🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4sm9ap$488@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com wrote:

> 
>....  The standard
> of intent prescribed by the Criminal Code is that the accused
> "knowingly" engaged in the offense.  The Supreme Court of Canada has
> held that "knowingly" means that  an individual possessing or
> distributing sexually explicit material must, at the very least, be
> wilfully blind to circumstances which would indicate that there may be
> illicit material among the otherwise lawfully explicit material.
> 
> From the headnote of R. v. Jorgensen (1995), the Supreme Court of
> Canada:
> 
>  Further, proof that a retailer had "knowledge" that he was selling
> obscene material does not necessarily require the Crown to prove that
> he actually viewed the obscene material.  "Knowledge" of the
> obscene character of the film can be acquired by means other than
> direct viewing. 

Still wondering:  can not iStar still have more or less certain knowledge
that illegal material is being provided by their service, either via 
remaining Usenet groups or via Web, IRC etc.?  And are they therefore
really any better off legally for having "unsubscribed" to certain
groups?

Wondering for the first time:  can iStar be thought of as a "retailer"
in this context?   

Wondering about the future:  if all ISPs the world over decide that this
list of groups shall be expunged for all time, won't that just diffuse 
the offending material into the rest of the groups and make it harder
to keep away from impressionable or unscrupulous types?  As someone
once said, the Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes
around it.

-- 
Bob Daniel              rgd@inforamp.net
Toronto, Canada         http://www.inforamp.net/~rgd