🚀 go-pugleaf

>Bookstores throughout Ontario, Canada, are pulling WiReD 2.04 (April '94)
>from their shelves because it violates the Homolka/Teale publication ban.

Governments can be so clueless sometimes!  The issue in question doesn't
contain any information at all about the trial.  The article in question
is about the attempt to keep information about the trial out of the hands
of the public, and of people's use of the Internet to get around the ban.

Anyway, banning the magazine won't stop people from using the Internet
resources to get information (including Gophering to wired.com to read it).

Sorry, government types: the genie is out of the bottle.  Pandora's box
has been opened.  Attempts to resist the inevitable are doomed.

In <2msfqr$pcv@ghost.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>, djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones) writes:
>	WiReD Magazine - Banned in Canada
>
>Bookstores throughout Ontario, Canada, are pulling WiReD 2.04 (April '94)
>from their shelves because it violates the Homolka/Teale publication ban.
>
>Toronto's "Worlds Biggest Bookstore" was apparently the first
>to withdraw the illegal magazine.
>
>The Canadian distributor of WiReD has issued a memo advising all bookstores
>to return the illegal issue for a full credit.
>
>---
>One wonders whether 2.04 will become more of a collector's item than 1.01  :-)

   Thats gotta be a load of crap -- I bought that issue from a bookstore here 
in Toronto just a few days ago (it had just arrived), and there's no information 
in it that was not in the Canadian newspapers -- it was talking about how
information was flooding into Canada via the internet, and other means, and
gave sufficient detail to go and read these sources, but it did not contain
any banned information itself -- only places where one could find such
information should you desire. 

Regards,                  | "Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with
Ian R. Ameline, PP-ASEL   |  your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been,
(speaking for myself only)|  and there you long to return" -- Leonardo DaVinci
ViaCrypt PGP Key fingerprint = 3B B8 CF E9 CA 1B 9C 75  01 7F B2 64 10 7F 96 85   

How can an American publication be sued for printing something another
country's government doesn't like?  Even if some of the magazines _did_
make it in to Canada, the publishers can't be dragged there to stand trial!


Paul Ciszek                     "When the press is free and every man
                                 able to read, all is safe."
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu                            --Thomas Jefferson

In <25MAR199400131092@pavo.concordia.ca>, j_diamo@pavo.concordia.ca (DIAMOND, JESSICA) writes:
>In article <2mt4nc$fsu@tornews.torolab.ibm.com>, ameline@vnet.ibm.com writes...
>>In <2msfqr$pcv@ghost.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>, djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones) writes:
>>>	WiReD Magazine - Banned in Canada
>>>
>>>Bookstores throughout Ontario, Canada, are pulling WiReD 2.04 (April '94)
>>>from their shelves because it violates the Homolka/Teale publication ban.
>>>
>>>Toronto's "Worlds Biggest Bookstore" was apparently the first
>>>to withdraw the illegal magazine.
>>>
>>>The Canadian distributor of WiReD has issued a memo advising all bookstores
>>>to return the illegal issue for a full credit.
>>>
>>>---
>>>One wonders whether 2.04 will become more of a collector's item than 1.01  :-)
>> 
>>   Thats gotta be a load of crap -- I bought that issue from a bookstore here 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     I mean the ban -- not what the poster is saying.

[snip]
>
>Actually, there was a recent article in, oh, I think the UGuelph paper about
>the UofT Varsity being considered to have broken the ban because they published
>a step-by-step guide on how to get the information.
>
>Jessika

   That's a really obnoxious turn of events.
                                                                                  
Regards,                  | "Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with
Ian R. Ameline, PP-ASEL   |  your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been,
(speaking for myself only)|  and there you long to return" -- Leonardo DaVinci
ViaCrypt PGP Key fingerprint = 3B B8 CF E9 CA 1B 9C 75  01 7F B2 64 10 7F 96 85   

Matthew Holiday <holiday@bnr.ca> wrote:
>-> 	WiReD Magazine - Banned in Canada
>-> 
>-> Bookstores throughout Ontario, Canada, are pulling WiReD 2.04 (April '94)
>-> from their shelves because it violates the Homolka/Teale publication ban.
>
>What exactly is this ban?

CONGRATULATIONS!  You may be the only potential juror left in Canada.
And you're a tribute to the efficacy of Justice Kovacs' ruling.  
Please don't read the replies, you'll just spoil yourself!


-steve
--
Steve Rapaport,                                         |  sjr@isgtec.com 
ISG Technologies, Inc. Mississauga ONTARIO Canada       |  *905* 672-2100 (x306)
"Well, what would you do with a brain if you had one?"   - Dorothy

Someone states sweepingly:
>>The issue in question doesn't contain any information at all about the trial.

And someone else feels compelled to violate the publication ban by telling the
world:
>Yes there is. XXXX words. "She pleaded XXXXXXXX". If it wasn't for those XXXX
>words it would not have been pulled from the shelves. The ban covers the plea.

(I crossed out the plea and the word count so as not to republish the banned
information.)

(Reminds me of the three monks who had taken a vow of silence for a month.  The
first night there is a loud noise.  #1 says "what was that noise?".  #2
lectures him: "you fool.  can't even keep quiet for one night".  #3 declares
proudly: "I'm the only one who hasn't said anything".)

-- 
  /  ,'    ___    \_____  Peter Renzland, Peter@PlanIX.Com, Unix&Network Admin
 /| '|       /   `| -|- | Peter@Renzland.Org Mail or finger @__{)     Je danse
  |--|-- ---|--- `|[-|-]| Dance@Renzland.Org for Dance Data (>~(] donc je suis
  | _|_    \|    /| /|\ | Toronto - Kia Ora - tanztoll EntP /( (\ 416 323-1300

In article <2mvj2i$7q2@bcars64a.bnr.ca>, batish@bnr.ca (Ajay Batish) writes...
>In article <25MAR199400131092@pavo.concordia.ca>
>j_diamo@pavo.concordia.ca (DIAMOND, JESSICA) writes:
> 
>> 
>> Actually, there was a recent article in, oh, I think the UGuelph paper about
>> the UofT Varsity being considered to have broken the ban because they published
>> a step-by-step guide on how to get the information.
>> 
>> Jessika
> 
>Hmm. I wonder if a magazine could do, say two articles: one mentioning
>that this information is available on the Internet, and another one
>(perhaps really close to it) giving a primer on how to use such
>internet services as newsgroups, fetch and gopher... This might avoid
>them getting fined.
> 
>Just a thought!
> 
>Peace,
>--
>Ajay Batish
>batish@bnr.ca
>"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"
>-Mahatma Gandhi
> 
>Any opinions are my own. I don't speak for nobody.

Funky idea, but it seems kind of obvious. And if the two were in the same
issue, I think people would notice.

In article <Cn8yCy.I45@isgtec.com> sjr@isgtec.com (Steven J. Rapaport) writes:
   Matthew Holiday <holiday@bnr.ca> wrote:
   >What exactly is this ban?

   CONGRATULATIONS!  You may be the only potential juror left in Canada.

From his signature, he's in Richardson, Texas..

   >Matt Holiday                                  #include <std/disclaimer>
   >holiday@bnr.ca
   >BNR Richardson, TX            "Proud owner of an unregistered computer"

"Damn, there goes another juror"

I still find it hard to believe that reporting her plea can affect
anything. Do they think that the jurors might not convict her despite
her pleading guilty? Or do they think that somehow this adversely
affects his trial?

james.

Peter Renzland (peter@renzland.org) wrote:
: Someone states sweepingly:
: >>The issue in question doesn't contain any information at all about 
: >>the trial.

: And someone else feels compelled to violate the publication ban by telling the
: world:
: >Yes there is. XXXX words. "She pleaded XXXXXXXX". If it wasn't for 
: >those XXXX words it would not have been pulled from the shelves. The 
: >ban covers the plea.

: (I crossed out the plea and the word count so as not to republish the banned
: information.)

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'

--
Benjamin Franz

"I wonder what would happen if I cross-posted this to every single 
newsgroup? Would the Internet be held in contempt of court?"

Sickly Boat Harm (root@sizone.pci.on.ca) wrote:
: Who sez you published the above? Who says this post is publishing? There's no
: legal precedent for this yet. So dont make any claims like that cause I'd
: like this to remain NOT a publication. Rather, it should be a "publification"
: to borrow a term from someone, I cant remember who.

