🚀 go-pugleaf

rgd@inforamp.net (Bob Daniel) wrote:


>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?

That knowlege is not enough: it is too vague.  There must be actual
existing circumstances which would indicate to iSTAR that some
specific material is offensive.  The word specific is important here.
In R. v. Jorgensen the retailer knew of the tapes' in his possession,
but because there were no ascertainable circumstances giving rise to
the suspicion that they may be offensive the crown could not convict
him.

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

Perhaps not, but nothing hangs on whether they are or not.  The
offense is to "make, print, publish, distribute, circulate...or to
have in his possession for the purposes of making, printing,
publishing, distributing, circulating...any obscene" material.

>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? 

You are probably right, but the ISPs could not be held criminally
liable.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor