🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote in
message news:80heh5$h2f$1@scream.auckland.ac.nz...
> Rod Speed <rod.speed@usa.net> writes
>> Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote

>> 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.

Doesnt make what you cited bomb making recipes any time soon.

>>> Anyone know what the Australian government's position is on this?

>> Perfectly acceptible.

> It would have been illegal under the proposed NZ legislation.

Crap, thats just what some claimed about that legislation.
Similar even more fanciful claims have been made about
ours too. Like say discussing breast cancer or female
circumcision is banned by our legislation. It aint.

> From following the debate some time ago I guess the
> Australian legislation is more fixated on adult material,

The legislation aint, read it.

> 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").

More silly claims like the 'bomb making recipes' claim was.

> 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.

Wota pity what you cited aint 'bomb recipies'

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

> Wow, it really does cover only adult material!

Wrong again.

> Nothing about hate speech, the ever-popular "bomb recipes"...