: The university of Waterloo, however, has agreed in a very strong way
: that the usenet IS a publication of articles, and has pulled the
: alt.sex.* groups accordingly. If they decided to go with the position
: that it is NOT a publication and they are merely common carriers, and stood
: firmly on it, they woulda have set an excellent precedent.

There is Canadian legal precedence that usenet IS a publictaion... to 
wit, the ruling against the University of Manitoba re: the alt.sex* 
groups...


: Worse than all this, of course, is that the University of Guelph has taken
: to scanning email for mentions of Trial details. That going too far.

This is untrue.  The University of Guelph has AT NO TIME scanned email or 
anything else for details of the banned material...  In fact, Guelph's 
feed of alt.karla was lost because UofT, who they get their newsfeed 
from, censored it.


: Can someone substantiate that this practice is ongoing? I had in mind
: a mail bomb of my friend with a nice little feed of "alt.fan.karla-homokla"

UofG IS NOT and HAS NOT EVER scanned email for anything!


D. Morgan
dmorgan@uoguelph.ca

-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3		ecarp@netcom.com		519/824-3307
	             	      an38299@anon.penet.fi
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

In article <snowhareCnBv65.LDK@netcom.com>,
Snowhare <snowhare@netcom.com> wrote:
>Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
>: the media circus surrounding this case makes that quite impossible.
>
>Wrong - you mistake the sound and fury of the Usenet for mainstream. If 
>you asked the average resident of America, (where there is no ban 
>what-so-ever on publication or discussion) they would respond "Karla who?"

ah, but the average ontario resident (where the jury is being selected)
knows who karla is, and there is a high chance they have been exposed to the
media circus.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654 ]
[   "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway."      ]
[                                   -- Colin Mcgregor                         ]

snowhare@netcom.com (Benjamin Franz) writes:

>Peter Renzland (peter@renzland.org) wrote:
>: Someone states sweepingly:
>: >>The issue in question doesn't contain any information at all about 
>: >>the trial.

>: And someone else feels compelled to violate the publication ban by telling the
>: world:
>: >Yes there is. XXXX words. "She pleaded XXXXXXXX". If it wasn't for 
>: >those XXXX words it would not have been pulled from the shelves. The 
>: >ban covers the plea.

>: (I crossed out the plea and the word count so as not to republish the banned
>: information.)

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

Perhaps our young free friend missed the fact that both the poster ("someone
else") and I are indeed posting from Canada.  It would have been pointless
(and stupid) of me to have posted my article, had I not made sure of those
facts.

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

 Canandian? I've never even heard of a Canandian. :-)

Non sequitur.  The "publication" references in my article were not to any
"vast majority" of "readers", but to precisely two posters, namely "someone
else", and myself.


PS: Ken, your rantings about Usenet admins not being publishers are misplaced.
    "someone else" and I were _author_publishers_ in this instance.  I never
    suggested that our respective sysadmins or systems owners were publishing
    what we said.  (I prefer playing go with you -- you talk less:-)

-- 
Peter Renzland

	"Until you understand a writer's ignorance,
	presume yourself ignorant of his understanding."
	Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834: Biographia Literaria

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

Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: In article <snowhareCnA3B0.6Gy@netcom.com>,
: 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.

: of course, self-righteous pinheads like you just love to play with other
: people's access.

Agreed.

: postings like this resulted in many newsnews closures in Canada.

: the fact that the ban does not effect you where you are sitting, doesn't mean
: that your keystrikes won't cause grief for people in Canada.

: the breaking of the holmonka ban has resulted in the closure of many
: non-holmonka related groups.

: sure, you are free to say what you want.  but along with that freedom is
: a certain amount of responsibility to use that freedom with respect towards
: others.  (similar to screaming "FIRE" in a crowded bar).

The phrase is "movie-house" which indicates the age, timelessness and wisdom
of the saying.

As much as I think the original poster is a TWIT, I dont agree with you
by a mile. Makes me think that you are one of those 'administrators' or
'management' types. You're missing something.

If some twit from the southern US decides to start spewing some racist
garbage in the name of white power or something, therefore we should shut
down our systems/net just cause hate literature is banned in canada? Wrong.

I say LET HIM WRITE IT, so I can find out MORE about their position on 
the issue and how they think, and so I can better fight back at them. (This
reminds me of someone who was invited to speak at CIUT radio on a talk show
and how anti-Nazi activists wouldnt let him into the building at all. Thats
just as small minded.)

If someone wants to tell everyone how to make a saturday night special and
post it all over the net, let them. In fact, tho I am pretty sure that having
one here in Canada is pretty illegal, I dont know if telling people how to
make one is.

And I also dont know if posting on the usenet regarding the information at
the Homolka trial is illegal either. Seems to be in about the same position
as the gun argument above.

Let them post it. If you feel you should shut down your system, then go ahead,
I say, and fuck over your users and cower over what you think is the govt's
wish to stop free speech.

Actually, one thing I havent said at all before is:

Has ANYONE acutally heard an OFFICIAL pronouncement by the authorities regarding
the usenet posts at all? Or have all the admins and management been acting
out of FEAR (and in the name of "prudence" I spose)? I've heard nothing
personally, but I'm an admin of a tiny site.

/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

Snowhare (snowhare@netcom.com) wrote:

: : the fact that the ban does not effect you where you are sitting, doesn't mean
: : that your keystrikes won't cause grief for people in Canada.

: Perhaps. You are seriously tempting me to follow through and actually do 
: that cross-post. It would likely cost me this account, but it would 
: almost be worth it to force the sysadmins in Canada to face up to the 
: impossibility of banning information distributed electronically. What is 

I think that for alot of sysadmins that they are aware of the reality, whereas
the administration and management above them (and the law, obviously) does
NOT realise. And they think that "banning a few newsgroups will shut it down
cold". Not. Let them think that it does tho, cause it leaves us to share the
information without them hassling us. Thats how it was at UfT - shut down
the feed to a few major systems from the official NNTP gateway and the
admin thinks they're cut off. Far from it. Thats the nature of the net. I
dont even think that most of the admins had to touch a thing - the news came
in from other servers almost automagically. What a joke.

: next? Searches of snail mail to be sure no illicit information comes from 
: the US mail? Satellite jammers to be sure no one picks up a stray news 

This has happened already at UofGuelph, which is why I almost agree with that
nearly "racist" anti-Guelph post - admins at uoGoo as far as I know are still
scanning mail for mentions of the ban. (not information thats banned, but just
mentioning KARLA HOMOLKA... duh.)

: program that is not inside Canada's absurd restrictions? Uh oh - better 
: not tell those guys proving FULL feeds via satellite...

Dont mention it, and then nothing will happen. simple. Now that you
mentioned it, I can see why Anik suddenly went spiralling out of
control... :) Conspiracy theories abounding! WOOHOO! (Ever since that,
my cable has been really fuzzy too. Damn.)

: How many levels of indirection do I have to lay on before I am not 
: breaking the ban? Can I tell people when they can go to get information 

Um. How about 0? You're not breaking the ban right now, for sure, anyway.
In the immortal words of Marlin Hoek, "Nobody knows". Not even Ruth Grier.

: Can I say telnet to Umich and read it for yourself?

This has already all been PUBLISHED on paper - how to get NNTP feeds of news,
etc.

: want. It is no further away than a phone call. Or is Canada going to 
: disconnect all its international phone links too?

Obviously not, but the authorities and the law has to come to the realisation
of this and enact suitable laws.

Tell me, are American laws already all up to snuff regarding networks and
information flow and legalities? 

Oh yes, what am I saying, of course they are, thats why things like Clipper
are in existance. Slap you back in the face (but only half way, cause Canada
will probably have something like Clipper soon...).

: : the breaking of the holmonka ban has resulted in the closure of many
: : non-holmonka related groups.

: Death of Internet predicted. There will be NO film at eleven.

Ha, ya right. Well, the internet might go down, but UUCP wont. That would
be alot harder, unless all the phone lines went out as well. That would
cause some serious shit around here, requiring the army to come out to
control things. Doubt it would happen.

: And an obligation to fight with every resource any attempt to block the 
: free flow of information. It is OBLIGATORY to scream fire *when there is 
: a fire*. There is a definite smell of smoke in Canada. The smoke of rights 
: being burned by judicial fiat.

I'm glad all this happened, really, its caused some people to start thinking
at a time when its important. We must guide this issue carefully, however,
or we'll be in the wrong spot at the right time for the govt to enact some
scary laws.

