🚀 go-pugleaf

Snowhare (snowhare@netcom.com) wrote:

: Of course - being a US citizen posting from a US system via a US 
: network the phrase 'She pleaded guilty' is no more banned than the 
: phrase 'John likes beagles'.

: Get a clue. The vast majority of people reading these groups are NOT 
: Canandian nor are they subject to the Canandian court order.

: 'She pleaded guilty'
: 'She pleaded guilty'
: 'She pleaded guilty'
: 'She pleaded guilty'

Yer so fucking cuel.

(Damnit I said I wouldnt write anymore. I lied.)

The whole ISSUE here is NOT wether people can READ the information, but about
people PUBLISHING the information.

Please, lets all, as net.citizens all get of the mind that posting to
the usenet is NOT publishing something. Its the publification of
something. The courts here have yet to decide wether this is true or
not. Like I said, U or Waterloo thinks it is (they've taken on the
responsibility of reading the 7000+ newsgroups for information which
breaks the law... I spose they have a huge room of speed reading
censors or something... wonder who funds this).

But its not that, not yet. Writing stuff on the net hasnt been proven to be
publishing, even if it is done in Ontario for ontarians.

A couple other things everyone keeps forgetting:

a) the ban is in ontario
b) the ban covers PUBLICATION of the information thats covered under the ban.

The varg publishing info on how to get the banned info violates the SPIRIT of
the ban, but it would have to be taken to court and beat at very hard to
prove that it is an actual violation of the ban, in fact, it would have to
be stated that:

Instructing people on how to, as private citizens, get information from
an information service or server in another country (which cannot be
covered by the ban) IS in fact tantamount to directly and purposely
publishing the facts covered by the ban.

I dont think that this is going to happen. So, you in-your-face americans
who keep on thinking that you're breaking the ban in some way by writing stuff
on the usenet that we Canadians (rather, ONTARIANS!) can read is WRONG. You're
not, and in fact, when I state:

"Karla Homolka pleaded ***** at her trial"
			^^ 
			insert guess here 

no one actually knows if *I* am actually breaking the ban either. This would
all have to go through court a bunch before someone determined wether the net
is the same as publishing something. I say not.

Ruth Grier, who doesnt seem to be doing her job too well, says "No Comment."
on this exact issue.

Basically there are NO laws regarding this. The only reason the
headlines from papers on my door read "NETWORKS BREAK BAN" or
equivalent is cause they're sensational. 

I'll say it once more:

No one has legally substantiated wether writing something on the usenet is
the same as publishing information. This will have to be decided. As well,
who takes on the role as "publisher" will have to be decided.

Or, our (and the US, note) legal systems could get with it and figure out
that there's been nothing like the Usenet before in legal history and some
NEW laws and NEW ideas will be needed to handle these issues.

I hope someone with alot of money will be nabbed first so they can do a
good job of it. Or the EFF clone in Canada gets their shit together in
time to help someone out who gets into court over this. This is going
to be an amazingly important decision.

University of Waterloo already missed out, and they have money. Hell, they
even, as supposed bastions of free speech and thought (they're a university,
right?), are morally REQUIRED to. But they didnt.

/kc



-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone	"Life is what happens when
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292	you're waiting for the tube."
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA       - Karen Shook, CND expatriate