cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (03/19/91)
Well, it's happening again... I was watching the news tonight (a local channel), and they had a story about pornography (gasp!) on computers (gasp! gasp!). The central thought of the story was that children might get to see some pornographic images (they called them "videos") by logging onto a BBS and downloading some GIFs. They covered the subject of BBS membership by talking to some guy who told the reporters about all of the adult boards out there, and that some of them were homosexual in content. He also said that there were child pornography BBSes, but never gave examples... Here's the good part: the whole story was built on "maybe." No examples- they went to an arcade and asked some kids if they could find porn on a BBS, and one kid said "all you have to do is keep trying." Yup. Nearly as tough as going over to their friend's house... ;-) Of course, many of the young computer types out there have already downloaded several megs of "pornogifs," but let's look into the John Doe residence: "Bobby! Have you got any *porn* in your computer?" "No, mom." (holds up floppy disk) "See?" "Well, okay- but if you accidentally find any pictures like that, don't you go looking at them..." "Yes, mom..." Sheesh. I can hear the outraged parents ripping modems out of the wall already. ...and the District Attorneys calling up Arizona for tips on prosecuting computer crime... Operation Sun Dildo? -- |////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////| |\\\\\\| C Irby cirby@untvax cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu |\\\\\\| |//////| He frowns thoughtfully. "I wonder why the |//////| |\\\\\\| Fascists always have the best uniforms." |\\\\\\| |////////////////////////-Spy Magazine-//////////////////////////|
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (03/21/91)
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) writes: }Well, it's happening again... Wha'ts happening again?? }I was watching the news tonight (a local channel), and they had }a story about pornography (gasp!) on computers (gasp! gasp!). }The central thought of the story was that children might get to see }some pornographic images (they called them "videos") by logging onto }a BBS and downloading some GIFs. }They covered the subject of BBS membership by talking to some guy who }told the reporters about all of the adult boards out there, and that }some of them were homosexual in content. He also said that there were }child pornography BBSes, but never gave examples... }Here's the good part: the whole story was built on "maybe." What is that the good part? All of the allegations are *true*, right? For good or ill, it is quite illegal to distribute "pornography" to minors in almost any circumstance [and even to adults in some]. People who run an 'adult book store' have a positive duty to prevent that material from selling their wares to minors, why should a BBS operator be any different? Or are you arguing that one should be exempt from obeying the laws simply because one is on the other side of a modem? }I can hear the outraged parents ripping modems out of the wall already. }...and the District Attorneys calling up Arizona for tips on prosecuting }computer crime... I don't understand, again: many parents *DO* believe that they should have some control over what their children learn about sex. Is that so crazy? And since I think the activity almost certainly is illegal, why shouldn't the DA be involved? We can discuss whether the laws on pornography, and specifically its distribution to minors, make any sense, but your content-free, seemingly ill informed mocking hardly adds anything worthwhile to that discussion. /Bernie\
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (03/21/91)
In article <63349@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) writes: > }The central thought of the story was that children might get to see > }some pornographic images (they called them "videos") by logging onto > }a BBS and downloading some GIFs. > }Here's the good part: the whole story was built on "maybe." > > What is that the good part? All of the allegations are *true*, right? The *assumptions* weren't exactly "true." They didn't *make* any allegations- they said it *could* happen. They had *zero* examples of kids getting access to porn. Look at that "might" in my paragraph above. Under the same idea, a kid "might" knock over a liquor store with Dad's shotgun, or "might" break into a neighbor's house... I said it before: the whole story was built on "maybe." > For good or ill, it is quite illegal to distribute "pornography" to > minors in almost any circumstance [and even to adults in some]. People > who run an 'adult book store' have a positive duty to prevent that > material from selling their wares to minors, why should a BBS operator > be any different? Or are you arguing that one should be exempt from > obeying the laws simply because one is on the other side of a modem? > Most of the BBSes down here do *some* checking, and the adult boards tend to do more checking than the regular ones. The story *did* say that the adult boards checked applicants out. We're not talking about "being exempt from laws." We're talking about being accused of distributing porn to minors- with NO apparent evidence of a crime. In other words- they were manufacturing a story. > > }I can hear the outraged parents ripping modems out of the wall already. > > }...and the District Attorneys calling up Arizona for tips on prosecuting > }computer crime... > > I don't understand, again: many parents *DO* believe that they should > have some control over what their children learn