🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4sf5ia$428@news.inforamp.net>, jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:

>         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 don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
of censorship.

-- 
Robert Radford
V-P, Research & Development
Radhome Corporation

In article <4sgddb$ifi@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...


			<< monstrous snip  >>



n illicit porn.  The
>actual reasons are too lengthy to reproduce here.  The headnote is a
>concise summary of the decision.
>
>R. v. Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55
>
>Randy Jorgensen and
>913719 Ontario Limited  Appellants
>
>v.
>

			<< even more large snip >>


d on its advice; and the
>OFRB was the appropriate official body to consult when seeking a
>determination about whether a film can be legally sold in Ontario.

	While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
politically/morally motivated. 

In article <radfordr-1607962133300001@ts33-13.tor.istar.ca>, 

>>         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 don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
>the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
>business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
>As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
>of censorship.

	If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
their exposure. Simply getting rid of 35 groups is STUPID. It smacks of Political 
correctness/moral turpitude. What they have done is odiously rid themselves of 
groups that are NON-PC and/or overtly/covertly sexist. I would like to maintain 
my right to say what I want to say and to publish what I want to be published, 
whether it be through print or electronic media. 
	To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).

In article <DuoA8I.Cn8@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>
>In article <4shep8$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>>In article <4sgddb$ifi@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...
>
>>       While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
>>legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
>>politically/morally motivated. 
>
>Well, after all, the laws in this area are at least partially morally
>motivated, so one shouldn't be surprised.

	I'm not surprised at all. I just was making the point that these 
deletions appear to be NOT legally motivated as they have stated and as they 
have taken pains to advertise. I am merely stating that they are being 
hypocritical, seeing as there are at least hundreds of groups that they still 
carry that contain demonstrably illegal material.

>Your comment suggests that the only laws you should respect are the ones
>you disagree with.  That seems a rather peculiar belief.

	I'm not sure how you derive that opinion from what I've posted. I've 
actually stated that I disagree with Istar's position, insofar as they have not 
taken steps to eliminate ALL illegal material. If Istar wishes to avoid all 
legal ramifications, then they should drop their usenet feed completely. I never 
had a problem with ANY newsgroup. If you don't like it, don't access it. Quite 
simple for me. How you translate that into what laws I would or would not 
respect is beyond me. It appears that YOU, not me, have some peculiar beliefs.


>-- 
>Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>

>>>I don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
>>>the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
>>>business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
>>>As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
>>>of censorship.
>
>>       If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
>>their exposure.
>
>Surprise, that's what they thought they did.

	As I'm suggesting in countless posts, they didn't want to really reduce 
their exposure to legal ramifications, just reduce their exposure to political/moral 
considerations. They made a political/moral statement by eliminating those 
particular groups. They reduced their legal position by not a whit.

>>Simply getting rid of 35 groups is STUPID. It smacks of Political 
>>correctness/moral turpitude.
>
>The terms are contradictory.  If they were Politically Correct, they couldn't
>also be morally turpitudey, now could they?

	The terms can be, but are not, in this case contradictory. I used them in 
the sense of trying to describe their motivation. The "/" (slash) was used in the 
context of an "either/or" situation. 

>>What they have done is odiously rid themselves of 
>>groups that are NON-PC and/or overtly/covertly sexist.
>
>If that's what they did, they would have removed _thousands_ of groups -
>all of alt.sex.*, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* and dozens of other
>groups would have disappeared.

	That's exactly what they should have done if they wanted to accomplish what 
they stated. I think that they should drop their Usenet feed completely if they wish 
to avoid any "legal" problems. 

>What they have done is remove groups that seem to be of highest legal
>risk.  Of the ones they've removed, except for perhaps 2, I happen to
>agree with their risk assessment (presuming that they have the usual
>spotty coverage of alt, and are missing a couple of other ones).

	That's not what they stated. They appear to have absolved themselves of 
legal responsibility by dropping 35 groups. I disagree and most vociferously.

>>I would like to maintain 
>>my right to say what I want to say and to publish what I want to be published, 
>>whether it be through print or electronic media. 
>
>You still have that right.  You just don't have the right to force iStar
>to take the legal risk for you.


	I still have that right, yes. I also have the right to point out the 
hypocritical nonsensical nature of certain decisions.

>
>Take it up with the Government of Canada and section 163.1 of the
>Criminal Code of Canada, not iStar.

	Don't quote legal sections at me. Do I have to reiterate every time that if 
iStar wants to avoid legal problems they simply have to shut down their Usenet feed?
	I could bore you and everyone else to death by quoting relevant sections of 
the legal statutes. Do you or anyone else want me to quote chapter and verse of 
various legal codes and how iStar is breaking the law by carrying material RIGHT  
NOW? If you want, I can let their legal department know that at least half of what 
they carry could be consided illegal. If they really care about legalities, then I 
can shut down about 10,000 groups. It would take me about 3 months of research (at 
least), but it can be done.
>
>>       To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).
>
>I know what it means - a non-sequitor in this context.

	Do you own a dictionary? I did say look it up! It's not out of context.

	From Webster's New World Dictionary (1996)

	iconoclast (I'll leave out the phonetics and origins). 1. one opposed to the 
 religious use of images or advocating the destruction of such images. 2. one who 
attacks and seeks to destroy widely accepted ideas, beliefs, etc.

jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:



>>R. v. Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55
>>

>	While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
>legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
>politically/morally motivated. 

You may be right, but I understand that the decision was based on the
advice of their counsel (hence the name of the thread being "LAWYER AS
COP, JUDGE AND JURY" or something like it).

There is certainly political and public relations points to be gained,
but unless we are told by iSTAR's managers why they deleted the groups
we can only speculate on their motives.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

In article <4sirtf$ove@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...
>
>jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:
>
>
>
>>>R. v. Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55
>>>
>
>>       While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
>>legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
>>politically/morally motivated. 
>
>You may be right, but I understand that the decision was based on the
>advice of their counsel (hence the name of the thread being "LAWYER AS
>COP, JUDGE AND JURY" or something like it).

	And as mentioned afore, some of the decision to delete those 35 
newsgroups was based on consultation with RCMP officer(s). I repeat myself, but 
I still find it odious that 35 groups eliminated constitutes any kind of 
guarantee that iStar now absolves itself of any legal liability for its content 
that it carries.

>There is certainly political and public relations points to be gained,
>but unless we are told by iSTAR's managers why they deleted the groups
>we can only speculate on their motives.

	A copy of the "secret" memo is widely availble, so I won't duplicate it 
here. No motive is assignable other than from a legal standpoint. From that 
memo, but judging by its content, it is obvious that it has more 
political/moral ramifications than legal, if one stops to analyse it. BTW, I 
have NOT seen the advertisement that has appeared in some print media. From 
what I've heard, though, it seems more like damage control than anything else.


>Morton M. Goldmacher
>Barrister and Solicitor

	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. 

In article <4shep8$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <4sgddb$ifi@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...

>	While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
>legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
>politically/morally motivated. 

Well, after all, the laws in this area are at least partially morally
motivated, so one shouldn't be surprised.

Your comment suggests that the only laws you should respect are the ones
you disagree with.  That seems a rather peculiar belief.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

In article <4shftu$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <radfordr-1607962133300001@ts33-13.tor.istar.ca>, 

>>I don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
>>the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
>>business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
>>As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
>>of censorship.

>	If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
>their exposure.

Surprise, that's what they thought they did.

>Simply getting rid of 35 groups is STUPID. It smacks of Political 
>correctness/moral turpitude.

The terms are contradictory.  If they were Politically Correct, they couldn't
also be morally turpitudey, now could they?

>What they have done is odiously rid themselves of 
>groups that are NON-PC and/or overtly/covertly sexist.

If that's what they did, they would have removed _thousands_ of groups -
all of alt.sex.*, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* and dozens of other
groups would have disappeared.

What they have done is remove groups that seem to be of highest legal
risk.  Of the ones they've removed, except for perhaps 2, I happen to
agree with their risk assessment (presuming that they have the usual
spotty coverage of alt, and are missing a couple of other ones).

>I would like to maintain 
>my right to say what I want to say and to publish what I want to be published, 
>whether it be through print or electronic media. 

You still have that right.  You just don't have the right to force iStar
to take the legal risk for you.

Take it up with the Government of Canada and section 163.1 of the
Criminal Code of Canada, not iStar.

>	To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).

I know what it means - a non-sequitor in this context.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

In article <4sm9ap$488@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com wrote:

> 
>....  The standard
> of intent prescribed by the Criminal Code is that the accused
> "knowingly" engaged in the offense.  The Supreme Court of Canada has
> held that "knowingly" means that  an individual possessing or
> distributing sexually explicit material must, at the very least, be
> wilfully blind to circumstances which would indicate that there may be
> illicit material among the otherwise lawfully explicit material.
> 
> From the headnote of R. v. Jorgensen (1995), the Supreme Court of
> Canada:
> 
>  Further, proof that a retailer had "knowledge" that he was selling
> obscene material does not necessarily require the Crown to prove that
> he actually viewed the obscene material.  "Knowledge" of the
> obscene character of the film can be acquired by means other than
> direct viewing. 

Still wondering:  can not iStar still have more or less certain knowledge
that illegal material is being provided by their service, either via 
remaining Usenet groups or via Web, IRC etc.?  And are they therefore
really any better off legally for having "unsubscribed" to certain
groups?

Wondering for the first time:  can iStar be thought of as a "retailer"
in this context?   

Wondering about the future:  if all ISPs the world over decide that this
list of groups shall be expunged for all time, won't that just diffuse 
the offending material into the rest of the groups and make it harder
to keep away from impressionable or unscrupulous types?  As someone
once said, the Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes
around it.

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

jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:

>In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>>
>
>>>>I don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
>>>>the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
>>>>business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
>>>>As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
>>>>of censorship.
>>
>>>       If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
>>>their exposure.
>>
>>Surprise, that's what they thought they did.
>
>	As I'm suggesting in countless posts, they didn't want to really reduce 
>their exposure to legal ramifications, just reduce their exposure to political/moral 
>considerations. They made a political/moral statement by eliminating those 
>particular groups. They reduced their legal position by not a whit.

Unless Canada's laws are completely different than most of the rest of
the world they did improve their position, contrary to your belief.

The basis for being able to prosecute them would be *intent* to be a
party to distributing illegal material. Carrying a news group called
alt.binary.erotic.picture.children  shows intent to allow the
distribution of pictures of child pornography. The name 
kinda gives it away. The same picture being passed through
alt.binary.misc (or some such) may be just as illegal of a photo
but the ISP cannot be shown to have known about it. 

