the same apply if you were looking at an anti-Semitic site and a Jewish person walked by? Is there something called a "hate offender" too?

I'm not being facetious here, I really am trying to figure this out. I just can't see how looking at pornography can be lumped together with committing rape, sodomy, etc. By this logic, playing violent video games could be lumped together with committing murder--ie, there are no connections between the two, but people seem to like blaming one for the other. The only thing I can think of is that I am misunderstanding the term "sex offender."

So, can someone enlighten me? Seriously, if anyone is familiar with the laws in this situation, I'd really like to know.

I don't know how the military works in Seoul: But you could try (or someone could) to get a re-trial (?), I know of people that do that, in fact, i know many people that have done that.

and i meant emps: no ini, sorry!

Actually, I was kind of moving away from that... and my cousin is in the U.S. Navy.

The above was just kind of a general thing

oh...ok, sorry Suho.

It actually falls under the label 'sexual harassment'.

Sexual Harassment

quote:

---

1 Definition of Sexual Harassment
For purposes of determining whether conduct constitutes sexual harassment under University policy, the following definition is used:

Definition of Sexual Harassment

Sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual?s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity;

submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for or a factor in decisions affecting that individual?s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity; or

such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual?s employment or educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual?s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity.

---

The last part pretty much sums up the University issue...I am sure that is what they used to 'show' that this was sexual harassment. But according to that definition, one could include anything in that (just think about someone with a shoe fetish...'Hey, I can't concentrate in class because she is wearing high-heel pumps! It's sexually harassing me!'). IMHO, the case in the University is not a case of sexual harassment...because the environment was not being affected...only the private sphere of the student in question (on his laptop display). Had it been done with a projector, or pic on the wall, etc, then, yes, I could see a point, or reason for, a possible 'environment' issue. But not on a laptop display.

As to your cousin Master Suho...it could be (and I have no idea, I'm just grapsing at straws here) that he 'landed' on an internet site where child porno was being offered/viewed, which does make him liable under the sexual offender law, hence, a 'Sexual Offender' case.

Personally, I love this:

quote:

---

"She said by her standards and her definition that Maxim was in no way Cosmo and in her opinion it was pornography."

---

You've gotta be kidding me...has this woman ever even read a Cosmo magazine? The Cosomo magazine here in Australia for many years features a nude male centrefold, and never a peep of complaint out of hte men about it. We considered it to just be part of what was going on. This is where the whole 'PC' issue goes off the rails. The PC-crowd will go up in arms over what they deem to be 'pornography', yet are fully prepared to look at similar things of the opposite sex. Women here in Melbourne protest about club's like Club-X, Bar 20, Men's Gallery, Goldfingers. Al strip clubs for men, yet they will go to a show of the chipendales, or Man Power and consider it a good night out. How are the two things any different? Yet becuase of th whole feminism thing, if we (males) protest these types of show, we are immediatley in the wrong.

It sickens me, the uneven distribution of media power like that. It really does.

As a woman, I feel the need to respond here. I personally, don't like pornography. I find it offensive and rude. But that's my PERSONAL OPINION. (and I am talking about REAL porn, not just pictures of scantily clad women... but the stuff that leaves NOTHING to the imagination...) What someone else does in their own personal time, on their own computer/laptop/whatever, is entirely up to them. We do live in a country founded on freedom of choice, right? right? Hmm... let me rethink that one...

In any case, I think the young ladies involved probably made a stink just to be making a stink. For one thing, the young man in question was surfing the web in class, time which might better have been spent typing notes into that trusty little laptop. Personal property and privacy aside, if the young ladies were sitting behind him, they may have been able to see the screen without intending to actually PRY INTO the young man's personal life... Laptop screens are getting pretty good these days.

There's probably a whole lot of different ways the situation could have played out. It just happened to blow up in this guy's face, and his response to the issue on the listserv probably only fanned the flames.

I reiterate a previous statement in another thread:
I seriously think the priorities of the world are totally screwed. There are a lot more important things going on in the world than some college student's choice of home page. People, especially the media, are focusing on all the wrong things.

But you know what? Sex sells. It has been proven again and again. The media throws scantily clad men and women out for public consumption daily. Even on kiddie cartoons on Saturday morning, the commercials are rife with "soft core" porn. They even sell furniture with sex. Give me a break!

Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who chooses to remain on this plane in order to help others find enlightenment.
Cell 617

Well, though I somewhat agree, this

quote:

---

Personal property and privacy aside, if the young ladies were sitting behind him, they may have been able to see the screen without intending to actually PRY INTO the young man's personal life... Laptop screens are getting pretty good these days.

---

is really the 'crux' of the matter...first, why were they 'peeking' at his laptop screen, and why did they make a big fuss about it? Hmmm?

I mean, they could have just ignored it, too. Or they could have said something to him, right? It's not like they were being forced to look at the laptop screen, or that he was shoving it in their face, or making comments to them about it...or grunting like a beast in heat over it, now, was he?

No. This is clearly an example of young, feministic, college zealots, who didn't even stop to consider that their actions might have far-reaching consequences...and poking their noses into where they don't belong...

After all, it is considered rude to read someone elses Laptop display...a direct hint that it is, indeed, morally considered a private thing.