/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

Rich Gibson (drahcirr@netcom.com) wrote:

: NO!  Self rightous gutless sysadmins decided to self censor rather than 
: stand up for a vision of Usenet that does not define propagation of 
: newsgroups as 'publication.'  That is what led to 'newsnews' (whatever 
: that is) closures.

I agree with you for the most part, tho I must say that alot of sysadmins
had no control over it. I dont know if it threatened their jobs, but orders
often came from higherups who know nothing about the net excep that there's
a possibility of them getting in trouble over it. So they instructed the
admins to remove the groups.

: I would let loose an anti-Canadian authorities flame, but being from the 
: US it would be the pot calling the kettle black!

Very good. Please inform your fellow americans on this group about this point.
I'm getting sick of it.

: Hey, if my keystrokes can cause grief for people in Canada then FUCK 
: THEM!  By this arguement I must self censor to keep from harming some 

Ah! This I dont agree with. This smacks of the foreign policies your govt
enforces actually. No, not FUCK us, do it for normal posting reasons, but
not to get us in trouble only.

: poor schmoo in the frozen north.  Fuck that and Fuck that stupid case 

Frozen north. Fuck you boiiee, I'd rather live here than in Chicago or
North fucking Dacota, thanks. Unless you're sitting in a sticky Gainesville
or south of that, then you get winter too, so dont bother. There's a mound
of places in the US that are colder than the biggest cities here (which hold
most of our population).

: Bullshit!  I have no responsibility to some idiot canadian judge!  Next 

No, but you might want to have some respect for the rest of the net. I dont
agree with Jim that everyone should watch what they say down to the nittiest
picky thing regarding the ban or any other stuff you might want to post on 
the net, but you should think before you post. THat I agree with.

Unfortunately, the net is out of control. Ever since Fidonet got online signal
to noise has dropped drastically. And now with this "info superhypeway" stuff,
its gotten worse.

: Self important asshole authorities deserve no respect!
: (The judge, not you-this truly is not meant is a personal flame, but a 
: flame directed at those who would silence others based on the content of 
: their speech).

So get your butt onto canadian soil and start handing out flyers regarding
the trial if you want to hold the judge in contempt. Thats about the only
way you'll get yourself in serious trouble.

/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

Snowhare (snowhare@netcom.com) wrote:
: Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: : In article <snowhareCnA3B0.6Gy@netcom.com>,
: : 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.

: : of course, self-righteous pinheads like you just love to play with other
: : people's access.

: : postings like this resulted in many newsnews closures in Canada.


: : the fact that the ban does not effect you where you are sitting, doesn't mean
: : that your keystrikes won't cause grief for people in Canada.

: Perhaps. You are seriously tempting me to follow through and actually do 
: that cross-post. It would likely cost me this account, but it would 
: almost be worth it to force the sysadmins in Canada to face up to the 
: impossibility of banning information distributed electronically. What is 
: next? Searches of snail mail to be sure no illicit information comes from 
: the US mail? Satellite jammers to be sure no one picks up a stray news 
: program that is not inside Canada's absurd restrictions? Uh oh - better 
: not tell those guys proving FULL feeds via satellite...

: How many levels of indirection do I have to lay on before I am not 
: breaking the ban? Can I tell people when they can go to get information 
: on how to bypass the ban? Can I casually mention that for $17.50 a month 
: they can telnet to a US computer system that takes ALL the news groups?

: Can I say telnet to Umich and read it for yourself?

The Ban, as near as this non-lawyer understands it, applies to MEDIA,
i.e. public information wholesalers, so to speak.   Mailing information
privately doesn't count.  I suspect that for one individual to make
one copy via FTP, etc. would not be affected.  The moment that copies
start being made and provided to any and all, you just became MEDIA.
(One guy WAS briefly arrested for passing out hundreds of copies of
a UK newspaper story, and videotapes from "A Current Affair".  A former
cop who violently disagrees with the Ban.  They took his stuff and
dropped all charges and let him go.  If they're Nazis, they're kinder,
gentler Nazis.)

Now NEWSNET sysops can be argued to be "media"; but unlike every other
medium I can think of, they have NO practical control over what goes
out to their users!  It is technically unfeasible to have some sort
of AI watch every post...and simply not the accepted business practice
to only allow posts that the sysop has read (like a newspaper copy-editor).
The closest equivalent in law is a defamatory letter to the editor.
If printed, both the writer and publisher can be sued.  Some have
argued that the only person who can be held responsible for a USENET
post is the poster...for a first offence.  The sysop might be held
accountable for a second, since there is then a known problem.

The longer that USENET keeps up  a reputation for being mostly responsible,
the longer we all have before The Law "notices" us and decides that
this medium must be brought to heel by requiring anybody providing
a BBS-like message posting service to personally read and approve
everything posted.  Don't believe its impossible.

In article <CnACwE.2KE@reptiles.org>, jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
> In article <snowhareCnA3B0.6Gy@netcom.com>,
> 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.
> 
> of course, self-righteous pinheads like you just love to play with other
> people's access.
> 
> postings like this resulted in many newsnews closures in Canada.
> 
> the fact that the ban does not effect you where you are sitting, doesn't mean
> that your keystrikes won't cause grief for people in Canada.

Gee, why do I have a feeling that several governments in the "Eastern Block"
used to say exactly the same thing about Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Yes, there is a long, rich tradition of interfering and making life difficult
in other countries.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100

In article <2n63gt$5i3@panix.com>, Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>In <CnAwqw.5L6@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>yeah, smuggling drugs and guns across the border is pretty simple these days
>>too.  does the fact that you can't stop it make it ok?
>
>No. But this is information, which is sacred.

sacred?

fightig for the right to smear information anywhere you like, without respect
for who the information effects is not sacred.

sacred?

should everyone have access to your psychiatrist's notes?
your doctor's notes?

fighting for the freedom of information is one thing.

but i think that that fight should be tempered by respect for what
information needs to be spread widely, and what should be kept private.

what purpose does it serve to have people spreading the nasty details of
the holmonka trial?

both holmonka and teale are under arrest.  they will be tried.

spreading this information around serves no purpose but to titilate(sp?)
the public.

freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.

i wish these same zealots would push for full, unencumbered access to
the information related to JFK and Iran/Contra.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654 ]
[   "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway."      ]
[                                   -- Colin Mcgregor                         ]

In <CnDJ96.AGp@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Enhanced 911 Services) writes:

>That's right -- it's information, it's sacred, it wants to be free, and
>we're going to make it free no matter who gets trod on, no matter whose 
>rights we abuse, or what constitutional guarantees we have to strip away 
>in the process.  

I never said that information wants to be free. That's a cop out.
Information can't want anything, only people can want things, and its
only people wanting the spread of information to be unfettered which
can make it so.

>Damn -- this is even better than the "war on drugs."  No wonder 
>governments like the "information highway" so much -- if you drive
>fast enough you can splatter the bill of rights like roadkill (or the
>Charter, or Canadian justice, as the case may be.)

Well, this advantage seems to be enjoyed by the people by this point,
rather than their governments. I am not anti-Canada, nor even
anti-Canadian law. I am anti-ban. Here is the corollary, and the help
I hope we get from our Canadian neighbors:

Let us say that the US decides that it is going to outlaw all
non-Clipper public key encryption, and they begin removing PGP from
ftp sites, and closing crypto newsgroups which publish source code. I
will expect that the Canadians will view this with contempt, and help
us get to ftp sites on Canadian soil, publish sourcecode in a variety
of newsgroups, and generally do everything in their power to prevent
US law enforcement from acheiving their aim. The idea that you would
sit back and say "Oh, their government doesn't want us to do this, 
so it must not be a very good idea," terrifies me. The *last* people
whose opinions about the net we should let rule our own are the law
enforcement agencies.


-- 
Clay Shirky

In article <2n6v4f$io9@panix.com>, Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>Let us say that the US decides that it is going to outlaw all
>non-Clipper public key encryption, and they begin removing PGP from
>ftp sites, and closing crypto newsgroups which publish source code. I
>will expect that the Canadians will view this with contempt, and help
>us get to ftp sites on Canadian soil, publish sourcecode in a variety
>of newsgroups, and generally do everything in their power to prevent
>US law enforcement from acheiving their aim. The idea that you would
>sit back and say "Oh, their government doesn't want us to do this, 
>so it must not be a very good idea," terrifies me. The *last* people
>whose opinions about the net we should let rule our own are the law
>enforcement agencies.

great, let's parallel this with the holmonka thing.

lets say a bunch of zealots decide the US decision is totally bogus, and
start ftping banned stuff into US ftp sites.

this results in the management of such sites shutting them down
out of fear of an NSA/FBI/CIA audit of their archives.

don't think this will happen?  guess again.

how are you going to feel when your favourite archive is closed down for a few
days while they clean it?

what if the zealots are so clever, that they automate the whole thing.

management cannot set up an automatic process for cleaning, so their only
option is to monitor all incoming files.  this proves to be too big a job,
so they shut it down.

this is no longer fighting for freedom, it is terrorism.


-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654 ]
[   "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway."      ]
[                                   -- Colin Mcgregor                         ]

Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:

>I am not anti-Canada, nor even anti-Canadian law. I am anti-ban.


Maybe you haven't clued in yet.  Maybe a *lot* of foreigners haven't
clued in yet.  Let me clear up a few things:

   o  The vast majority of us Canadians, as in *people*, agree 
      with this idea of banning evidence to protect the accused.
      You are "helping" to thwart the democratic desires of the
      Canadian people.
  
   o  We're having a big debate over whether or not this principle
      should have been applied the way it was in this case.  There
      are lots of sticky issues, and we're dealing with them.  A
      slight majority thinks it was proper, but a sizable minority
      thinks it wasn't.

   o  We have lots of ways of dealing with this.  We have our own
      courts, our own media, our own legislatures -- that are lots
      of Canadian things that a concerned Canadian can do about it.
      Thanks for the offer, foreigner, but we don't need your help.


Finally for all you foreigners who seem to know so little about Canadian
democracy, and yet are so concerned for its future, here is a history 
lesson for you -- 

Do you know what happened the last time a Canadian government pissed off 
the Canadian people?  That's right -- we smashed them out of existence,
down from a vast majority of some hundreds of seats to TWO SEATS. That's
right, TWO.  They're not even an official party anymore.  When was the 
last time something like this happened in America?  Not recently?  I'm
not surprised.

If I were you I'd be worried about the stranglehold a small group of
people in two parties have on your political system.  I can tell you
that right now Canadian governments are paying a lot of attention to
the Canadian people and what they want -- there's a big dead Tory
corpse on the ground to remind them what might happen if they don't.

Democracy is alive and very, very well in Canada, thank you very much.


Justin
   who isn't so anti-america, but really, some of you
   have been asking for it lately.

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

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

In <CnDtq2.JBu@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:

>but i think that that fight should be tempered by respect for what
>information needs to be spread widely, and what should be kept private.

I do not disagree with you here. Where I do disagree with you is
whether public scrutiny of the behavior of the executive and judicial
branches in a court of law is desirable, and whether the courts should
be given such a broad mandate to squelch information which would allow
such scrutiny, prurient details or no.

>what purpose does it serve to have people spreading the nasty details of
>the holmonka trial?

Its good practice. There are so few test cases for violating the idea
of soverign control of information.

>spreading this information around serves no purpose but to titilate(sp?)
>the public.

So?

Homolka and Teal were arrested by the state, and the citizens should
have the right to scrutinize the state's behavior, and shouldn't have
to give a reason for wanting to do so.

>freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
>than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.

When one is a freedom of information zealot, that is reason enough.

>i wish these same zealots would push for full, unencumbered access to
>the information related to JFK and Iran/Contra.

We're trying. Instead of complaining that we haven't succeeded yet,
give us a hand. We've helped you break the Homolka-Teal ban, why don't
you send info across the border that our Government doesn't want us to
have?

-- 
Clay Shirky

In <CnDvL1.Jps@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:

>the net result is that netnews is being shutdown or censored.

>sysadmins are being forced to do things they don't want to do, or face
>possible reprecussions.

The people shutting down news are not the people helping to break the
ban. Why is your complaint with them and not with the people forcing the
sysadmins to do things they don't want to do. The coercion lies there,
not in information exporters.
-- 
Clay Shirky

In <CnDwG0.K17@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:

>lets say a bunch of zealots decide the US decision is totally bogus, and
>start ftping banned stuff into US ftp sites.

three cheers for the zealots

>this results in the management of such sites shutting them down
>out of fear of an NSA/FBI/CIA audit of their archives.
>don't think this will happen?  guess again.

I *do* think this will happen. I live here, and I am involved in
writing public commentary on our governments shocking policies on
cryptography.

>how are you going to feel when your favourite archive is closed down for a few
>days while they clean it?

Hopeful that the minute it is up, someone will restore the banned material.

>what if the zealots are so clever, that they automate the whole thing.

I like these guys more and more every day.

>management cannot set up an automatic process for cleaning, so their
only
>option is to monitor all incoming files.  this proves to be too big a job,
>so they shut it down.

...and the public outcry about lost productivity and competitiveness
forces a change in cryptography policy.

I am betting that as much as americans like to 'get tough on crime',
deep down we're all just greedy money-grubbing bastards, and given a
choice between allowing the NSA to dicatate info policy and a healthy
profit margin, we'll throw our lot in with the almighty dollar every time.

>this is no longer fighting for freedom, it is terrorism.

I disagree.
-- 
Clay Shirky

Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: but i think that that fight should be tempered by respect for what
: information needs to be spread widely, and what should be kept private.
: what purpose does it serve to have people spreading the nasty details....
: freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
: than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.

I think the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret is a 
*VERY* good reason for trying to spread the information as far as 
possible.  Gov't needs to be shown that censorship is impractical, 
ineffective and wrong.  The last probably can't be shown just by writing 
endlessly 'KH plead guilty of manslaughter' (or whatever, that's just my 
heresay on the Net, and I don't really much care one way or another about 
the plee or the trial... except that the trial be fair, of course).  But 
at least if an attempt at censorship blows up in their face, the gov't 
(the judge in particular) won't be quite so inclined to do it in the 
future.  That's on the 'impractical and ineffective' part.

As to this other thing recently discussed much about the "responsibility" 
of Usenet posters not to create trouble for Canadian citizens (wherever 
the posters are from), that just seems dreadfully wrong to me.  
Censorship arguments virtually always center around "responsibility" of 
those potentially censored.  If I write from the US with information 
banned from Canada (or just Ontario, or whatever), and that gets a 
newsgroup blocked from distribution, that's something to blame on the 
censors, not on the poster.  It's fine to be irritated at rude posters, 
or ones who say noxious things -- but one must vigorously protect their 
*right* to post noxiously.  At a personal level one might urge people not 
to say offensive things, but at a more important political level it's 
important they can say them.  Of course, this thing about the plea isn't 
offensive in itself -- but only insofar as it "provoke" the censors.  To 
have "free expression" of only those willing to express themselves 
"responsibly" is the WORST sort of censorship because it's wholly 
internalized.  But blaming the "irresponsible" speakers for the 
censorship is classic victim blaming -- one might as well blame "uppity 
blacks" for "provoking" attacks by the KKK, or scantily clad women for 
"provoking" rape.  The actions of those attacked aren't always terribly 
good (either as in 'wise', or as in 'nice'), but the blame is still put 
in the wrong place if assigned to the attacked (or censored).

: i wish these same zealots would push for full, unencumbered access to
: the information related to JFK and Iran/Contra.

I take it this is a US vs. Canada thing.  I certainly think the US has 
many dreadful coverups, and censorships.  Overall, the US is considerably 
less democratic than Canada (hell, than Cuba too).  But still, that 
hardly excuses Canadian censors just because they have a worse neighbor 
to the south.

Yours, Lulu...

--
      _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
     _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[quilty@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
    _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/ 
   _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 

Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:

: this is no longer fighting for freedom, it is terrorism.

Same thing.  Terrorism is whatever fight for freedom the gov't doesn't 
like -- by definition.  And since fights for freedom are almost always 
for freedom *against* state tyrrany, gov't rarely likes it.  

Or are you one of those who prefers to sit on your hands until you have 
the opportunity to "reason" with gov't? Good luck if so.

Yours, Lulu...

--
      _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
     _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[quilty@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
    _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/ 
   _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 

rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Enhanced 911 Services) writes:

[...]
>   o  The vast majority of us Canadians, as in *people*, agree 
>      with this idea of banning evidence to protect the accused.
>      You are "helping" to thwart the democratic desires of the
>      Canadian people.
[...]
>Do you know what happened the last time a Canadian government pissed off 
>the Canadian people?  That's right -- we smashed them out of existence,
>down from a vast majority of some hundreds of seats to TWO SEATS.
[...]

