wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (09/22/88)
One spinoff of the recent debate about Portal has made me aware of what could be a Real (TM) problem for Usenet. This is no joke, and has very little to do with Portal, per se'. The problem lies with the availability of newsgroups such as alt.sex to public-access sites, where these groups can be read (and even posted to) by youngsters. Is Usenet in jeopard of legal action on the grounds of pandering obscenity or contributing to the delinquency of minors ? Given recent court action in matters such as Dial-a-Porn, and a growing "moralist" objection to mature subject matter, I feel that unless some measures are taken, the net stands at risk of becoming a future target of "anti-porn" crusaders. All it would take would be 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. Were the net to be thus targeted, the most likely approach, given the chaotic structure of the net, would be for the activists to focus attention on the larger corporate contributors. Many of our employers would thus find themselves in an unpleasant position; the effect on the net would be obvious. Is this a serious potential problem, or am I paranoid ? ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker cbosgd!cbema!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (09/23/88)
wbt@cbnews.att.com writes:
[alt.sex and similar groups being available to
minors could be a problem for Usenet sites.]
Is this a serious potential problem, or am I paranoid ?
I think you're a *little* paranoid. If your system is available to
12-year-olds, then perhaps you have a problem. My systems are not.
Generally speaking, no one who isn't "of age" can get into my systems
- this is a university where it is safe to say that all users are at
least 18. I can't be accused of pandering to minors when it's so
obvious that I don't make my systems available to minors. Sites which
make themselves available to minors might be putting themselves into a
much worse position. "Large corporate contributors" can no doubt
claim reasonably that their users are of sufficient age as well.
--Karlwv@whuts.UUCP (DUNCAN) (09/23/88)
In article <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >a future target of "anti-porn" crusaders. All it would take would be >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. Bill Duncan att!whuts!wv
bin@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (09/24/88)
> The problem lies with the availability of newsgroups such as > alt.sex to public-access sites... > > Given recent court action in matters such as Dial-a-Porn, and a > growing "moralist" objection to mature subject matter... ^^^^^^ alt.sex? You're joking, right? Paul DuBois (, fundamentalist)
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (09/24/88)
I should think that the net shouldn't be worried, but that public
access sites should be. If a site lets 12-year-olds read alt.sex
then they aren't being responsible and will be held responsible.
Most sites won't have to worry about this but public access sites
like you-know-who will. I think it's seriously an issue to be
considered by them. What with record stores being sued for selling
certain albums to minors and video stores being sued for letting
minors near X-rated tapes, the climate is there.
--
Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA sullivan@vsi.com
whump, whump, whump, whump, whump, whump, whump, whump, whump, whump, whumpmhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) (09/24/88)
In article <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > >Given recent court action in matters such as Dial-a-Porn, and a >growing "moralist" objection to mature subject matter, I feel that >unless some measures are taken, the net stands at risk of becoming >a future target of "anti-porn" crusaders. All it would take would be >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. > I can see the potential problem but it seems hard for a child to get access to the net without his parent's knowing. Kids can't afford computers and modems by themselves; certainly, they don't pay their own phone bills. So it seems somewhat unlikely that someone who objects strongly to children seeing pornography will find out. (Parents ought to be able to exert some control over their children.) BTW, I suspect you read neither soc.motss or soc.women if you think they are "adult theme." There's very little discussion of sex (as defined by fundamentalists) in either. Rec.humor is far more likely to be a problem. >Were the net to be thus targeted, the most likely approach, given the >chaotic structure of the net, would be for the activists to focus attention >on the larger corporate contributors. Many of our employers would thus >find themselves in an unpleasant position; the effect on the net would >be obvious. Most large corporations do not have any significant number of employees under the age of 18. Universities have a slightly larger problem as many freshman are under 18. But the problem seems biggest for public access sites. It's easy to solve if you do know someone's age since it's possible to restrict a given user's access to certain groups, but you'd have no way of knowing whether they were telling the truth about their age. How would you handle age verification given the nature of the medium? (One game I've seen bases age verification on trivia questions - but I still missed a couple of the "prove you're 30" questions.) So maybe there's a problem but it seems hard to verify intent. Miriam Nadel -- "I deny that I have ever given my opinion to anybody" - George Bush mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!mhnadel
rfarris@serene.CTS.COM (Rick Farris) (09/25/88)
In article <7232@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: >But the problem seems biggest for public access sites. It's >easy to solve if you do know someone's age since it's possible to restrict >a given user's access to certain groups, but you'd have no way of knowing >whether they were telling the truth about their age. How would you handle >age verification given the nature of the medium? > >mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!mhnadel As sysadmin at serene, I run pnet as a front-end to news, and alt.sex is a closed topic. For access I require anyone I don't know to send me a photocopy of their drivers license. Yes, it would be possible to fool me, but I feel I've taken "reasonable precautions". Basically, I guess I really don't personally care whether they're 18 or not, I'm just trying to ensure that I've followed the rules. Oh yeah, I recommend that if you're going to solicit your users to send mail to you, that you get a PO box... _______________________________ Rick Farris | rfarris@serene.cts.com | Voice (619) 259-6793 POB M | ...!uunet!serene!rfarris | BBS 259-7757 Del Mar, CA 92014 |_______________________________| serene.UUCP 259-3704
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (09/26/88)
In article <7232@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: >BTW, I suspect you read neither soc.motss or soc.women if you think they >are "adult theme." Soc.motss could be considered to have an "adult theme" if you define it as a bunch of adults acting like intelligent adults talking about matters of interest to adults in an adult manner. Bad stuff, and surely outside the mainstream... -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/28/88)
In article <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > Given recent court action in matters such as Dial-a-Porn, and a > growing "moralist" objection to mature subject matter, I feel that > unless some measures are taken, the net stands at risk of becoming > a future target of "anti-porn" crusaders. All it would take would be > 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. I doubt it would take a "closed-minded fundamentalist" -- it could be almost any parent concerned that a 12-year-old lacks the maturity and understanding to make rational sense of sexually explicit materials. I speak from my own experiences, getting my personality warped around by reading such materials as a teenager. (Of course, everything is normal now. :-)) > Is this a serious potential problem, or am I paranoid ? > Bill Thacker cbosgd!cbema!wbt The potential problem is serious, and it would be a darn good idea for the public access sites to make sure that they aren't exposing themselves to potential legal liability (consider the various lawsuits pending against some of the 976 sexphone services) and opening the net to annoying problems from organized boycotts. One solution: verify the ages of your subscribers, and make sure that potentially suit-generating groups (alt.sex, soc.women, soc.motss) aren't available to the under-18 set. No, I'm not saying that these groups should be unavailable to adults -- but minors are in an entirely different category legally, and I'm inclined to agree with the general reasoning of why, though not necessarily all the details. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (09/28/88)
