🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LGoveBA56YIyEwwk@mccombes.demon.co.uk>
           Paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk "Paul McCombes" writes:

> In article <841045387snz@jk-o.demon.co.uk>, Comp2002@jk-o.demon.co.uk
> writes
> >In article <841008992snz@bierman.demon.co.uk>
> >           tim@bierman.demon.co.uk "Tim Bierman" writes:
> >[snip]
> >    
> >> I notice this is crossposted to misc.kids. Well, how would you like it if
> >> the half-baked propagandists at the government got their way, and (say) all
> >> alt.sex.* groups were unavailable from UK providers ... then the purveyors
> >> of porn started posting it in misc.kids instead? Would you then be happy 
> >> for this group to be banned, and then the next, and then the next?
> >
> >  The purpose is not to ban erotic material, but to stamp out pictorial 
> >  evidence of the misuse of children, whether leading to their death or
> >  degradation.  
> 
> The letter from the Met Clubs and Vice Unit contained just about every
> group of a sexual nature, and it also stated that this was just the
> start. The overt purpose of the letter is to ban all erotic material on
> usenet.

  Previous articles in this thread including the original one by J. 
  Woolf have discussed child pornography.  This was also the theme 
  of the Observer headline.

  It seems to me fairly straightforward to tackle that issue at Usenet 
  level, since such material is rejected in a uniform manner across 
  the civilized world.       

  Other adult material reflects acts that may be permitted in some,
  banned in other countries.  As the net is an international medium 
  and as the offending quality of the material is not so much viewing
  it per se, but rather its effect as an inducement upon emotionally 
  unstable individuals, I think you'll find that the Vice Unit is
  making but a token gesture in this greater field. They are after
  all obliged to oversee that the law is upheld and to report 
  inconsistencies back to the public.  

  I agree that it makes little sense for Demon Internet to enforce
  restrictions that are specific to Britain alone, f.ex. banning 
  newsgroups which exist qua them being acceptable in other countries.

  Censorship at Demon's door or gateway should not be necessary, but
  if Demon don't contribute to an international code to exclude 
  universally offensive newsgroups for fear of losing customers, 
  then by sheer passivity they invite the government to interfere.

  To deny certain material a free ride on the Usenet has nothing
  to do with policing the Net, although it paves the way for 
  identifying objectionable listservers also.  However, what's
  objectionable in British law may be tolerated in Thailand.  I 
  suppose the British Parliament could introduced legislation 
  which would require a measure of censorship from British  
  Internet providers, especially if they feel that public
  sentiments are being consistently stonewalled by these 
  providers!?

-- 
Jens Kieffer-Olsen