You have persuaded me that Canadian democracy is healthy, but not that
Canadian freedom of expression and freedom to read are healthy. I see
these freedoms as individual rights and am very leery of even majority
attempts to limit them.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =

Enhanced 911 Services (rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
:    o  The vast majority of us Canadians, as in *people*, agree 
:       with this idea of banning evidence to protect the accused.
:       You are "helping" to thwart the democratic desires of the
:       Canadian people.

If a vast majority of Canadians think banning the press (I don't get 
'banning evidence'... I assume it's a typo) to protect the accused is 
either democratic or effective, they're simply wrong.  I say this as 
someone claimed by the US as a citizen (although I don't tend to 
sympathize much with that claim), but that's really quite irrelevant.  
There's no national boundaries that define what's free and unfree.  
Oppression anywhere is oppression, no matter how popularly it's embraced 
-- and whether or not I'm a 'citizen' of that oppressive state.

Majorities have been wrong about things before.  The vast majority of US 
southerners were opposed to integration in the 1950s.  The were just 
wrong morally and politically.  A majority of US citizens supported the 
butchery against Baghdad.  They were wrong about this.  I have no 
particular interest in majorities... and democracy DOES NOT mean ceding 
to majority opinion, but rather means continuing to argue against it in 
the name of truth and rights.

: Do you know what happened the last time a Canadian government pissed off 
: the Canadian people?  That's right -- we smashed them out of existence,
: down from a vast majority of some hundreds of seats to TWO SEATS. That's
: right, TWO.  They're not even an official party anymore.  When was the 
: last time something like this happened in America?  Not recently?  I'm
: not surprised.

Congratulations.  This was really quite wonderful.  It was especially 
wonderful since it was such an awful Party to start with.

: If I were you I'd be worried about the stranglehold a small group of
: people in two parties have on your political system.  I can tell you
: that right now Canadian governments are paying a lot of attention to
: the Canadian people and what they want -- there's a big dead Tory
: corpse on the ground to remind them what might happen if they don't.

Oh, I am worried about this.  I don't much care about this US vs. Canada 
nonsense.  Of course Canada is better in almost all respects.  And you're 
quite right that I'm very worried about the stranglehold by the 
Demlicans/Republicrats.  So what though? That's an interesting thread, 
but somehow unrelated to the censorship in the KH case.

: Democracy is alive and very, very well in Canada, thank you very much.

Well... alive, I think.  But it seems to have a bad cold.  Of course, in 
the US it has cancer or AIDS.

Yours, Lulu...
--
      _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
     _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[quilty@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
    _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/ 
   _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 

In article <2n7fjh$rd2@nic.umass.edu>,
Lulu of the lotus-eaters <quilty@twain.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
>: this is no longer fighting for freedom, it is terrorism.
>
>Same thing.  Terrorism is whatever fight for freedom the gov't doesn't 
>like -- by definition.  And since fights for freedom are almost always 
>for freedom *against* state tyrrany, gov't rarely likes it.  

	Actually, I'd disagree with you both. Terrorism is "the
systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". The
uploading of things to FTP sites is ***IRRITATING***; the only
terror comes in is fear OF YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Arguably, it is
the government in question that is the terrorist.
	I think the proper phrase would be *guerrilla warfare*, "irregular
warfare, especially by a member of an independent unit carrying out
harassment and sabotage." Abbie Hoffman was noted for his skill at it.

AB^2
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can have my encryption algorithm... when you pry my cold dead fingers
from its private key."       -John Barlow, "Decrypting the Puzzle Palace"

In <CnE0y2.5vD@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Enhanced 911 Services) writes:

>   o  The vast majority of us Canadians, as in *people*, agree 
>      with this idea of banning evidence to protect the accused.
>      You are "helping" to thwart the democratic desires of the
>      Canadian people.

I will always choose to help a minority who wants free speech, no
matter how large the majority which believes that the Government knows
what is best for them.

>   o  We have lots of ways of dealing with this.  We have our own
>      courts, our own media, our own legislatures -- that are lots
>      of Canadian things that a concerned Canadian can do about it.
>      Thanks for the offer, foreigner, but we don't need your help.

You do not have your own net. There is only one net, and that is
exactly the point. I could not care less about what happens to your
newspapers, for example, nor would I try to use paper to break the
ban. the idea that there is a Canadian USEnet which it is proper for
the canadian authorities to regulate is absurd, but more importantly,
it is unenforcable from an engineering standpoint.

>Finally for all you foreigners who seem to know so little about Canadian
>democracy, and yet are so concerned for its future, here is a history 
>lesson for you -- 

We are not concerned about Canada per se. We are concerned when a
national entity tries to regulate the content of the net. I can only
hope that you will help us when the NSA tries the same tactics here.

>Do you know what happened the last time a Canadian government pissed off 
>the Canadian people?  That's right -- we smashed them out of existence,
>down from a vast majority of some hundreds of seats to TWO SEATS. That's
>right, TWO.  They're not even an official party anymore.  When was the 
>last time something like this happened in America?  Not recently?  I'm
>not surprised.

Nor am I. The political circumstance here is terrible, largely because
of the two party system, as you rightly note.

[.....]
>Democracy is alive and very, very well in Canada, thank you very much.

We are not concerned about democracy. We are concerned about freedom
of speech.


-- 
Clay Shirky

Sickly Boat Harm (root@sizone.pci.on.ca) wrote:
: This has happened already at UofGuelph, which is why I almost agree with that
: nearly "racist" anti-Guelph post - admins at uoGoo as far as I know are still
: scanning mail for mentions of the ban. (not information thats banned, but just
: mentioning KARLA HOMOLKA... duh.)

Except that the University of Guelph has, at no time, searched email for
karla/teale-related stuff, nor anything else.  Your statement is entirely
false.

Additionally, if UofG WAS doing what you are alleging them to do, they
would be in indictable violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, which
very specifically states what can and cannot be done with electronic mail,
computer data [which includes email], etc...



D. Morgan
dmorgan@uoguelph.ca

In article <1994Mar28.022829.11322@sizone.pci.on.ca>,
Sickly Boat Harm <root@sizone.pci.on.ca> wrote:

> I think that for alot of sysadmins that they are aware of the
> reality, whereas the administration and management above them (and
> the law, obviously) does NOT realise. And they think that "banning a
> few newsgroups will shut it down cold". Not.

I don't think you give the administration enough credit.  They aren't
naive enough to think that at all, at least not the McGill
administration.

No, they are worried that by passively (IMO) carrying banned info
they can be found guilty of violating a "publication" ban.  They are
fully aware of the futility of stopping one group (I've pointed it out
to them myself).

Following this up with a flame on their position is relatively
pointless.  I don't happen to agree with it, and I suspect the
majority of the people reading this don't either.  

Sending letters to Vice principals doesn't seem to work either (I've
tried, as have others).  I have my doubts that even a couple contrary
lawyer's opinions would sway the McGill people, but you never know.

Educating the lawmakers?  Maybe; anyone got contacts on parliament
hill?  

Court fight?  Anyone got a lot of money?  :-)

jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:

>In article <snowhareCnBv65.LDK@netcom.com>,
>Snowhare <snowhare@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
>>: the media circus surrounding this case makes that quite impossible.
>>
>>Wrong - you mistake the sound and fury of the Usenet for mainstream. If 
>>you asked the average resident of America, (where there is no ban 
>>what-so-ever on publication or discussion) they would respond "Karla who?"

>ah, but the average ontario resident (where the jury is being selected)
>knows who karla is, and there is a high chance they have been exposed to the
>media circus.

	Just a thought that ran through my head--- in Jury selection, are you
sure you would WANT someone like this? I always thought it would be a better
representation if you had somethng other than hermits who don't read/watch
news....

-c
-- 
*Chris Hagen             "The love you take,                  (812) 282-1934  *
*crisco@iglou.com            is equal to the love you make"                   *
*cehagen@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu                              Mail me anytime!   *

In article <snowhareCnA3B0.6Gy@netcom.com>,
Snowhare <snowhare@netcom.com> wrote:
>Peter Renzland (peter@renzland.org) wrote:
>: Someone states sweepingly:
>: >>The issue in question doesn't contain any information at all about 
>: >>the trial.
>
>: And someone else feels compelled to violate the publication ban by telling the
>: world:
>: >Yes there is. XXXX words. "She pleaded XXXXXXXX". If it wasn't for 
>: >those XXXX words it would not have been pulled from the shelves. The 
>: >ban covers the plea.
>
>: (I crossed out the plea and the word count so as not to republish the banned
>: information.)
>
>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'

There's nothing that prevents any of us from saying it either. It is a
publication ban. I am not a publication so I can say anything I wish.