In article <509@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >solution: verify the ages of your subscribers, and make sure that >potentially suit-generating groups (alt.sex, soc.women, soc.motss) >aren't available to the under-18 set. God help me for making this comparison, which is only to make a point... I don't know what Clayton Cramer thinks is discussed in soc.motss, for I'm sure he'll be the first to proclaim he doesn't read it, but its discussions are considerably less sexually explicit than early AM TV talkshows like "Donahue", "Oprah!" or "Sally Jesse Raphael", all of which are available to the preschool set. ("Mommy, mommy, what's a wife-swapper?") The idea that a minor reading soc.motss would be grounds for a lawsuit is ludicrous. I hope gay teenagers DO have a chance to read it if they have access to USENET one way or another. I don't read soc.women currently, either, but I've never seen anything there which would indicate that its content should be a concern to minors other than introducing them to the lowest standards of rudeness and lack of consideration. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/01/88)
In article <1957@spdcc.COM>, dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: > In article <509@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >solution: verify the ages of your subscribers, and make sure that > >potentially suit-generating groups (alt.sex, soc.women, soc.motss) > >aren't available to the under-18 set. > > God help me for making this comparison, which is only to make a point... > > I don't know what Clayton Cramer thinks is discussed in soc.motss, > for I'm sure he'll be the first to proclaim he doesn't read it, but its > discussions are considerably less sexually explicit than early AM TV > talkshows like "Donahue", "Oprah!" or "Sally Jesse Raphael", all of which > are available to the preschool set. ("Mommy, mommy, what's a wife-swapper?") > The idea that a minor reading soc.motss would be grounds for a lawsuit is > ludicrous. I hope gay teenagers DO have a chance to read it if they have > access to USENET one way or another. I've actually read bits and pieces of soc.motss in the past, and while you are correct that Donahue is typically a lot weirder in its sexuality, and frequently more explicit, TV stations have the resources to fight lawsuits; how USENET sites would be willing to? I wouldn't have guessed that the sexphone services would be fighting lawsuits, but they are. > I don't read soc.women currently, either, but I've never seen anything > there which would indicate that its content should be a concern to minors > other than introducing them to the lowest standards of rudeness and > lack of consideration. > > Steve Dyer In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you -- I used a list of groups from a previous posting, and perhaps soc.women was a little overbroad to include. Nonetheless, there are a lot of people out there that would be quite disturbed at the possibility of a teenager, still struggling to decide their sexuality, being encouraged in the direction of homosexuality by soc.motss. You may wish to disagree as whether this is a bad direction or not, but remember that most people in this country would consider it a bad direction; consider having the average person on a jury considering a civil suit against a USENET node. ("USENET made my son a homosexual!") -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/01/88)
In article <517@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Nonetheless, there are a lot of people out there that would be quite >disturbed at the possibility of a teenager, still struggling to decide >their sexuality, being encouraged in the direction of homosexuality >by soc.motss. It's quite conceivable that some people might be concerned that reading ca.politics will expose their little darlings to the sinister views of Clayton Cramer on the merits of burger flipping. If parents are concerned, let them do something about it, like cutting off net access. I don't see that the net is likely to be sued by an irate parent concerned about excessive exposure to the real world; there's too much competition. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "I am quite prepared to prove in court that I am neither stupid nor insane." quoted from ONE FOR THE BOOKS, the authorized biography of Captain Carnage.
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (10/01/88)
Luckily, the vapidity of the argument that soc.motss would further the end
of the net-as-we-know-it was evident when the arguments for the group were
successfully presented 6 years ago. Back then it was the mucky-mucks seeing
the group and pulling the plug on a site's entire USENET feed, now it's some
imaginary bogey-man of underage minors seeing soc.motss and, through being
"encouraged", engendering a lawsuit. This is baseless and moronic fear-
mongering when you consider the swill that's routinely slung across the
USENET phone lines which hasn't even generated a note of concern.
Individual sites should take whatever steps they care to in choosing their
audience, depending on their level of paranoia. However, I strongly suspect
that this topic has already had its beads of sweat squeezed out of it.
