🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4s8m47$t5o@news.intranet.ca>,
Alain Goyette <alaing@intranet.ca> wrote:
>alchemy@interlog.com (Morton Goldmacher) wrote:
>
>>mjlevy@delete_this.interlog.com (Michael Levy) wrote:
>
>
>>>Since you are a lawyer, what is your comment on the viewpoint that the ISP
>>>is actually only one step in the continuous transport of data from one
>>>user's computer to another. 
>
>>>The ISP is in fact only offering a transportation system like the telcos
>>>and that the users are the only creators, modifiers of the content being
>>>transported. ISP's only hold (not review, modify nor create it) this data
>>>for a finite period of time so that the receiving user can get the senders
>>>input.... because unlike telephones they are not direct connections between
>>>users.
>
>>Whether they are holding the offensive material or merely transporting
>>it is irrelevent.  They are providing a service which may be used for
>>propogating illegal obscenities.  If they recklessly by facilitate the
>>propogation of illegaly pornography they are guilty of being a party
>>to the offence.
>
>That's bull. It that was the case, then the TELCOs would fall under
>the same headings as it is very possible, and bloddy likely that some
>users will connect directly to each other and exchange the obcene
>data. Is the TELCO then responsible for the data transmitted on their
>systems? No? then ISP's provide the same functions but under different
>time-frames (Eg. instead of being transient, the information is stored
>for a finite amount of time.)

Please follow the discussion.  If a telco _knows_ that, say, a specific
customer is routinely "exchanging obscene data", the telco can easily
become responsible.

Being a common carrier doesn't mean you can turn a blind eye when
you _know_ the laws are being violated.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_