-- 
   (            ---------      James MacFarlane       | Watch out you boomers
 .=##   .  (     Digitar        digitar@io.org        | the digital generation
   ( .    =## . ---------       Toronto, Canada       | is going to kick
  .     .  (      .                                   | your ass.

In article <snowhareCnBv65.LDK@netcom.com>,
Snowhare <snowhare@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: he shouldn't be tried by the media.
>
>He CAN'T be. The media, while capable of making life unpleasant, has NO 
>power to convict anyone of a crime. However - the media is the best 
>defense against "star chamber" trials. I would much rather see a case 
>reported in the media than not. It makes sure that railroad jobs can't be
>successfully performed.
>
>Secrecy is the tool of tyranny, not freedom.

You poor egocentric American. The media will be there, the case will be
reportecd. There will be no "railroading" and no "star chamber". 

There is a TEMPORARY media ban until the JURY IS SELECTED. After
that everything will be made public.

You don't know the facts and you've fallen into the American culture clap-trap
of judging other people, their laws and their culture based on your own.
-- 
   (            ---------      James MacFarlane       | Watch out you boomers
 .=##   .  (     Digitar        digitar@io.org        | the digital generation
   ( .    =## . ---------       Toronto, Canada       | is going to kick
  .     .  (      .                                   | your ass.

Kjell Wooding (kwooding@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: In article <2n7fjh$rd2@nic.umass.edu>,
: Lulu of the lotus-eaters <quilty@twain.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
: >Same thing.  Terrorism is whatever fight for freedom the gov't doesn't 
: >like -- by definition.  And since fights for freedom are almost always 
: >for freedom *against* state tyrrany, gov't rarely likes it.  

: Now hang on a sec. "By definition", the government we are
: speaking of is a DEMOCRATIC one. That means, what the public
: wants, the government wants. Stating that "terrorism" of this
: sort is justified because you're fighting state tyrrany indicated either:

: * A minority (the "terrorists") trying to overthroy a majority
: (the government / general public)

: * A real problem in a supposedly "democratic" system.

Actually no. By definition the government is a democratic REPUBLIC.

No pure democracies do or have existed in the world. It is not a minor 
difference. If you check the equivalent of the US bill of rights in most 
democratic republics you will discover that they consist mostly of 
minority right protections. Left to themselves, democratic forms of 
government usually become "tyrannies of the majority" where minority 
factions become disenfranchized. 

A classic example is the imprisoning of tens of thousands of 
Japanese-Americans during World War Two by the US government - for the 
"crime" of: being ethnic Japanese-Americans. German-Americans and 
Italian-Americans were not similarly stigmatized. To my shame one such 
"relocation" camp was here in my home state of Utah. The US government 
involuntarily "relocated" Japanese-Americans to the most remote areas 
they could find. Constitution be damned.

The natural consequence of disenfranchizement is guerrilla warfare by the 
disenfranchized (which is not necessarily terrorism, although 
governments like to claim so).

The civil rights protests in the US of the 1960's by blacks were a 
perfect example of such guerrilla warfare by a disenfranchized minority.
As were the Indian wars, a century earlier.

You will get no disagreement from me that our government is a very 
ill democratic system. It has never been exceptionally healthy, and a 
democracy (pure or not) is an inherently unstable form of government.
People have a nasty habit of voting away the very rights that allow them 
to vote in the first place, in the name of security (economic, social or 
military).

--
Benjamin Franz

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the 
Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give 
to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from 
responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

                                 Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)

In <Mar29.053707.48711@acs.ucalgary.ca> kwooding@acs.ucalgary.ca (Kjell Wooding) writes:

>Now hang on a sec. "By definition", the government we are
>speaking of is a DEMOCRATIC one. That means, what the public
>wants, the government wants. 

Do you actually believe this?

Do you believe the corollary is also true?

-- 
Clay Shirky

Lulu of the lotus-eaters (quilty@twain.ucs.umass.edu) wrote:
: Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:

: : this is no longer fighting for freedom, it is terrorism.

: Same thing.  Terrorism is whatever fight for freedom the gov't doesn't 
: like -- by definition.  And since fights for freedom are almost always 
: for freedom *against* state tyrrany, gov't rarely likes it.  

Actually, terrorism is an act of violence that has the effect of causing
the populace in general or specific parts thereof to fear for their
safety.  Terrorism commonly takes the form of bombs being planted
somewhere public, or threats made of same, or similar acts taking place to
private individuals.  A fight for freedom that the government doesn't like
is called a rebelion, not terrorism.

: Or are you one of those who prefers to sit on your hands until you have 
: the opportunity to "reason" with gov't? Good luck if so.

: Yours, Lulu...

: --
:       _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
:      _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[quilty@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
:     _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/ 
:    _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 

Ed Carp (ecarp@netcom.com) wrote:

: Sickly Boat Harm (root@sizone.pci.on.ca) wrote:

: : The university of Waterloo, however, has agreed in a very strong way
: : that the usenet IS a publication of articles, and has pulled the
: : alt.sex.* groups accordingly. If they decided to go with the position

: There is Canadian legal precedence that usenet IS a publictaion... to 
: wit, the ruling against the University of Manitoba re: the alt.sex* 
: groups...

Huh? Am I lost here? There was a _RULING_ in court? I didnt hear about this,
but mebbe I'm just lost. I thought it was an internal university administration
that decided against this, and effected it at Waterloo. If it was a court
ruling of any weight, it would be a provincial court ruling and everyone would
have to abide by it. This has not happened.

: : Worse than all this, of course, is that the University of Guelph has taken
: : to scanning email for mentions of Trial details. That going too far.

: This is untrue.  The University of Guelph has AT NO TIME scanned email or 
: anything else for details of the banned material...  In fact, Guelph's 
: feed of alt.karla was lost because UofT, who they get their newsfeed 
: from, censored it.

Well, most machines at UfT still have the newsgroup since NNTP is a pretty
simple and ubiquitous thing. Guelph should get an NNTP feed from the same
places.

: D. Morgan
: dmorgan@uoguelph.ca

: -- 
: Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3		ecarp@netcom.com		519/824-3307
: 	             	      an38299@anon.penet.fi
: If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
: steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

Which is your real address? And who are you as "dmorgan@uoguelph"? I'd like
a reliable source to the info on wether they are or are not scanning 
email.

/kc
-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone 'As one woman said on Chicago's FOX
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292   32 news... "Tonya Harding is a 
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA   Murderer!!"' - Gary L. Dare

Peter Renzland (peter@renzland.org) wrote:

: PS: Ken, your rantings about Usenet admins not being publishers are misplaced.
:     "someone else" and I were _author_publishers_ in this instance.  I never
:     suggested that our respective sysadmins or systems owners were publishing
:     what we said.  (I prefer playing go with you -- you talk less:-)

Has it been established that posting to usenet is equal to publishing something
as per the usual non-net act of "publishing" (which the ban directly refers
to)? I'd like some sources/quotes for this, cause this is an amazingly
important issue. And what do you mean by "author publisher"? Whats the
distinction?

And as far as Go/Usenet goes - the Usenet is FOR talking (well, posting)
and discussing. And, I'm sorry, I dont remember playing go with you, could
you remind me (guess it was at the club, but I cant place your face).

/kc

-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone 'As one woman said on Chicago's FOX
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292   32 news... "Tonya Harding is a 
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA   Murderer!!"' - Gary L. Dare

In article <2n9roe$mng@panix.com>, Clay Shirky <clays@panix.com> wrote:
>>Now hang on a sec. "By definition", the government we are
>>speaking of is a DEMOCRATIC one. That means, what the public
>>wants, the government wants. 
>
>Do you actually believe this?
>
>Do you believe the corollary is also true?

No, Clay. In fact I do NOT believe that our supposedly
representative governments necessarily, or even regularly act on
behalf of the voters.

I *DO* however believe that we live in a democracy.
Unfortunately, our models of democracy are based on ridiculously
outdated traditions and models. These models DO need updating, to
reflect such changes as the greatly improved communications
systems of today. Put the house of commons online, and give
everyone acess to its proceedings!

