patrick@mcc-pp.UUCP (Patrick McGehearty) (05/20/86)
In article <1259@mulga.OZ>, isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes: > let me just say this. The facts are: > (1) You CAN say what you want. > (2) It MIGHT be illegal in some other country > (3) Is it you or "usenet" or the system admin or whoever who is the > vehicle for the illegal publication of your material? > (4) If it is NOT you who is responsible, why should anyone else be? > Please address this issue and not America Vs the_rest_of_the_world To use the Soviet example, if I make comments critical of the Soviet Union (slandering the State or whatever), I would not expect to be criminally liable, even if those comments were published and carried into the Soviet Union. Whoever did the carrying would be in a different position. I suggest that any sysadm in a "controlled information" society check the local laws before assuming that any sort of "voluntary assumption of guilt clause" will have any significant effect on his/her legal position. I suspect that if the government in question is inclined to nail someone for other people's net posting, the voluntary statement made in a foreign country will be irrelevant to the case. Rather, the focus will be on who "allowed" the illegal material to enter the country. I make this assumption by analogy with the USA approach to illegal drug importing. When I say something in my home country, I apply the laws and social customs where I am to what I say. When I am a guest in another country, I (try to the best of my knowledge) to obey the laws of that country. To conclude: I sympathize with the position of sysadms in societies without strong free speech traditions, but cannot support such restrictions on Usenet traffic as proposed. Patrick McGehearty