🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4sf5ia$428@news.inforamp.net>, jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:

>         Using Customs agents as any kind of example is not the best
argument you 
> could use, is it? Are you suggesting that we should have Customs agents
decide 
> which groups should be available? I hope not! ("Hey, Big Brother")
>         The Usenet is rife with KNOWN illegal material. Where it is, is the 
> question. So if you carry groups that WILL contain illegal material, then you 
> must be responsible for carrying illegal material. If you want to be
completely 
> legally safe, then don't carry any newsgroups at all. Quite simple
really. To be 
> so sanctimonious as to decide that the remaining groups (after deleting
only 35 
> groups out of the 18,000 that are available on Inforamp/Istar) are
legally OK is 
> reprehensible if you are purporting to rid yourself of legal liability. 
> Absolutely, entirely ridiculous. 
>         So I come back to my main point: this is an exercise in arbitrary 
> censorship motivated by political correctness/moral issues. To pretend
otherwise 
> is a mockery of the truth about what is happening here.

I don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
of censorship.

-- 
Robert Radford
V-P, Research & Development
Radhome Corporation