🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4s6h4j$lt3@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com wrote:

> rgd@inforamp.net (Bob Daniel) wrote:
> 
> >By this reasoning, if I declare my intention to use Istar's PPP connection
> >to access an uncensored external news server, are they still on the dime
> >for providing that access?  This question, by the way, does NOT constitute
> >such a declaration (he said, covering his ass)
> 
> Only if they know that you are using their connection to access
> criminal matter.  If you say "I want to use your PPP connection to get
> some pictures of babys being raped", and then proceed to do so, iSTAR
> is on the hook for being a party to the offence.
> 
> >Illegal material exists on the Internet and Istar provides
> >access to the Internet.  Are they not BY DEFINITION providing access
> >to illegal material?
> 
> Of course they are.  But the Crown must prove that they had knowlege
> of the illegal material.  In a criminal prosecution the Crown must
> show the actual image or text and prove that it is obscene.  They must
> then go on to show that the accused knew about the image or text and
> intentionally  (or at least recklessly) helped to distribute it.  The
> newsgroups which were discontinued were dedicated channels of
> criminally obscene matter; simply by their titles one should see that
> they are probably carrying illegal images.  On the other hand,
> although such images can appear elswhere on the net the isp is not
> likely to come across them and therefore the mens rea, the mental
> aspect of the crime, cannot be established.

I'm still having trouble with this.  On the one hand you're saying the law
requires knowledge of a particular image (or, I suppose, a particular
commercial program posted illegally, or a particular text passage
in the case of the discussion groups)  On the other hand, Istar by it's
own admission and based on the advice of it's counsel, removed these 
groups solely on the basis what they were LIKELY to contain, not on
the basis of any particular item.

The Internet as a whole is CERTAIN to contain "illegal" material.
Or near enough certain.  So how does filtering out a few
"likely to contain" newsgroups  get them off the hook for providing
access to the "certain to contain" Internet-at-large.

> 
> >I thought "HOLDING the offensive material"  WAS in fact the issue....
> 
> Holding the offensive material constitues possession.  However, even
> without holding the material the isp may facilitate the publication of
> the material, making them a party to the offence.  Section 21 of the
> Criminal Code provides:
> Everyone is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b)
> does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to
> commit it; or (c) abets any person in committing it.
> 
> If they help you get it into your computer they may be found guilty.
> 

Suppose I call up an ISP, and say: "I would like you to provide me access
to the Internet in general, so that I may access illegal material if I 
choose to do so"  Are they liable?  Is it just a matter of how SPECIFIC
I am in my request for access? (for the "mens rea" to kick in?)

-- 
Bob Daniel              rgd@inforamp.net
Toronto, Canada         http://www.inforamp.net/~rgd