🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <radfordr-1507962113530001@ts26-09.tor.istar.ca>, 
radfordr@inforamp.net says...
>
>In article <4sebvj$n6e@news.inforamp.net>, jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:
>
>>         You seem to miss the point that the NG's deleted are not illegal. 
>> Possibly what they contain might be illegal. In that case, censor what is 
>> actually illegal. A dozen books (however many you like) might be published 
>> under the title "How to Screw Your Sister". The title might suggest something 
>> illegal, but you would have to at least browse the contents before you would 
>> know for sure. Only those books that actually broke laws could be banned. The 
>> others would be legal, although obviously tasteless.
>
>Think of the Customs agents at the border. They don't rip pages out of
>magazines. If a magazine has illegal content, they ban the magazine.
>Similarly, a bookstore is not held responsible if there is banned material
>in a magazine if they have made all reasonable efforts to avoid carrying
>illegal material such as not carrying magazines known to have illegal
>content.

	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 would hesitate to suggest any solution that would have iStar having to
>read every message.

	I WOULD suggest exactly that, if they want to make absolutely sure that 
what they carry doesn't contain anything illegal. Otherwise, get out of the 
kitchen, 'cause there's sure to be some heat, unless someone with a big fire 
extinguisher comes along (and it ain't gonna be Istar, is it?)