What you people seem to be missing is that nobody is
claiming that passing of illegal photo's alone is enough to
trigger the law, carrying groups that are *designed* specifically 
to pass those same photos and having those photos passed
will trigger the law. It's all about intent. 

Did iStar totally insulate themselves from potential problems? 
Nope- and they know it. 

Did they reduce their potential exposure? 
Yep. 

Are people allowed to do that, especially after seeking legal advice?
Yep. 

Do they have to wait until they're arrested before taking potential
problems seriously? 
Nope. 

You are drawing conclusions of their mindsets and intentions based on
a misunderstanding of the legalities. You may not like what they did,
but let's not get into a conspiracy mindset here.

Putting aside for the moment the "save the children" crap which has
been rationalized at one time or another by everyone including the
Nazis.

There is a way to try to change the laws or make them clearer without
first getting charged.  All citizens as far as I know, have the
ability to fund a consitutional/legal challenge against a specific law
without being charged for it beforehand.  This approach of 'seizing
the bull by the horns' has a huge advantage in that the Crown cannot
'drop' the charges after you're almost bankrupt and on the verge of
winning.
This has been consistently the case with section 462.2 (related to so
called 'drug paraphenalia' which at one point was broad enough to have
a picture of a marijuana plant in the encyclopaedia illegal).  Anyways
literature is now legal again, but 'paraphenlia' is not, except there
is no definition of what paraphenalia really is.  So the method used
by the Crown and police to harass people with it, is to charge someone
with it's vague definition, seize stock (esp. if it's a store), let it
run on for a long time in court, and THEN drop the charges.
So now there are some (at least 2) constitutional challenges in
progress by pro-hemp people. I can't remember if both resulted from
being charged though.

However my point is, wouldn't it be nice if a coalition of ISPs pooled
together and funded their own legal fight to 'clarify' the situation
once and for all? Having a definitive definition would let them rest
easier at night, and customers everywhere would be happy because then
most systems would be more or less the same in terms of 'enforcement'
of what people see to protect their puny minds of course. Snort.
Grabbing the bull by the horns puts the fascists on the defensive..

P.

C. Peter C. (yu156589@yorku.ca) Toronto, Ontario, Canada

jmanso19@skypoint.com (Jim Manson) wrote:

>jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:

>>In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>>>
>>
>>>>>I don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
>>>>>the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
>>>>>business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
>>>>>As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
>>>>>of censorship.
>>>
>>>>       If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
>>>>their exposure.
>>>
>>>Surprise, that's what they thought they did.
>>
>>	As I'm suggesting in countless posts, they didn't want to really reduce 
>>their exposure to legal ramifications, just reduce their exposure to political/moral 
>>considerations. They made a political/moral statement by eliminating those 
>>particular groups. They reduced their legal position by not a whit.

>Unless Canada's laws are completely different than most of the rest of
>the world they did improve their position, contrary to your belief.

>The basis for being able to prosecute them would be *intent* to be a
>party to distributing illegal material. Carrying a news group called
>alt.binary.erotic.picture.children  shows intent to allow the
>distribution of pictures of child pornography. The name 
>kinda gives it away. The same picture being passed through
>alt.binary.misc (or some such) may be just as illegal of a photo
>but the ISP cannot be shown to have known about it. 

>What you people seem to be missing is that nobody is
>claiming that passing of illegal photo's alone is enough to
>trigger the law, carrying groups that are *designed* specifically 
>to pass those same photos and having those photos passed
>will trigger the law. It's all about intent. 

>Did iStar totally insulate themselves from potential problems? 
>Nope- and they know it. 

>Did they reduce their potential exposure? 
>Yep. 

>Are people allowed to do that, especially after seeking legal advice?
>Yep. 

>Do they have to wait until they're arrested before taking potential
>problems seriously? 
>Nope. 

>You are drawing conclusions of their mindsets and intentions based on
>a misunderstanding of the legalities. You may not like what they did,
>but let's not get into a conspiracy mindset here.

Mr. Manson is absolutely correct in each of his points.  The standard
of intent prescribed by the Criminal Code is that the accused
"knowingly" engaged in the offense.  The Supreme Court of Canada has
held that "knowingly" means that  an individual possessing or
distributing sexually explicit material must, at the very least, be
wilfully blind to circumstances which would indicate that there may be
illicit material among the otherwise lawfully explicit material. 

From the headnote of R. v. Jorgensen (1995), the Supreme Court of
Canada:

 It is a general rule of statutory construction that the term
"knowingly" used in a criminal statute applies to all elements of the
actus reus, and there is nothing in the language of s. 163(2), or in
its legislative history, to suggest that the word "knowingly" should
be given a restricted meaning.  In including the word "knowingly" in
s. 163(2), Parliament chose to set an onerous standard of proof
in the case of sellers or retailers.  Thus, to satisfy the mens rea
requirement of the offence under s. 163(2), the Crown must show
not only that the retailer was aware that the subject matter of
the material had as its dominant characteristic the exploitation
of sex, but also that he knew of the specific acts which make the
material obscene in law.  Material is generally obscene if it
involves explicit sex with violence, or explicit sex which is
degrading or dehumanizing.

and:

