🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed@usa.net> writes:

>Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote in
>message news:80fimf$hlm$1@scream.auckland.ac.nz...

>Nothing remotely resembling any thing like 'bomb recipes' at all.

When Trevor Rogers (our version of Richard Alston, except that with true Kiwi
ingenuity we did it years before you guys :-) tried to get legislation to 
control the Infonet (sic) passed here, the Encyclopaedia Britannica was used 
as the yardstick against which "bomb recipes on the Internet" were compared.

>Perfectly acceptible.

It would have been illegal under the proposed NZ legislation.  From following 
the debate some time ago I guess the Australian legislation is more fixated on
adult material, whereas our one went for "objectionable" or "harmful" material
(whatever that is, the best definition for this was probably "whatever Trevor 
Rogers doesn't like").  One of the things he made a lot of fuss about was 
"bomb recipes", with the usual counterarguments which have already appeared in 
this thread.

[Long pause while I hunt down the text of the legislation]

Wow, it really does cover only adult material!  Nothing about hate speech,
the ever-popular "bomb recipes"...

Peter.