🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Apr2.004348.598@sdg.dra.com>,  <sean@sdg.dra.com> wrote:

>> to enable the empanelling of an unbiased jury.  If over 3/4 of Ontario
>> hasn't heard or read the banned information, then, broken or not, such
>> folks should be easy to find, and the ban has been a success.
>
>Well, the ban seems to have eliminated people rich enough to travel, or
>well educated enough to access the net from serving on the jury.  Are we
>seeing a society of information haves and have-nots being created?  Are
>we satisfied with a ban that lets the "elite" learn the information, but
>keeps the "common-folk" in the dark?

That's ridiculous:  You don't have to be rich to cross the border; and
being educated does not imply you use the net.  Anyone in Canada, rich
or poor, can find out banned information if they want to -- the ban is
leaking like a sieve -- what you seem not to understand is that the
reason why 3/4 haven't done so is because they don't *care* to.

I doubt that most Canadians on the net have bothered to read groups
like alt.fan.karla-homolka or sought out ftp sites containing the
banned information.  Even when stuff has been posted to soc.canada
I think a lot of people probably just pressed N -- and even if they
didn't, a majority of net users don't read a lot of newsgroups anyway.

Are we seeing a society of information have's and have nots created?
Maybe -- but that has little or nothing to do with how people get 
information about Karla's trial -- *most* people who know details didn't
get them through the net.

Justin

-- 
Justin Wells  (rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org, stem@sizone.pci.on.ca)

tired: alt.fan.karla-homolka
wired: seizures (legal/medical) related to alt.fan.karla-homolka