Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:11:57 -0400 From: Sysadmin <danlaw@rust.net> To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> Cc: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Binaries in Usenet (was: News...) Message-ID: <335675FD.4199@rust.net> References: <9548.861295866@orion.webspan.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Palmer wrote: > > Ron Bickers wrote in message ID > <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970417112546.302A-100000@bigboy.intercenter.net>: > > > A lot of people are afraid that by dropping sex newsgroups specifically, > > > they will become legally vulnerable since they are EDITTING the material > > > on their news server based on its content. But there's an interesting > > > Blockbuster doesn't have an X-rated movie section. Does that mean they're > > editing material? No. I'm not a lawyer either, but not carrying a.b.p.e > > is not "editing" anything, it's simply making it not available at all. > > There's nothing illegal about that. > > Depends. A lot of ISP's advertise `unlimited' access. It can be > legally questionable to start deleting newsgroups if you advertised > that. And it could be awkward if you changed your advertising before > you changed your group listing, as people from the old ad campaign > would still get rather pissed. > > On the other hand, my point of view is that carrying these groups is a > legal liability. ``unlimited internet'' does NOT mean ``unlimited > license to break state and federal law on distribution of > pornography''. That's one thing that lusers always seem to forget, is > that SOMEONE (typically not them) is liable for the availability of > such `information', and in the end it's their right to pull it since > it's their neck on the line. Or put it another way, I'd say ``would > you rather lose the porn groups now or the entire server(s) when we > get raided by the state police for illegal pornography > distribution??'' Has _anyone_ in this thread read about the Prodigy decision? As I understand it, the ruling was that *only if you censor some messages* do you become liable for others that sneak into other newsgroups, otherwise you are simply acting as a distributor and do not have the duty to scan each and every message in all newsgroups you allow. Of course if you delete on the basia of size or UUEncoded content this might not be true. If done universally. Dumb law, IMHO, but - law. [snip] > > And you know what the REALLY sad part is? Reader stats show that the > porn-of-questionably-aged-people is the most popular. There are sick > people out there. And most of them are on the net for that sole > reason. Data? Those stats? I could believe that in MB downloaded the alt.binaries.erotica groups would be the most popular. The problems with deleting the groups people are interested in are obvious of course!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?335675FD.4199>