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyercramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/04/88)
In article <1960@spdcc.COM>, dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: > Luckily, the vapidity of the argument that soc.motss would further the end > of the net-as-we-know-it was evident when the arguments for the group were > successfully presented 6 years ago. Back then it was the mucky-mucks seeing > the group and pulling the plug on a site's entire USENET feed, now it's some > imaginary bogey-man of underage minors seeing soc.motss and, through being > "encouraged", engendering a lawsuit. This is baseless and moronic fear- > mongering when you consider the swill that's routinely slung across the > USENET phone lines which hasn't even generated a note of concern. > Steve Dyer I'm really quite surprised -- especially considering how lawsuit crazy certain lawyers are. Consider the lawsuits about 976 services, and tell me how unlikely it is that someone won't do the same when they find little Johnny reading alt.sex or soc.motss. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/04/88)
In article <14877@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > It's quite conceivable that some people might be concerned that > reading ca.politics will expose their little darlings to the > sinister views of Clayton Cramer on the merits of burger > flipping. If parents are concerned, let them do something about > it, like cutting off net access. I don't see that the net is > likely to be sued by an irate parent concerned about excessive > exposure to the real world; there's too much competition. > -- > ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Ah, but the courts have long recognized that political debate is protected by the First Amendment, and even the population sort of agrees -- not at all the same with sexually oriented materials. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (10/04/88)
In article <535@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >I'm really quite surprised -- especially considering how lawsuit crazy >certain lawyers are. Consider the lawsuits about 976 services, and >tell me how unlikely it is that someone won't do the same when they >find little Johnny reading alt.sex or soc.motss. If little Johnny wants to read soc.motss, he can do it on my system. Cramer still likes to maintain that soc.motss is "sexually oriented" and akin to either alt.sex or 976 services which it clearly isn't. Any attempt to sue a site for accidentally or deliberately giving a minor access to soc.motss would be thrown out of court, and since the chances of such a suit being brought are infinitesimally less than the chance of Cramer's conversion to liberalism, I suggest that we put this ridiculous thread to bed. Cramer may have the last word if he likes. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/04/88)
In article <537@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <14877@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >> It's quite conceivable that some people might be concerned that >> reading ca.politics will expose their little darlings to the >> sinister views of Clayton Cramer on the merits of burger >> flipping. >Ah, but the courts have long recognized that political debate is >protected by the First Amendment, and even the population sort of >agrees -- not at all the same with sexually oriented materials. I thought the point was that people might sue, not how likely they would be to win. If Joe Zitt drops out of High School to take up a lucrative career as a hamburger engineer, what happens if Mom and Dad decide to sue and find a lawyer ready to take their money? People can sue about practically anything, as far as my (admitedly slight) knowledge goes. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "I am quite prepared to prove in court that I am neither stupid nor insane." quoted from ONE FOR THE BOOKS, the authorized biography of Captain Carnage.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/04/88)
In article <1977@spdcc.COM>, dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: > In article <535@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >I'm really quite surprised -- especially considering how lawsuit crazy > >certain lawyers are. Consider the lawsuits about 976 services, and > >tell me how unlikely it is that someone won't do the same when they > >find little Johnny reading alt.sex or soc.motss. > > If little Johnny wants to read soc.motss, he can do it on my system. > Cramer still likes to maintain that soc.motss is "sexually oriented" > and akin to either alt.sex or 976 services which it clearly isn't. Mr. Dyer seems to be confusing what I'm saying could happen, with what I personally believe. I want you to picture a jury in a small town in the MidWest (or even California) when the plaintiff's attorney explains that soc.motss is a place where homosexuals socialize and discuss aspects of being homosexual, and that SiteX BBS service provides access to such by impressionable children. > Any attempt to sue a site for accidentally or deliberately giving > a minor access to soc.motss would be thrown out of court, and since > the chances of such a suit being brought are infinitesimally less than > the chance of Cramer's conversion to liberalism, I suggest that we > put this ridiculous thread to bed. Cramer may have the last word if > he likes. > > Steve Dyer Thrown out of court -- sure -- but how many lawsuits does SiteX have to respond to before they decide they can't afford to fight this sort of issue? What is it Mr. Dyer is upset about? That I'm warning sites that restricting access to some groups to adults might save them a lot of aggravation or legal expense fighting lawsuits? Or is it that important to Mr. Dyer that minors read soc.motss? -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/05/88)