about sex. Is that so > crazy? No- but when a local TV station uses the "computer" angle to make the same old pornography issue seem new, we should probably pay some sort of attention... > And since I think the activity almost certainly is illegal, why > shouldn't the DA be involved? We can discuss whether the laws on > pornography, and specifically its distribution to minors, make any > sense, No- what we need to do is *ask if a crime has actually been committed*. According to the news, there *was* no crime- but there *might* be one sometime. And as you noticed, there are laws on the books to deal with the problem. The District Attorney in Dallas has *real* crime to deal with. The murder rate is very high here- but some person suddenly wants to restrict BBSes just because their kid could do something wrong? [Note: I *know* that some kids get access to pornogifs. But 90% of the ones I've seen in their possession come from friends. And it's still *much* easier to get porn over-the-counter. Bandwidth alone keeps most of the stuff on the Internet...] > but your content-free, seemingly ill informed mocking hardly > adds anything worthwhile to that discussion. "Content-free?" "Seemingly ill-informed?" Go back and read the original post. My comments weren't really about porn in the hands of kids. I was pointing out a badly-done TV news story with little substance. The point was: A television station took a story about computer porn GIFs and tried to turn it into a "kids and porn" story. It was clumsy, poorly-documented, and could cause some problems for those of us with no interest in that stuff. -- |////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////| |\\\\\\| C Irby cirby@untvax cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu |\\\\\\| |//////| He frowns thoughtfully. "I wonder why the |//////| |\\\\\\| Fascists always have the best uniforms." |\\\\\\| |////////////////////////-Spy Magazine-//////////////////////////|
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (03/26/91)
In article <63349@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: [Stuff deleted] >What is that the good part? All of the allegations are *true*, right? >For good or ill, it is quite illegal to distribute "pornography" to >minors in almost any circumstance [and even to adults in some]. People >who run an 'adult book store' have a positive duty to prevent that >material from selling their wares to minors, why should a BBS operator >be any different? Or are you arguing that one should be exempt from >obeying the laws simply because one is on the other side of a modem? [More stuff deleted] >I don't understand, again: many parents *DO* believe that they should >have some control over what their children learn about sex. Is that so >crazy? > >And since I think the activity almost certainly is illegal, why >shouldn't the DA be involved? We can discuss whether the laws on >pornography, and specifically its distribution to minors, make any >sense, but your content-free, seemingly ill informed mocking hardly >adds anything worthwhile to that discussion. > > /Bernie\ If an action is illegal, that doesn't make it wrong. A child's PARENTS should decide when he/she is mature enough for pornography, not the government. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
gt4662b@prism.gatech.EDU (BRANHAM,JOSEPH FRANKLIN) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar21.124347.45868@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) writes: > In article <63349@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > > cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) writes: > > > For good or ill, it is quite illegal to distribute "pornography" to > > minors in almost any circumstance [and even to adults in some]. People > > who run an 'adult book store' have a positive duty to prevent that > > material from selling their wares to minors, why should a BBS operator > > be any different? Or are you arguing that one should be exempt from > > obeying the laws simply because one is on the other side of a modem? > > > > Most of the BBSes down here do *some* checking, and the adult boards > tend to do more checking than the regular ones. The story *did* say > that the adult boards checked applicants out. > > We're not talking about "being exempt from laws." We're talking about > being accused of distributing porn to minors- with NO apparent evidence > of a crime. I get lots of non-electronic mail from places that will happily sell you that material which gets grouped under the word pornographic. On the order forms, there is a box which is labled something like "I really am 18 and I understand that many states do not approve of the stuff I am ordering." That's it. When I was 18, any BBS I was on that carried any pornographics material usually required a telephone conversation with the SYSOP. At the very least, a notice to the effect of the above labled box should be all that is needed. Of course the people who probably made this news feature obviously had very little idea of what the EFF is like. (The comment on downloading porn "videos" seem to imply that.) And of course, the parents-who have no earthly idea of what their teen/child spends all his time "up there with the computer" get very nervous because its an alien world to many people. Of course much of this commentary is drawn from personal experience.... Moo. -- <------------------------------------------------------------------------------> < FRANK BRANHAM | Pope Zippy the Wonder Porpoise of the > < Georgia Institute of Technology | POEE Sacred Order of the Cthuloid Chao > < Internet: gt4662b@prism.gatech.edu | "Udders are TOO vestigial tentacles!" >