some closure to the debate
Submitted by Chuck on February 22 1999 at 00:59:32
In reply to need your input: letter from a christian Submitted by Chuck on February 14 1999 at 20:04:33
|
Hey folks, i just got the following message today from that board, and though it turns out that the editorial board elected to censor (or if you like, edit) the original article out of their forum, it seemed to me that some fruits came of it (even if no one in the opposition has yet been convinced of any grey areas). So, for those interested, i'd keep an eye on this forum, for if the student publication does take on the topic it might be a place to get into some valuable discourse--if even to do a little intellectual exercise on our favorite subject! By the way, i didn't get a chance to read all of the responses yet, but will do so soon! ---------------------------------------------------------- A new message, "Re: cowardly act of censorship," was posted on the The Earlham Word Online Forum by on topic on Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 5:32 p.m. It is a response to your post, "cowardly act of censorship," of Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 5:04 p.m. The message reads as follows: ------------------------- I'm upset that my response was axed without my consent. The topic was not irrelevant to the Earlham Community. I have two friends who have trusted to tell me about pre-adolescent sexual experiences. One of these people, who was molested by a pedophile at a young age, is a friend who was at Earlham a few years ago. (Which brings up the question, in sensitive letters that don't make accusations, etc., might anonimity be allowed?) My own pre-adolescent sexual experiences are limited to seeing a piece of pornography, and mistakenly thinking that all sex was carried out in the 69 position for several years thereafter, not that I really cared, at the time. Earlham has a psychology class on human sexuality. The issue is relevant as an academic topic, if nothing else. That members of the Earlham community were engaging in the topic discussion should have been good enough for the Word staff. If a member of the community initiates the discussion, is it then safe from censorship? I think enough misconceptions were expressed, and questions asked, that this topic of conversation was bearing fruit. We all know the Word censored this topic, so quit the legalistic bullshit. ------------------------- This is an automatically-generated notice. If you wish to respond to this message, please post your response directly to the The Earlham Word Online Forum at Thank you! |