aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) (09/25/88)
In article <4805@whuts.UUCP> wv@whuts.UUCP (54299-DUNCAN,W.) writes: >In article <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews(William B. Thacker) writes: >>one closed-minded fundamentalist finding out that 12-year-olds with >>computers and modems can get access to alt.sex, soc.motss, soc.women, >>and other "adult theme" groups. > >Soc.women?! Soc.motss?! You're kidding, right? What do you think goes >on there? There's a big difference between the restriction of pornography >and the restriction of information. Who is going to be in charge of determining what is or is not pornography?? I've never seen anything in soc.motss that I would consider offensive. On the other hand, I've seen very little in there that my mother would NOT consider offensive. Who makes the rules??? Recent Virginia laws make it a serious offense for a store to sell materials that are LATER found to be "obscene". A simple extension of that law would be: "Oops, your public access Unix machine has an article, posted two weeks ago, that we found to be obscene today. We'll confiscate the machine." Scary, huh? -- - Aliza (AlmostLady) (decuac.dec.com!c3pe!aliza or backbone!decuac!c3pe!aliza) Life's a bitch... and so am I
jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (09/26/88)
In article <3498@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: >Recent Virginia laws make it a serious offense for a store to sell materials >that are LATER found to be "obscene". A simple extension of that law >would be: "Oops, your public access Unix machine has an article, posted >two weeks ago, that we found to be obscene today. We'll confiscate >the machine." Especially since uunet is in Virginia. If that site was forced to close at this point, connectivity would be adversely effected, to say the least. -- Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack (UUCP) jack%swlabs.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)
gnu@pollux.UUCP (GNU Delevopment Team) (09/29/88)
In article <2647@swlabs.UUCP> jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: >In article <3498@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: >>Recent Virginia laws make it a serious offense for a store to sell materials >>that are LATER found to be "obscene". A simple extension of that law >>would be: "Oops, your public access Unix machine has an article, posted >>two weeks ago, that we found to be obscene today. We'll confiscate >>the machine." > >Especially since uunet is in Virginia. If that site was forced to close >at this point, connectivity would be adversely effected, to say the least. Do they actually _confiscate_ and _close_down_ a store or other facility for a "first offence" of this nature, especially when there's no intent to break the law? Surely, this would initially result in just a fine or reprimand. Also, as has been pointed out before, sites like uunet, which do not originate postings, are rather in the position of a common carrier, like the phone company. The phone company is not held liable for Joe Blow making obscene phone calls -- Joe Blow is solely responsible for his calls. Of course, if site XXX continually originates postings which are obscene under some law, sites like UUNET may be forced to deny XXX a net connection. Thus it becomes each site administrator's responsibility to insure that his/her users comply with the law. Wolf Paul wnp@dcs.UUCP dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (09/29/88)
The problem here is not what is or isn't "net.porn" or whether a Usenet
site (like uunet) is a common carrier or not. The problem is that if
an over-zealous prosecutor wants to gain some publicity, any site could
be targetted for prosecution, including (possibly) shutdown and
confiscation. There is no legal precedent or legislative act (that I
know of) that defines a Usenet site as a common carrier -- that would
have to be established in a trial. Further, the loose interpretation
of what "community standards" means should allow a case to be based on
alt.sex contents (at least).
The risk here is not in conviction. The risk is in the initial
prosecution. Mounting a defense against a lawsuit like this could be
very, very expensive. It could require years of appeal up through
Federal courts. And during all that time, the system in question could
be confiscated and kept from operation. Think about the effect that
would have on the site in question and the Usenet in general.
If you think this sounds unreal, then you aren't familiar with the US
legal system or with the efforts made by some solicitors in election
years. It's especially bad in some conservative areas of the country.
To top it off, there are people like the Rev. Wildmon of Mississippi
trying to provke such cases since the publicity helps them get
further donations from the "faithful."
We need to think ahead and do what we can to avoid such a situation,
not argue the merits of a defense for *when* it happens, although that
is probably a good idea, too.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafhenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/02/88)
In article <12588@pollux.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >...as has been pointed out before, sites like uunet, which do not originate >postings, are rather in the position of a common carrier, like the phone >company... As has also been pointed out before, whether Usenet or any particular site on it (e.g. uunet) really is a common carrier is most unclear. The Usenix folks got a legal opinion on this some time ago; it said, roughly, "this falls in a gray area between publishers and common carriers; there is no close precedent; nobody can be sure how a court would rule; there is a definite possibility that some sort of intermediate status, combining some features of both, would be the outcome". I believe that uunet says that it considers itself a common carrier, and tries to act like one, but as far as I know, that is based on hope rather than solid legal backing. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (10/05/88)
In article <1988Oct1.215721.10566@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > As has also been pointed out before, whether Usenet or any particular site > on it (e.g. uunet) really is a common carrier is most unclear. The > Usenix folks got a legal opinion on this some time ago; it said, roughly, > "this falls in a gray area between publishers and common carriers; there > is no close precedent; nobody can be sure how a court would rule; there is > a definite possibility that some sort of intermediate status, combining > some features of both, would be the outcome". I believe that uunet says > that it considers itself a common carrier, and tries to act like one, but > as far as I know, that is based on hope rather than solid legal backing. As the lawyers are fond of saying, "nothing is certain until you have actually gone to court". However, the current opinion is that UUNET qualifies as an "enhanced services provider". This is slightly different than a common carrier. Roughly speaking it means that you have all of the benefits (FCC protection) without most of the hassles (FCC regulation). Key issues for UUNET seem to be that it is 1) reselling communications (i.e. rebilling for Tymnet or 800 service) and 2) not acting as a bulletin board. (i.e. no individual logins, just computer to computer communication). My understanding is tha the average USENET site would not be treated as a common carrier or anything similar. The lawyers feel that UUNET is on fairly safe ground. One commented that our biggest liability worry should be the computer falling on someone and injuring them... USENET is a totally separate issue. However, as there is no "USENET" to sue/arrest/whatever, its hard to do anything about it. ---rick
mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (10/18/88)
Written 6:42 pm Oct 11, 1988 by wes@obie.UUCP in news.admin: > You might also note that assassinating, or conspiring to assassinate > the President of the U.S. also carries the title of "High Treason." Article III, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution reads, in full, ``Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.'' There is no crime called ``High Treason'' in the U. S. In the U. S., our allegience is to our country, not to a particular person. A President is no King, thank goodness! -- Tim, the Bizarre and Oddly-Dressed Enchanter Center for Supercomputing Research and Development at the University of Illinoid at Urbana-Champaign Internet, BITNET: mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,convex,pur-ee}!uiucuxc!uicsrd!mcdaniel ARPANET: mcdaniel%uicsrd@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu CSNET: mcdaniel%uicsrd@uiuc.csnet