In article <541@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Mr. Dyer seems to be confusing what I'm saying could happen, with what >I personally believe. I want you to picture a jury in a small town in >the MidWest (or even California) when the plaintiff's attorney explains >that soc.motss is a place where homosexuals socialize and discuss >aspects of being homosexual, and that SiteX BBS service provides >access to such by impressionable children. But why is it that you think your net.scribblings are protected in some way which Dyer & Company does not enjoy? And why are you so concerned about soc.motss in particular? I don't see why *this* group is especially likely to cause problems, whereas talk.religion.newage, or rec.games.frp, or even ca.politics are somehow clearly not a potential problem. Your answer "my ravings are protected by the first amendment, but Dyer's aren't" is both wrong and irrelevant. While Berkeley is clearly not a hick town in the sense you are seeking, it might be instructive to look at what Momma's little darling can lay his hands on here. First, right here on campus a free gay newspaper (sometimes another) is distributed. Also, People's World and the Militant and propaganda publications of the Soviet Union are sometimes distributed for free. For 75 cents Junior can buy The Spectator out of a newsstand, with every kink known to man or dog on the inside. Soc.motss? Don't make me laugh. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Intolerance is a state of mind, rudeness is a way of life. -- C. Wingate
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/06/88)
In article <15023@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <541@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >Mr. Dyer seems to be confusing what I'm saying could happen, with what > >I personally believe. I want you to picture a jury in a small town in > >the MidWest (or even California) when the plaintiff's attorney explains > >that soc.motss is a place where homosexuals socialize and discuss > >aspects of being homosexual, and that SiteX BBS service provides > >access to such by impressionable children. > > But why is it that you think your net.scribblings are protected > in some way which Dyer & Company does not enjoy? And why are you Note that I am distinguishing between what IS, and what SHOULD. At least since Gitlow vs. New York (1925), political speech has been recognized as a protected form of free speech. Over the last 25 years, pornography, erotica, or whatever term you wish to use to describe sexually-oriented materials, has NOT enjoyed the same protections of the courts. I'm not saying this is right -- because I don't think this distinction is right -- just that the potential for legal problems is signficant. > so concerned about soc.motss in particular? I don't see why > *this* group is especially likely to cause problems, whereas > talk.religion.newage, or rec.games.frp, or even ca.politics are > somehow clearly not a potential problem. Your answer "my ravings > are protected by the first amendment, but Dyer's aren't" is both > wrong and irrelevant. I'm not concerned about soc.motss in particular -- alt.sex is likely to cause the same problems. Mr. Dyer took exception to my including soc.motss in the same list. And you are wrong -- political free speech is COMPLETELY protected -- there is no serious possibility of getting yourself in trouble carrying political materials. > While Berkeley is clearly not a hick town in the sense you are > seeking, it might be instructive to look at what Momma's little > darling can lay his hands on here. First, right here on campus a > free gay newspaper (sometimes another) is distributed. Also, Distribution to college students isn't the same as distribution to minors. > People's World and the Militant and propaganda publications of > the Soviet Union are sometimes distributed for free. For 75 cents Completely protected -- I'm sure that an attempt to sue for providing Communist materials to minors would be laughed out of court. > Junior can buy The Spectator out of a newsstand, with every kink > known to man or dog on the inside. Soc.motss? Don't make me > laugh. > -- > ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Berkeley isn't typical of American cities -- it's not even typical of California cities. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/07/88)
In article <550@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <15023@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >Note that I am distinguishing between what IS, and what SHOULD. At >least since Gitlow vs. New York (1925), political speech has been >recognized as a protected form of free speech. Over the last 25 years, >pornography, erotica, or whatever term you wish to use to describe >sexually-oriented materials, has NOT enjoyed the same protections of >the courts. >I'm not concerned about soc.motss in particular -- alt.sex is likely >to cause the same problems. Mr. Dyer took exception to my including >soc.motss in the same list. I read them occasionally, and just compared them, and he's dead right. alt.sex is just what it says it is; soc.motss has a lot of stuff like whether "monogamy" is The Answer or not, and includes political speech, which you say is "absolutely" protected. In any case, my point is that something a parent might object to could turn up *anywhere*, and that the free speech rights of soc.motssers are as important as those of Clayton Cramers. (It *is*, after all, a political issue these days--or had you noticed?) I think any "warning" should be generic, covering the whole net and without singling out soc.motss. If you *must* pick on a group, try alt.sex and alt.drugs. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 This posting was made possible by a grant from the Mobil Corporation
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/07/88)
