🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KvLfyBAGNKKyEwjE@stevepr.demon.co.uk>, Steve Price
<steve@stevepr.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <841051669snz@sandwell.demon.co.uk>, Keith Matthews
><kam@sandwell.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <841008791snz@grazeley.demon.co.uk>
>>           jeremy@grazeley.demon.co.uk "JeremyBrowne" writes:
>>
>>> What I am FOR, in this instance, is a VERY summary and extremely 
>>> uncomfortable justice for anyone proved to have been involved in this 
>>> unpleasant business.
>>
>>I think that no one will dispute this, but that the question of whether
>>of not this includes the ISPs is the stumbling block. Without repeating 
>>all that I said in another thread last week I'll just say that attack on
>>Demon should not come as a surprise. Most of us who post here are 
>>effectively preaching to the converted, but the  position of an ISP with
>>respect to the extreme forms of net porn in the eyes of the Law or the man
>>in the street (sorry  if that sounds patronising) is not going to be easy
>>to defend, and the journos (and polititicians!) know this.
>>
>>Imagine the scene in court. Prosecution brief says "Now Mr ISP. Do you
>>agree that Inspector Knacker here was able to download this porn image and 
>>others from your news server?" ISP replies "Yes, but.." Brief says "No
>>further questions your Honour!". 
>>
>>
>snip---
>
>I think demon are in a very difficult position. I agree that freedom to
>acces information is very important but I also think that some of the
>stuff that is posted is very very offensive.
>
>I wonder if everyone discussing this has had a look at what is available
>on the net. I have had a look. Most of the stuff I have seen could be
>got in magazines that are freely available over the counter. However, I
>have also seen things that I have found to be disgusting. (eg. an AVI of
>a man having sex with his 8 year old daughter).

If everyone not interested in child porn left the damnable paedophiles
to their own devices there wouldn`t be half this trouble.
Surely it doesn`t take much intelligence to work out that alt.sex
paedophilia means what it says it does. If we ban these newsgroups then
these people will be deprived of one more outlet to relieve their
perverted instincts. That means more children will probably be molested
by the people who were previously gaining relief from pornography.
Others will just post stuff into inapropriate ngs anyway or email the
stuff to their friends. 
I have studied these newsgroups and have found that on the whole these
people regulate themselves to a large extent. For instance there was
someone asking for an eight year old child for sex. All he got for his
pains was death threats.
A lot of these people don`t actually post pics of children. They
actually post pics of people who just look young.
Another point is that while they have their own newsgroups they can be
monitored to a certain extent.
Don`t get me wrong. I`m not condoning child sex, just trying to look at
the subject rationally.
Just remember, if you don`t want to look at the stuff don`t go there and
don`t download it. Simple isn`t it.
        ? 
       \*/
       /-\      
       @-@
 --oOo-(_)-oOo-- 
             


the greenpen  free spirit            
net citizen                    
email stephen@greenpen.demon.co.uk                             
                       
                                                  Have you forgotten yet?....
Look up, and swear by the green of the spring that you`ll never forget.
                                                       Siegfried Sassoon
                                                              March 1919