🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4siuqa$qa@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...

>	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.

Our lawyers disagree with you and agree with iStar.  And we have one hell
of a lot more lawyers than iStar does ;-)

>>>What they have done is odiously rid themselves of 
>>>groups that are NON-PC and/or overtly/covertly sexist.

>>If that's what they did, they would have removed _thousands_ of groups -
>>all of alt.sex.*, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* and dozens of other
>>groups would have disappeared.

>	That's exactly what they should have done if they wanted to accomplish what 
>they stated. I think that they should drop their Usenet feed completely if they wish 
>to avoid any "legal" problems. 

They wanted to _reduce_ their risk.  Not even they would be so foolish to
think that they eliminated it.  Do you understand what "risk analysis"
means?

>>What they have done is remove groups that seem to be of highest legal
>>risk.  Of the ones they've removed, except for perhaps 2, I happen to
>>agree with their risk assessment (presuming that they have the usual
>>spotty coverage of alt, and are missing a couple of other ones).

>	That's not what they stated. They appear to have absolved themselves of 
>legal responsibility by dropping 35 groups.

I didn't read that into their statement.

>>Take it up with the Government of Canada and section 163.1 of the
>>Criminal Code of Canada, not iStar.

>	Don't quote legal sections at me. Do I have to reiterate every time that if 
>iStar wants to avoid legal problems they simply have to shut down their Usenet feed?

They don't want to do that, because they'd not make any money.  And if they
didn't do _anything), their directors _could_ end up in jail.  They
compromised.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

>	I could bore you and everyone else to death by quoting relevant sections of 
>the legal statutes. Do you or anyone else want me to quote chapter and verse of 
>various legal codes and how iStar is breaking the law by carrying material RIGHT  
>NOW?

You clearly don't understand risk analysis, nor much about current jurisprudence
over obscenity.

>If you want, I can let their legal department know that at least half of what 
>they carry could be consided illegal. If they really care about legalities, then I 
>can shut down about 10,000 groups. It would take me about 3 months of research (at 
>least), but it can be done.

And I could turn your car into a wreck by throwing rocks at it.  Proves
nothing.

>>>       To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).

>>I know what it means - a non-sequitor in this context.

>	Do you own a dictionary? I did say look it up! It's not out of context.

>	From Webster's New World Dictionary (1996)

>	iconoclast (I'll leave out the phonetics and origins). 1. one opposed to the 
> religious use of images or advocating the destruction of such images. 2. one who 
>attacks and seeks to destroy widely accepted ideas, beliefs, etc.

Like I said a non-sequitor.  You have your sense backwards too.  You _want_
people to do more in this context - which makes them _more_ iconoclastic, not
less.  You want people to be iconoclastic.  Right?  Or, are you suggesting
that free child pornography is the accepted idea/belief?
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_