In article <15135@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <550@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <15023@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > > >I'm not concerned about soc.motss in particular -- alt.sex is likely > >to cause the same problems. Mr. Dyer took exception to my including > >soc.motss in the same list. > > I read them occasionally, and just compared them, and he's dead > right. alt.sex is just what it says it is; soc.motss has a lot of > stuff like whether "monogamy" is The Answer or not, and includes > political speech, which you say is "absolutely" protected. Political speech is "absolutely" protected -- but if you distributed child pornography with a political speech in it, the overall publication would not be legal. (Depending on the mood of the judge hearing the case on a particular day). > In any case, my point is that something a parent might object > to could turn up *anywhere*, and that the free speech rights of > soc.motssers are as important as those of Clayton Cramers. (It > *is*, after all, a political issue these days--or had you > noticed?) I think any "warning" should be generic, covering the > whole net and without singling out soc.motss. If you *must* pick > on a group, try alt.sex and alt.drugs. > -- > ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I didn't pick on soc.motss -- it was one of several groups I mentioned that raise the potential for legal nuisances. Yet the reaction was as though I was picking on soc.motss alone. A little paranoid, aren't you? -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (10/08/88)
If I ran a bbs or site I would talk to a lawyer. Chances are that it is the responsibility of the individual site to make sure that minors don't have access to the potentially problematic boards. At this point, it's clear that they do, especially from sites like Portal. And it's worth while to keep in mind that freedom of speech for political speech is not an absolute right. A right is absolute only to the degree that it is not infringed upon, and it has been infringed upon many, many times. (The whole issue, for example, of labelling some films "propoganda.")
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/10/88)
In article <5532@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, skyler@ecsvax (Patricia Roberts) writes: >And it's worth while to keep in mind that freedom of speech for political >speech is not an absolute right. We might recall in this connection the public apology for a "let's assassinate X if the election turns out in such and such a way" posting. I think this is political speech, and protected by the first amendment. Evidently, the Secret Service held another view. Clayton Cramer may wish to ponder the significance of this for the net. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/10/88)
In article <15229@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >In article <5532@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, skyler@ecsvax (Patricia Roberts) writes: > >>And it's worth while to keep in mind that freedom of speech for political >>speech is not an absolute right. > > We might recall in this connection the public apology for a >"let's assassinate X if the election turns out in such and such a >way" posting. I think this is political speech, and protected by >the first amendment. Evidently, the Secret Service held another >view. Clayton Cramer may wish to ponder the significance of this >for the net. Suggesting "let's assassinate X" isn't political speech, it's criminal. It can be considered conspiracy (with other Usenetters), as well as an attempt to overthrow the government by force. Probably a couple of other crimes, as well. People, please don't dump on Mr. Cramer for his reference to soc.motss. *I* started that reference with my original "net.porn ?" posting. I mentioned soc.motss *not* because I considered it pornographic, but because I felt that certain elements of our society would be feel threatened by the idea of their children reading that group. I suppose I could have included talk.abortion, talk.bizarre, and talk.politics.misc, but the actual newsgroups were *not* the issue, just the concept of Usenet sites being subject to legal action on these grounds. My apologies if my reference to soc.motss has offended anyone; it was not my intent to do so. Mr. Cramer has said nothing (in *this* subject thread, at least) to warrant any hostility. He merely repeated my mention of this group. ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker cbosgd!cbema!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (10/12/88)
In article <5532@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, skyler@ecsvax (Patricia Roberts) writes: > And it's worth while to keep in mind that freedom of speech for political > speech is not an absolute right. In article <15229@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) embarasses himself by replying: > We might recall in this connection the public apology for a > "let's assassinate X if the election turns out in such and such a > way" posting. I think this is political speech, and protected by > the first amendment. Evidently, the Secret Service held another > view. Clayton Cramer may wish to ponder the significance of this > for the net. Don't be ridiculous; assassination (and conspiracy to commit assassination, which is what was taking place) has never been protected by ANY part of the constitution. You might also note that assassinating, or conspiring to assassinate the President of the U.S. also carries the title of "High Treason." You might think it quite a stretch to consider "joking" on the net to conspiracy charges, but look at it from the point of view of the Secret Service. There are a lot of wackos out there trying to kill politicians, and they have to take EVERY threat seriously. -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "How do you make the boat go when there's no wind?" -- Me --