🚀 go-pugleaf

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!". 

It looks to me as though the days of a 'full' UK based news feed are
numbered. The goalposts might then shift to whether it is acceptable
for an ISP to provide "access" to a news server elsewhere on the net. It
seems likely that ISP will decide that the second position is something 
that they feel more comfortable with, since it would be easier to defend 
without actually having the 'offensive material' held on their own 
machines on their own premises.

While I applaud Demon's stand on access to Usenet, I do not think that
it is reasonable not to expect them to reconsider, when the point is
reached where ISP directors come under personal attack from the media.
I would not put my business or my reputation on the line over the issues
in question, and if the IPS decide likewise it will be entirely 
understandable.

-- 
Keith A Matthews