 Further, proof that a retailer had "knowledge" that he was selling
obscene material does not necessarily require the Crown to prove that
he actually viewed the obscene material.  "Knowledge" of the
obscene character of the film can be acquired by means other than
direct viewing.  In this regard, in appropriate circumstances, the
Crown can avail itself of the principles of wilful blindness.
Deliberately choosing not to know something when there are
reasons to believe further inquiry is necessary can satisfy the
mental element of the offence.  (end of quote from headnote)

Considering the reasons in Jorgensen there is no reason to believe
that the actions taken by iSTAR was anything other than an attempt to
eliminate their exposure under the Criminal Code.  I would advise any
internet provider to follow iSTAR if they wish to avoid the
possibility of facing criminal prosecution.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor 

yu156589@yorku.ca (C. Peter Constantinidis) wrote:

>There is a way to try to change the laws or make them clearer without
>first getting charged.  All citizens as far as I know, have the
>ability to fund a consitutional/legal challenge against a specific law
>without being charged for it beforehand. 

Wrong.  The court will only deal with specific instances, not with
hypotheticals.  Declaratory relief - the outcome of Mr.
Constantinidis' proposed litigation- is unavailable for matters
involving the criminal law.  The only way is to actually have an
accused charged with the offense.  By the way, obscenity is well
defined judicially.

>This has been consistently the case with section 462.2 (related to so
>called 'drug paraphenalia' which at one point was broad enough to have
>a picture of a marijuana plant in the encyclopaedia illegal).  Anyways
>literature is now legal again, but 'paraphenlia' is not, except there
>is no definition of what paraphenalia really is.  So the method used
>by the Crown and police to harass people with it, is to charge someone
>with it's vague definition, seize stock (esp. if it's a store), let it
>run on for a long time in court, and THEN drop the charges.
>So now there are some (at least 2) constitutional challenges in
>progress by pro-hemp people. I can't remember if both resulted from
>being charged though.

For several years Alan Young, a professor of criminal law at Osgoode
Hall Law School has been trying to have s.462.2 of the Criminal Code
judicially repealed.  Most of his efforts have been directed at
finding the ideal defendant. 

Morton M. Goldmacher 
Barrister and Solicitor

In article <4siuqa$qa@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...

>	As I'm suggesting in countless posts, they didn't want to really reduce 
>their exposure to legal ramifications, just reduce their exposure to political/moral 
>considerations. They made a political/moral statement by eliminating those 
>particular groups. They reduced their legal position by not a whit.

Our lawyers disagree with you and agree with iStar.  And we have one hell
of a lot more lawyers than iStar does ;-)

>>>What they have done is odiously rid themselves of 
>>>groups that are NON-PC and/or overtly/covertly sexist.

>>If that's what they did, they would have removed _thousands_ of groups -
>>all of alt.sex.*, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* and dozens of other
>>groups would have disappeared.

>	That's exactly what they should have done if they wanted to accomplish what 
>they stated. I think that they should drop their Usenet feed completely if they wish 
>to avoid any "legal" problems. 

They wanted to _reduce_ their risk.  Not even they would be so foolish to
think that they eliminated it.  Do you understand what "risk analysis"
means?

>>What they have done is remove groups that seem to be of highest legal
>>risk.  Of the ones they've removed, except for perhaps 2, I happen to
>>agree with their risk assessment (presuming that they have the usual
>>spotty coverage of alt, and are missing a couple of other ones).

>	That's not what they stated. They appear to have absolved themselves of 
>legal responsibility by dropping 35 groups.

I didn't read that into their statement.

>>Take it up with the Government of Canada and section 163.1 of the
>>Criminal Code of Canada, not iStar.

>	Don't quote legal sections at me. Do I have to reiterate every time that if 
>iStar wants to avoid legal problems they simply have to shut down their Usenet feed?

They don't want to do that, because they'd not make any money.  And if they
didn't do _anything), their directors _could_ end up in jail.  They
compromised.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

>	I could bore you and everyone else to death by quoting relevant sections of 
>the legal statutes. Do you or anyone else want me to quote chapter and verse of 
>various legal codes and how iStar is breaking the law by carrying material RIGHT  
>NOW?

You clearly don't understand risk analysis, nor much about current jurisprudence
over obscenity.

>If you want, I can let their legal department know that at least half of what 
>they carry could be consided illegal. If they really care about legalities, then I 
>can shut down about 10,000 groups. It would take me about 3 months of research (at 
>least), but it can be done.

And I could turn your car into a wreck by throwing rocks at it.  Proves
nothing.

>>>       To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).

>>I know what it means - a non-sequitor in this context.

>	Do you own a dictionary? I did say look it up! It's not out of context.

>	From Webster's New World Dictionary (1996)

>	iconoclast (I'll leave out the phonetics and origins). 1. one opposed to the 
> religious use of images or advocating the destruction of such images. 2. one who 
>attacks and seeks to destroy widely accepted ideas, beliefs, etc.

