🚀 go-pugleaf

jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:

>	I would have to ask you (as a Barrister and Solicitor, which I am 
>certainly not) how iStar's removal of these groups improves their REAL legal 
>position wrt to liability for content. I maintain that it does not really 
>reduce their liability, so they may as well carry a full feed, or don't carry 
>Usenet at all. 

Removing the newsgroups which, from their names, appear dedicated to
material which  is obscene (as that is defined by law) almost
completely eliminates their exposure to criminal prosecution.
Material may be regarded as obscene if it involves explicit sex with
violence, or explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing.
Material of a pedophilic nature is always obscene.

The salient feature which distinguishes the 35 banned newsgroups from
all of the other newsgroups which carry sexually explicit material is
in the names of the newsgroups.  If a group is called
"alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.children" the isp has the legal
obligation to ensure that there is no kiddie porn posted on it.  To
fail to check would be wilful blindness, and the isp would be
construed to have actual knowlege of the group's content.

If a kiddie porn image appears in a newsgroup such as
"alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.automobiles" the isp cannot be construed
as responsible.  There was nothing in the name to warrant the
suspicion that the offensive picture might have been posted there.
There was actual ignorance of the image and no indication that an
illicit picture is likely to be there.

The most thorough explanation for the advice iSTAR was given may be
found in the case of R. v.Jorgensen (1995) S.C.C.  I have posted a
summary of the case (the headnote) elsewhere in this thread.  It is
long but it is worth reading.  All of the important  issues discussed
in this thread are illucidated; what is obscene, when is a person
responsible for distributing obscene material, what state of mind is
necessary to convict.....

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor