🚀 go-pugleaf

jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:

>In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>>       If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
>>>their exposure.
>>
>>Surprise, that's what they thought they did.
>
>	As I'm suggesting in countless posts, they didn't want to really reduce 
>their exposure to legal ramifications, just reduce their exposure to political/moral 
>considerations. They made a political/moral statement by eliminating those 
>particular groups. They reduced their legal position by not a whit.

Unless Canada's laws are completely different than most of the rest of
the world they did improve their position, contrary to your belief.

The basis for being able to prosecute them would be *intent* to be a
party to distributing illegal material. Carrying a news group called
alt.binary.erotic.picture.children  shows intent to allow the
distribution of pictures of child pornography. The name 
kinda gives it away. The same picture being passed through
alt.binary.misc (or some such) may be just as illegal of a photo
but the ISP cannot be shown to have known about it. 

What you people seem to be missing is that nobody is
claiming that passing of illegal photo's alone is enough to
trigger the law, carrying groups that are *designed* specifically 
to pass those same photos and having those photos passed
will trigger the law. It's all about intent. 

Did iStar totally insulate themselves from potential problems? 
Nope- and they know it. 

Did they reduce their potential exposure? 
Yep. 

Are people allowed to do that, especially after seeking legal advice?
Yep. 

Do they have to wait until they're arrested before taking potential
problems seriously? 
Nope. 

You are drawing conclusions of their mindsets and intentions based on
a misunderstanding of the legalities. You may not like what they did,
but let's not get into a conspiracy mindset here.