Direct democracy will never be possible. The general public just
does not have the time and/or inclination to make it possible.
but better ties between the general public, and the elected
represntatives *IS* possible, and necessary
-- 
   | --    ( )      __                Kjell Wooding, President
_ /        __\/   /   |  010101       UVic Engineering Students Society 
   \           \___  / 01001  10      General Chair, WECC '95
              / |  / 10101            kwooding@engr.uvic.ca

Snowhare (snowhare@netcom.com) wrote:

: A classic example is the imprisoning of tens of thousands of 
: Japanese-Americans during World War Two by the US government - for the 
: "crime" of: being ethnic Japanese-Americans. German-Americans and 
: Italian-Americans were not similarly stigmatized. To my shame one such 
: "relocation" camp was here in my home state of Utah. The US government 
: involuntarily "relocated" Japanese-Americans to the most remote areas 
: they could find. Constitution be damned.

Actually, the German and Italians suffered considerably as well,
though admittedly much less actual imprisonment, etc went on.
In my mother's home town, Italian immigrants all lost their jobs,
even girls whose brothers were in our army fighting for us.

One Italian mine owner gave jobs to most of those fired and locals
called it "The Mussolini Mine".

Sure, constitutions were violated.  It was a war.  Everybody always
throws out their constitution in war-time.  Take the draft.
I mean, what part of the 18th, "No slavery or Involutary Servitude"
did the Supreme court have trouble understanding?

Roy Brander (branderr@cuug.ab.ca) wrote:

: The longer that USENET keeps up  a reputation for being mostly responsible,
: the longer we all have before The Law "notices" us and decides that
: this medium must be brought to heel by requiring anybody providing
: a BBS-like message posting service to personally read and approve
: everything posted.  Don't believe its impossible.

WHAT?! This is going to happen sometime, if not now, then later. Dont believe
its impossible? Are you KIDDING? There was MORE THAN 1,000,000 posts on the
usenet per month every month this year (I think, check news.lists). How
are you going to check that? Only the govt could setup something big enough
to check that - and since no one else could, we'd have to rely on THEM
to decide what should be censored and what shouldnt be.

We already live by this regarding what comes through customs, and we all
know about that, and how racism, sexism and homophobia work with customs.
Things are better for locally published stuff, but still bad.

Now you want to see this happen with the usenet?

I am so stupid. I just realised NOW that just cause someone's on the net
doesnt mean they believe its original core tenets: freedom of speech in news,
and privacy in email. I can see even now there ARE people who are on the net
who WOULDNT agree with this. Might take a small thing like a publication
ban to get them to change their mind, or the War On Drugs(tm) if yer Amuriken,
but thats all it takes.

And this isnt just with newbies from the Fidonet weenie boards - this is coming
from people who's names I've seen on the local groups for over 5 years. 

_NOW_ I am scared.

/kc

-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone   "Carrying netnews does not a 
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292    publisher make." - something
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA    I'd like to see. Support it.

Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
: than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.

: i wish these same zealots would push for full, unencumbered access to
: the information related to JFK and Iran/Contra.

Check alt.conspiracy.jfk.

You have the strangest set of net.values I've come across of yet. Seen yer
name around for years, but still cant figure what you want out of the govt
and the laws its going to impose on the net in the next 5-10 years (same
goes for the US). Wanna elaborate?

/kc

-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone   "Carrying netnews does not a 
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292    publisher make." - something
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA    I'd like to see. Support it.

Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: In article <1994Mar28.005005.10626@sizone.pci.on.ca>,
: Sickly Boat Harm <root@sizone.pci.on.ca> wrote:
: >Jim Mercer (jim@reptiles.org) wrote:
: >As much as I think the original poster is a TWIT, I dont agree with you
: >by a mile. Makes me think that you are one of those 'administrators' or
: >'management' types. You're missing something.

: no, i think that netnews systems should be classed as common carriers.

YAHOO! Please push this heavily, cause its going to be decided very soon. I
run a public site on my own machine and cant afford to lose it cause I have
to be responsible for all 6-10 megs that come onto it every day in the
form of news. (I have a small feed, and still dont have enough time in my
day to read the groups _I_ want, never mind the govt wants me to read.)

Why am I allowed to own a tv? Actually, thats not a good example, since
there are only some 60 odd channels. Sattelite dishes should be banned
tho, if they were being consistent.

: what i'm beefing about is that people are intentionally posting holmonka stuff

Question thats kinda trite and off topic: Do you cut n paste "holmonka" from
some file everytime you have to type it? Its "Homolka" with or without the
capital "H".

: to canadian groups and mailing lists with the express purpose of pissing off
: the management types.

I think they're just testing the net. Good thing fax machines were tested
before Tiannamen(sp) Square. I think its good. Good thing its now before
something REALLY important happens and we need the net.

: some of them are childish "nah nah, you can't stop me"

Nah nah, excercising my constitutional rights. So what. There's no law that
says you cant be a twit journalist when excercising your right to free
press, but it sure happens alot. The SUN wouldnt exist if this were true. Ha,
neither would Wired be allowed into Canada before they goofed. (Oops, I mean
with the Homolka info specifically, sorry - that was kinda ambiguous.)

: some of them are idealist "information should be free, so i'm going to
: forcefeed it until management/government bends to my ideals"

Cool idea. I'd love to have the time and money running around creating
test cases of the law to find out what I can and cant do and what needs
to be changed in my eyes. Why do you think fundamentalists band
together with large lobbying powers and money to push the US Govt
around? Same reason. Same reason, thank god, the EFF exists in the US,
in part. (God? Wait a sec...)

: the net result is that netnews is being shutdown or censored.

WOOHOO! I think there'd be riots in the streets. Well, at least on the
existing and _NOW ILLEGAL_ UUCP nets. That would be an amazing day. The
net's destiny would be polarized and completely secured. It would never allow
the govt to be trusted again, and would re-instate itself in an even more
govt-resistive form. Its pretty tough now, what with no one corporation
or govt agency owning/watching it with any sort of special jurisdiction,
but if it somehow went down, and then came back, it would be deadly resistive.

Hell, the original net was intended to help communications after a
NUCLEAR WAR! What do you expect? 

However, the power of the net is too gigantic for the commercial sector to
leave it in the hands of hobbyists, activists and tek-heads. They'd want
a piece of it, and they'd push the govt in that direction. And concessions
would be made, and they WILL be made. I say the net will remain free, but
i want to see it happen NOW, not after a series of avoidable disasters.

Please note, I still sleep at night. :)

: sysadmins are being forced to do things they don't want to do, or face
: possible reprecussions.

Oh no. This never happens in any other kind of work. Never. If the disclaimer
"my opinions have nothing to do with my employer's" then they can voice
their protest on the net (even away from their employer's eyes, via
anonymous servers, or care in posting...)

: commercial operators are forced to censor, or risk being closed down
: by a government seizure.

Good stuff. Like I said, if everything went down, it would only look down
to the govt. Everyone else would find it soon enough. Someone might go to
jail. I think they'd get alot of support tho. And, again, the net will
eventually reflect the wants of the people. Sure seems like everyone wants
the gory Homolka details.

Too bad we have to use this kind of thing to get support for the net's
freedom - glorified violence and disgusting crimes - but imagine if we
suddenly weren't allowed to talk about cryptography on the net? What then?
No one would care a bit, and bad things a la Clipper would start appearing
as official govt policy. (Whats happening with our govt's proposals on
crypto? Why arent the papers talking about it? Case in point.)

: users are losing access to groups that have nothing to do with holmonka, except
: that some childish idealist had to screw it up for them.

Oh no. No more Jays n Leafs. Who cares. They do. GOOD! Let them rally with
us again the idea that carrying newsgroups constitutes publication.

: the people ordering the shutdowns probably don't use the systems, so for them
: it is no big deal.

AHA! EXACTLY! So, tho its no big deal for a couple dozen administrators and
management types at as many Canadian universities, can you imagine 20,000
usenet using/reading undergrads at those universities and another 10,000
(???) commercial users in Ontario alone screaming at the govt and getting
coverage in the papers that the usenet was shut down?

Actually, what would probably happen is this: a rumour that the usenet might
get shutdown for this unrealistic ban surfaces, and things gety very
sticky regarding the net and the ban for the AG. They waffle over it and
make concessions and dont shut down the entire usenet, but publish some
official stance on the alt.fan.k-h and alt.pub-ban groups. This makes sure
they dont have to make any laws they'll regret, such as either "the usenet
is illegal" (unrealistic, since they'd last 1 day with that in place) or
"carrying usenet newsgroups does not constitute publishing" which would be
great, but they'd hate themselves forever for it. (Can you see the RCMP
agreeing with the latter? Ha!)

: users are being fucked over, not always by sysadmins, but by self-righteous
: pinheads out to cause havoc.

Wait til _YOU_ think its important. Imagine you went on and on about strong
crypto being a right and all I wanted to talk about was the damn Leafs.
Say its illegal to publish PGP on newsgroups but you do it and then you
lose the Leafs discussion in ont.general. Now _I_'m pissed off at you
for getting the group banned, but its not really your fault, its the
govt's fault for classifying carrying groups as publication.

(I hope you think that strong crpto should be a right, otherwise you're
a twit (insert disclaimer here) and my example is shot.)

: as far as i know, the government has not ruled on the holmonka USENET
: stuff.

So even as now, a.f.k-h still really isnt illegal but the govt has us
cowering without so much as lifting a pen. Shux. Wait til they do make
it illegal to post on subject _X_. We'll be going back to cancel our old
articles with enthusiasm.

: all shutdowns have been voluntarily, in fear of government action.

_I_ would have to. I should, tho a.f.k-h is a crossposting haven anyway
that i'd have to lose ont.general, etc. I have warned my users to remove
banned info from their files tho, pending account removal. I HATE that
shit, but I have to. I cant afford to go to court and I rather like my
email (more so than my news, by a large factor) and dont want to lose
my machine.

As much as I'd like to see hemp legalised, I still dont walk the streets
with 5 kilos in my pocket.

However, I'd like to see these so-called bastions of free-speech (universities)
stand up and fight with all my taxpaying money for this since no one else is.
(Who can I call? Does my MP care? Is this an issue yet?)

: also, as far as i know, the government as not actually charged anyone with
: breaking the ban.  they have confiscated materials from various people
: who were intending to distribute info, but i don't think anyone has been
: charged.

Gordon Domm has been charged.

Abdul might be. And Neal?

I wish someone like a university department would be. That would be
great. Suddenly, alot of money would come out of nowhere and this would
be settled.

/kc

-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone   "Carrying netnews does not a 
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292    publisher make." - something
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA    I'd like to see. Support it.

Lulu of the lotus-eaters (quilty@twain.ucs.umass.edu) wrote:

: Oppression anywhere is oppression, no matter how popularly it's embraced 
: -- and whether or not I'm a 'citizen' of that oppressive state.

WRONG. There are cultural differences. My point stems from extended
discussions with a friend and a relatively small minded person we deal with
day to day. She's got such a Westernized view of everything, that in her
p.o.v. she thinks thats its extreme oppression that in some Middle Eastern
countries women have to wear veils. You might agree.

In fact, the women there might NOT think its oppression. And then you'll
invoke the "beauty-myth" argument that various feminists use, that anyone
who doesnt agree with them must be brain-washed. Mebbe this isnt true
perhaps? 

Mebbe not being allowed to publish the facts in the papers here is acceptable
to some of us, in view of the non-sequestered jury and the concerns of
Paul Teale's right to a fair trial.

Actually, people just want to know the details up here personally. If they
were the only one to know, they'd love it, even if they didnt read it
in the paper. However, the media is the only way most people get information
on stuff, so people whine about it. However, word of mouth, and the net
now, have helped info get around alot without the media. Supposedly 1/4 of
ontario knows some banned info. I dont really care either way (but then
again I've stumbled across an awful lots of speculation and possibly
some facts (which is which?!) regarding the trial.

So, since some of us agree with the ban (I am beginning to, tho not its
execution), perhaps its just a cultural thing. And perhaps there isnt
an objective and easy definition of "oppression". (American govt
bashing time: seems to me that you always apply your views on every
situation and then walk in and rectify it in your eyes, when you dont
even have interests there - Kuwait excluded - we all want our oil.)

: Majorities have been wrong about things before.  The vast majority of US 
: southerners were opposed to integration in the 1950s.  The were just 
: wrong morally and politically.  A majority of US citizens supported the 

There's no such thing as "just wrong". You have an educated view now,
and in YOUR OPINION its wrong. There's no physical definion of right and
wrong. Grow up.

: butchery against Baghdad.  They were wrong about this.  I have no 

What? Were they? If you guys didnt do that, I'd like to see your (and our)
economy try to stand back up with a sudden huge drop in oil imports... lets
not talk about this. I agree with defending your own interests tho, but be
honest about it. Democracy in Kuwait my ass.

: particular interest in majorities... and democracy DOES NOT mean ceding 
: to majority opinion, but rather means continuing to argue against it in 
: the name of truth and rights.

Better find a convienient and popular set of values before you go crusading.

: : Do you know what happened the last time a Canadian government pissed off 
: : the Canadian people?  That's right -- we smashed them out of existence,
: : down from a vast majority of some hundreds of seats to TWO SEATS. That's
: : right, TWO.  They're not even an official party anymore.  When was the 
: : last time something like this happened in America?  Not recently?  I'm
: : not surprised.

: Congratulations.  This was really quite wonderful.  It was especially 
: wonderful since it was such an awful Party to start with.

Wow. What a well thought out point. They've been around as a party for a long
long time... as long as our modern political system. They dont just disappear
cause they're an awful party. I am sure that the american parties have been
pretty awful at times, but they dont just "disappear" suddenly.

: Oh, I am worried about this.  I don't much care about this US vs. Canada 
: nonsense.  Of course Canada is better in almost all respects.  And you're 
: quite right that I'm very worried about the stranglehold by the 
: Demlicans/Republicrats.  So what though? That's an interesting thread, 
: but somehow unrelated to the censorship in the KH case.

Wrong. our political system is closely tied to our legal system. The same
basic principles of rights and liberties apply to both. 

/kc

-- 
Ken P. Chasse -- Sysadmin, Sonic Interzone   "Carrying netnews does not a 
Public Access email/Usenet -- 416-968-7292    publisher make." - something
spooge@sizone.pci.on.ca --  Toronto CANADA    I'd like to see. Support it.

In article <1994Apr3.104200.14042@sizone.pci.on.ca>,
Steak? <root@sizone.pci.on.ca> wrote:

	re: Jim Mercer
>
>You have the strangest set of net.values I've come across of yet. Seen yer
>name around for years, but still cant figure what you want out of the govt
>and the laws its going to impose on the net in the next 5-10 years (same
>goes for the US). Wanna elaborate?

	My impression is that Jim is coming at this from the POV of a sysop 
who would like not to *his* system confiscated because of the actions of
someone sitting at a remote [and safe] location. 

	He could return the favour, one supposes, by helping the fellow 
in question fight the War on [Some] Drugs by mailing them a package 
containing a controlled substance. After all, no price paid for freedom
is too high as long as someone else foots the bill.

							James Nicoll

-- 
If mail bounces, try jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca
"I've seen you flirt. You'd have to get her flat on her back with one foot in
your face."

In article <1994Apr3.103918.13971@sizone.pci.on.ca>,
Steak? <root@sizone.pci.on.ca> wrote:
|Roy Brander (branderr@cuug.ab.ca) wrote:

|: The longer that USENET keeps up  a reputation for being mostly responsible,
|: the longer we all have before The Law "notices" us and decides that
|: this medium must be brought to heel by requiring anybody providing
|: a BBS-like message posting service to personally read and approve
|: everything posted.  Don't believe its impossible.

|WHAT?! This is going to happen sometime, if not now, then later. Dont believe
|its impossible? Are you KIDDING? There was MORE THAN 1,000,000 posts on the
|usenet per month every month this year (I think, check news.lists). How
|are you going to check that? Only the govt could setup something big enough
|to check that - and since no one else could, we'd have to rely on THEM
|to decide what should be censored and what shouldnt be.

Nonsense.  Computers are really good at doing greps.  It wouldn't take much
more than an hour's fiddling to produce a modified "Usenet Death Penalty"
program that could globally nuke almost everything that refers to the case.
Doesn't need much of a machine either.  A Sparc II with an NNTP or V.32bis
feed could do it quite handily.  Heck, even a 3b1 could do it.

|I am so stupid. I just realised NOW that just cause someone's on the net
|doesnt mean they believe its original core tenets: freedom of speech in news,
|and privacy in email. I can see even now there ARE people who are on the net
|who WOULDNT agree with this...

Who exactly?  Even from the "oldies" (like me) I don't see that.  What I do
see is many people who do believe in free speech, but also believe in even
more important rights - like life and liberty.  Sometimes freedom of speech
is in conflict with other rights.  And I would think that even a cyberweenie
should agree that when the choice is between a fair trial and absolutely free
speech, that fair trial wins.  Always.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Phone: Canada 613 832-0541  Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*