🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rgd-1207962019420001@ts52-02.tor.istar.ca>,
Bob Daniel <rgd@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <4s6h4j$lt3@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com wrote:

>> rgd@inforamp.net (Bob Daniel) wrote:

>> 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).

We're getting confused here with different situations.

The real test here is specific knowledge.  The crown must show that there
is an illegal act being committed, that the ISP knew it was being committed,
and then must show intent on the ISP's part to allow it to continue.

If the crown could show that the contents of a group are designed
to carry child porn, mostly contain child porn, that the ISP knew it
mostly contained child porn, and that the ISP chose to look the other
way, or worse, advertise it, _then_ the ISP is toast.

As it should be.

>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.

Because they've taken actions that would probably be considered "reasonable"
given the circumstances.  The law, like life, is never black and white.
The law at least _attempts_ to be reasonable - everything else is whether
the judge or jury truly understands the case at hand.

Judges and juries are people, and they have brains.  Perhaps there isn't
a precedent about a specific newsgroup, or Usenet.  So what?  They are
going to try to apply the principles of the law.

The main principle of the child porn law is to prevent the abuse of
the children used in their production.  Doesn't matter a damn how the
videos or pictures are distributed.

>> 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?)

It depends ;-)
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_