Like I said a non-sequitor.  You have your sense backwards too.  You _want_
people to do more in this context - which makes them _more_ iconoclastic, not
less.  You want people to be iconoclastic.  Right?  Or, are you suggesting
that free child pornography is the accepted idea/belief?
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 01:02:00 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
>> The basis for being able to prosecute them would be *intent* to be a
>> party to distributing illegal material. Carrying a news group called
>> alt.binary.erotic.picture.children  shows intent to allow the
>> distribution of pictures of child pornography. The name 
>> kinda gives it away. The same picture being passed through
>> alt.binary.misc (or some such) may be just as illegal of a photo
>> but the ISP cannot be shown to have known about it. 
>
>Bullshit. The name means nothing. What if the group is all about why such
>pictures should *not* exist? What about the various alt.sex groups which by
>their name should be banned, but actually carry useful medical and/or recovery
>information?
>
>If I write a book called 'How to Screw Your Dog', does that mean it contains
>beastiality and must be banned? How can you know unless you read it first?

Let's use your analogy and see what happens:

I buy a book called " Fluffy Finds a Friend " at my local bookstore. I

then purchase it and walk out of the bookstore into the arms of the
waiting police. They grab my book and open it....voila'  a picture of
Fluffy and his friend pops out suitable for prosecution. You then
claim that you thought it was a children's book and no way of knowing
what kind of friend Fluffy was looking for. Odds are you would get
off. 

Let's say you try it with Fluffy F***S a Blonde. Odds are you would be

doing time for possession of illegal material. Hard to argue that you
didn't know what Fluffy was doing in the second book.

Let's try this with iStar:

A local wandering police type is perusing the various newsgroups
on iStar. He sees a group called alt.sex.stories. He enters and sees
a posting of Fluffy and his friend (very popular series) and downloads
it. He runs to his boss and shows him/her the picture. They prosecute
iStar. iStar claims that " hey it's a group for posting text stories
about sex ", they didn't know the posting was there because they can't
check every post. Odds are they would get off.

Let's try it with alt.binary.picture.erotic.bestiality.  " Hey, it's a
group for posting pictures of Fluffy doing what ever Fluffy does
which is illegal " Odds are they would be convicted. 

Do you see the difference here yet?



>Is iSTAR responsible for reading the contents of all the groups? I hardly
>think so. And if they were, they'd have no choice but to shut down their news
>feed completely.
NOBODY said they were.

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:21:07 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
Goldmacher) wrote:

> By the way, obscenity is well defined judicially.

How can obscenity ever be defined in a way that is more than relative
and subject to personal interpretation and local 'community
standards'.  Would Canada 40 years ago have used the same definition
as is used now? Will they in 40 years form now.  It is clearly a
relative thing, and subject to personal interpretation (and therefore
abuse).  

Are not the 'nude beaches' in BC considered obscene in some (many ?)
parts of Canada, and are illegal (even if the statute used to prohibit
them is not defined as 'obscenity' the intent is the same).  This is a
key point in discussing censorship, there is always the assumption
that obscenity can be impartially defined, but a lot of cases would
seem to indicate it's judgement and local 'community standards', and
simple prudishness in some cases.
***********************************************************

homepage at <http://www.icons.net/~horton/BayView.html>

***********************************************************

rgd@inforamp.net (Bob Daniel) wrote:


>Still wondering:  can not iStar still have more or less certain knowledge
>that illegal material is being provided by their service, either via 
>remaining Usenet groups or via Web, IRC etc.?  And are they therefore
>really any better off legally for having "unsubscribed" to certain
>groups?

That knowlege is not enough: it is too vague.  There must be actual
existing circumstances which would indicate to iSTAR that some
specific material is offensive.  The word specific is important here.
In R. v. Jorgensen the retailer knew of the tapes' in his possession,
but because there were no ascertainable circumstances giving rise to
the suspicion that they may be offensive the crown could not convict
him.

>Wondering for the first time:  can iStar be thought of as a "retailer"
>in this context?   

Perhaps not, but nothing hangs on whether they are or not.  The
offense is to "make, print, publish, distribute, circulate...or to
have in his possession for the purposes of making, printing,
publishing, distributing, circulating...any obscene" material.

>Wondering about the future:  if all ISPs the world over decide that this
>list of groups shall be expunged for all time, won't that just diffuse 
>the offending material into the rest of the groups and make it harder
>to keep away from impressionable or unscrupulous types? 

You are probably right, but the ISPs could not be held criminally
liable.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:21:07 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
>Goldmacher) wrote:

>> By the way, obscenity is well defined judicially.

>How can obscenity ever be defined in a way that is more than relative
>and subject to personal interpretation and local 'community
>standards'.  Would Canada 40 years ago have used the same definition
>as is used now? Will they in 40 years form now.  It is clearly a
>relative thing, and subject to personal interpretation (and therefore
>abuse).  

Mr. Shaw's point regarding changing community standards is irrelevent
to the discussion of whether obscenity can be well defined.  If
community standards are a measure of obscenity (and it is not) the
definition of obscenity would be open to change, but that fact alone
doesn't mean that the standard is undefinable.  The statement that
community standards are changeable carries the tacit assumption that
they can be ascertained and applied.

An article is obscene if its content can be proven to be injurious to
the fabric of society.  The depiction of explicit sexual conduct is
never obscene unless it is degrading, dehumanizing or imbued with
violence.  By adopting this definition the Supreme Court of Canada
began to take obscenity out of the realm of being "a relative thing,
and subject to personal interpretation."  A jury or judge would be
charged with the responsibilty of deciding whether something is
obscene, but the law is clear about what makes something obscene.  I
amagine that Mr. Shaw would say "Different juries and judges can and
will arrive at different conclusions regarding the same stuff", and he
would be correct about that.  But only because they may see the
material differently from each other, not because the law is ill
defined.  In every trial the evidence can support differing
conclusions and the jury or judge must decide which conclusion they
have been convinced of.  This indeterminacy is different from the
inderminacy of a law which is vague or unsettled.

The difficulty that Mr. Shaw should be concerned with is not that
obscenity is incapable of being defined, but the uncertainty of
whether a given image or article falls within the definition.  In R.
v. Metro News Ltd. a publisher or distributer was charged with
disseminating obscene porn.  This was in 1986 when the definition
incorporated community standards.  The defendant argued that he could
not have known that community standards were offended and therefore he
did not have the  intent to commit the offense.  The Ontario Court of
Appeal held that the mistake of not knowing that the material was
obscene is not a mistake of fact, a valid defense, but a mistake of
law which is no defense at all.   Metro News Ltd. was convicted.

In a police state where the rule of law is non-existant anything can
be banned or censored.  In a religious dictatorship any "anti-god"
sentiments can be criminalized.  Things are a little different in
Canada.  It is instructive to read R. v. Trembley, (1993), in which
the Supreme Court of Canada defines obscenity as it applies to
indecent performances in a public place.

>Are not the 'nude beaches' in BC considered obscene in some (many ?)
>parts of Canada, and are illegal (even if the statute used to prohibit
>them is not defined as 'obscenity' the intent is the same).

The only relevent questions are 1.) are they indecent in the host
community, and 2.) are they public places (a more complicated question
than the first)?  It is not relevent whether they may be obscene in
Cape Breton or anywhere else.

>  This is a
>key point in discussing censorship, there is always the assumption
>that obscenity can be impartially defined, but a lot of cases would
>seem to indicate it's judgement and local 'community standards', and
>simple prudishness in some cases.

In a prudish community the standard is lower.  Why shouldn't it be?
Incidentally, prohibiting nude bathing is not censorship.  That is why
"indecency" and "obscenity" have such divergent definitions.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

In article <4sorq9$ehj@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com wrote:

> horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:
> 
> >How can obscenity ever be defined in a way that is more than relative
> >and subject to personal interpretation and local 'community
> >standards'. 
> 
> Mr. Shaw's point regarding changing community standards is irrelevent
> to the discussion of whether obscenity can be well defined.[...] 
> An article is obscene if its content can be proven to be injurious to
> the fabric of society.  The depiction of explicit sexual conduct is
> never obscene unless it is degrading, dehumanizing or imbued with violence. 

I don't know, there's still some room for interpretation here.  I knew a 
woman once who felt that oral sex was "degrading" and "dehumanizing".

I said I didn't mind, I'd do it anyway....  B-)

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

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:38:42 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
> Let's use your analogy and see what happens:

You missed my point completely. I was not trying to defend the banned
groups. I was pointing out that there are several *other* groups which should
also be banned based on their name. Those other groups were *not* banned, so
iSTAR is just full of shit. I agree completely with your extension of my
analogy, and if iSTAR were really serious about protecting their butts, they
should have banned many more newsgroups than they did. Instead, they caved in
to some moron of a lawyer's play for political points.

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 5 days. If you don't  ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail ]
[ (we have a sometimes sporadic connection to the internet) ]

"I love deadlines.  I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
   - Douglas Adams

horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:


>>>I have a question that maybe a lawyer could answer.  It seems to me
>>>that many newsgroups carry messages that are libelous, and fraudulent,
>>>and perhaps there is no group that has not been spammed with illegal
>>>scam adverts.

>>>If the basis is only to stop groups with illegal material then why are
>>>these groups not also banned if 'illegality' is the only criteria ? 

I replied:
>>I think a good case could be made for charging a isp with willfully
>>promoting hatred where they carry a newsgroup called
>>"niggers.jews.kill.them.all" if the group carried offensive postings.

"Illegality" is an enormous concept.  Most of the alleged illegalities
Mr. Shaw refers to are civil wrongs.  An internet service provider
cannot be liable for carrying libelous or fraudulent material unless
it is a party to the fraud or the libel.  For civil purposes, the isp
has no duty to exercise editorial control over the writings on the
net.  Their duty to act when they become aware of some possibly
criminal use of their server is a completely different matter.  In
prior postings when the phrase "illegal material" was used it meant
illegal pursuant to s.163 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Shaw stated that I was wrong for using an extreme example of some
other material which an isp would feel is prudent  to discontinue
providing.  I was not trying to be inflamatory; I just wanted to give
a quick answer.  I hope the new answer above is more appropriate.

The newsgroups banned by iSTAR have been listed many times in this
newsgroup.


>>There are no legal limits on their [iSTAR's]control right now. 
>> They can decide to discontinue whatever services they feel 
>>like discontinuing.  
>>

>Are you *sure* that their contractual agreement with their customers
>does not include a provision that is broken by intentionally reducing
>the number of newsgroups ?

It may very well include such a provision.  Even if they are
contractually bound to their customers they can breach the contract
and compensate them.  It still doesn't mean that their customers can
force them to carry every newsgroup.  Their subscribers may wish to
commence a class action for damages.  It would be a good way of
testing the legality of carrying the banned newsgroups since iSTAR's
defence would be that it is illegal to continue carrying them and
therefore the contract  is unenforceable with regard to that
provision.

In any event, iSTAR controls what it carries, not the police, the
courts, the subscribers or anyone else.

Morton M. Goldmacher 
Barrister and Solicitor

In article <31f03631.8524472@news.skypoint.com>, jmanso19@skypoint.com
(Jim Manson) wrote:

> scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:
> >You missed my point completely. I was not trying to defend the banned
> >groups. I was pointing out that there are several *other* groups which should
> >also be banned based on their name. Those other groups were *not* banned, so
> >iSTAR is just full of shit. I agree completely with your extension of my
> >analogy, and if iSTAR were really serious about protecting their butts, they
> >should have banned many more newsgroups than they did. Instead, they caved in
> >to some moron of a lawyer's play for political points.
> 
> Ok- one more time. 
> 
> You have already admitted that removing newsgroups in some cases
> is a valid defense to the problem.
> 
> Therefore iStar does a risk analysis of the law, their newsgroups,
> and current political climates. They decide to remove some newsgroups.
> 
> We have already established that removal can be a valid defense.
>[snip remainder of coherent argument]

I dunno how it works in Canada, but in the United States a judge (and a
jury, for that matter) will accept a good-faith act in an attempt to abide
by the law in a very positive light.  So by showing that they tried to
obey the law by getting rid of those newsgroups that on their face contain
illegal content, they can ride through any complaint without the water
ever getting above the legal Plimsoll line.

That's good business strategy.
-- 
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
http://www.accutek.com/~satchell
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim -- George Santayana

In article <31ee3c03.90815815@news.icons.net>,
John R. Shaw <horton@icons.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jul 1996 05:50:47 GMT, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris
>Lewis) wrote:

>>Of the ones they've removed, except for perhaps 2, I happen to
>>agree with their risk assessment (presuming that they have the usual
>>spotty coverage of alt, and are missing a couple of other ones).

>I am still unsure as to which groups they removed, since you do know
>would you please post the list ?

The list has been posted several times already.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:33:02 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
Goldmacher) wrote:
>
>>I have a question that maybe a lawyer could answer.  It seems to me
>>that many newsgroups carry messages that are libelous, and fraudulent,
>>and perhaps there is no group that has not been spammed with illegal
>>scam adverts.
>
>>If the basis is only to stop groups with illegal material then why are
>>these groups not also banned if 'illegality' is the only criteria ? 
>
>I think a good case could be made for charging a isp with willfully
>promoting hatred where they carry a newsgroup called
>"niggers.jews.kill.them.all" if the group carried offensive postings.
>

Obviously, but this does not address the question in the slightest, in
fact it appears a deliberate attempt to kill discussion by resorting
to extreme cases.

You are using the same tactic as the religious right did in the US to
push the CDA, You immediately talk of the worst sort of trash, as if
that was all that was to be banned, and by interference anyone who
questions the actions must immediately somehow be in support of racial
hatred and kiddy porn. Do you know exactly what they have *in fact*
banned ?  Why not discuss issues raised, instead of try to divert
discussion by hyperbole ?

>>While this is only speculation it would seem that the intent must run
>>deeper than simply law enforcement, perhaps they want a legal
>>precedent, for when they extend their control further ?
>>***********************************************************
>
>There are no legal limits on their control right now.  They can decide
>to discontinue whatever services they feel like discontinuing.  
>

Are you *sure* that their contractual agreement with their customers
does not include a provision that is broken by intentionally reducing
the number of newsgroups ?
***********************************************************

homepage at <http://www.icons.net/~horton/BayView.html>

***********************************************************

In article <4sp5dk$mia@galileo.cuug.ab.ca>,
Scott Barker <scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:38:42 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
>> Let's use your analogy and see what happens:

>You missed my point completely. I was not trying to defend the banned
>groups. I was pointing out that there are several *other* groups which should
>also be banned based on their name. Those other groups were *not* banned, so
>iSTAR is just full of shit.

If iStar wasn't carrying them in the first place, they wouldn't need to
ban them.  What makes you think iStar carries these groups that you're
thinking of.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

In article <4sqqvf$kv@ns1.vrx.net>, richard@news.vrx.net (Richard J.
Sexton) wrote:

> Directly or indirectly ? Just curious.
> 

If your question stems from the opinions expressed here,
an even better question might be:

Who does Bob Allisat work for?  B-)

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

scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:38:42 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
>> Let's use your analogy and see what happens:
>
>You missed my point completely. I was not trying to defend the banned
>groups. I was pointing out that there are several *other* groups which should
>also be banned based on their name. Those other groups were *not* banned, so
>iSTAR is just full of shit. I agree completely with your extension of my
>analogy, and if iSTAR were really serious about protecting their butts, they
>should have banned many more newsgroups than they did. Instead, they caved in
>to some moron of a lawyer's play for political points.

Ok- one more time. 

You have already admitted that removing newsgroups in some cases
is a valid defense to the problem.

Therefore iStar does a risk analysis of the law, their newsgroups,
and current political climates. They decide to remove some newsgroups.

We have already established that removal can be a valid defense.

It would seem that their restraint is in your favor since you oppose
the removal in the first place.

You have now decided that they should have removed more newsgroups
if they were being sincere, not having any access to the facts or
opinions that iStar had. You have been claiming all along that
removing the newsgroups is not a defense. It has been shown that it
is. Your current argument is that they didn't go far enough. That is a

new issue.

Lowering their risk is a matter of removing the high risk groups,
it doesn't necessarily mean to remove ALL risk. Without access
to their files and attorneys you can only speculate about their
motives and with no way to determine how accurate those
speculations are they will remain speculations.

horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:21:07 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
>Goldmacher) wrote:
>
>> By the way, obscenity is well defined judicially.
>
>How can obscenity ever be defined in a way that is more than relative
>and subject to personal interpretation and local 'community
>standards'.  Would Canada 40 years ago have used the same definition
>as is used now? Will they in 40 years form now.  It is clearly a
>relative thing, and subject to personal interpretation (and therefore
>abuse).  
>
>Are not the 'nude beaches' in BC considered obscene in some (many ?)
>parts of Canada, and are illegal (even if the statute used to prohibit
>them is not defined as 'obscenity' the intent is the same).  This is a
>key point in discussing censorship, there is always the assumption
>that obscenity can be impartially defined, but a lot of cases would
>seem to indicate it's judgement and local 'community standards', and
>simple prudishness in some cases.

I think it would be safe to say that *some* forms of obscenity are
well defined such as kiddie porn and beastiality. 

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 01:37:26 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
> You have already admitted that removing newsgroups in some cases
> is a valid defense to the problem.

Actually, I didn't "admit" any such thing. All I admitted was that it's
iSTAR's right to do what they please with their servers.

> Therefore iStar does a risk analysis of the law, their newsgroups,
> and current political climates. They decide to remove some newsgroups.

Exactly, couldn't have put it better. It was a politically motivated move.

> It would seem that their restraint is in your favor since you oppose
> the removal in the first place.

Actually, I oppose two things:

1) censorship of any kind
2) iSTAR's feeble attempt to justifiy a political move behind "legal"
   motivations.

> You have now decided that they should have removed more newsgroups
> if they were being sincere, not having any access to the facts or
> opinions that iStar had. You have been claiming all along that
> removing the newsgroups is not a defense. It has been shown that it
> is. Your current argument is that they didn't go far enough. That is a
> new issue.

Uh, I haven't been claiming anything all along. I just stepped into this
thread...

> Lowering their risk is a matter of removing the high risk groups,
> it doesn't necessarily mean to remove ALL risk. Without access
> to their files and attorneys you can only speculate about their
> motives and with no way to determine how accurate those
> speculations are they will remain speculations.

Actually, the only thing I speculated on was that iSTAR isn't going to be a
leader in any anti-censorship movements. I think that speculation is probably
about as close to fact as one can get, given their actions.

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 3 days. If you don't   ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail. ]
[ Unsolicited commercial and junk e-mail will be proof-read for US$100 ]

"The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as
   men, but that we will meanwhile agree to meet them halfway."
   - Bernard Avishai

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:14:39 GMT, Chris Lewis (clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca) wrote:
> If iStar wasn't carrying them in the first place, they wouldn't need to
> ban them.  What makes you think iStar carries these groups that you're
> thinking of.

Because our site's news comes in via iSTAR, and we most definitely are
receiving the mentioned groups (I should know, since I'm the news admin at our
site).

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 3 days. If you don't   ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail. ]
[ Unsolicited commercial and junk e-mail will be proof-read for US$100 ]

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -; I took the one less traveled by; And
   that has made all the difference."
   - Robert Frost

Directly or indirectly ? Just curious.

-- 

Richard J. Sexton     |  VRx Network Services - WWW & UseNet R&D 
richard@vrx.net       |  ISDN/ATM, Natural science, recycled karma.
                      |  ANTIQUE WRISTWATCHES:  HTTP://WWW.FINERTIMES.COM

In article <satchell-2107961314220001@ppp66.accutek.com>,
satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) wrote:

> Time to buy a clue, Mr. Mackie.  The *proper* analogy would be that the
> drug dealer stopped selling heroin, crack, weed, and hash, but continues
> to sell Herbal Ecstesy.


It's always nice to see some asshole like you bash another's meaningful
post with nothing better to say than "Time to buy a clue".

Get a clue yourself, squashbrains, and stop picking on others.

-- 

Azzy <azzy@io.com>                                \\|//
                                                  (^ ^)
===============================================ooO=(_)=Ooo====
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test 
 a man's character, give him power."      -- Abraham Lincoln

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:48:59 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
> Ok- I'll rephrase- you admitted that having newsgroups that are
> specifically designed to carry illegal materials makes prosecution
> easier. 

I think you have me confused with someone else.

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 3 days. If you don't   ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail. ]
[ Unsolicited commercial and junk e-mail will be proof-read for US$100 ]

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
   in trying to adapt the world to himself.  Therefore all progress depends on
   the unreasonable man."
   - George Bernard Shaw

satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) wrote:
>I dunno how it works in Canada, but in the United States a judge (and a
>jury, for that matter) will accept a good-faith act in an attempt to abide
>by the law in a very positive light.  So by showing that they tried to
>obey the law by getting rid of those newsgroups that on their face contain
>illegal content, they can ride through any complaint without the water
>ever getting above the legal Plimsoll line.
A drug dealer stops selling heroin and crack, but still sells weed and
hash.  The courts would definitely commend them for trying to be more
legal.  Almost legal does not cut it.  Ban everything or nothing.
>That's good business strategy.
>-- 
>Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
>http://www.accutek.com/~satchell
>Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim -- George Santayana
--
Andrew Mackie,
mackbig@inforamp.net (not for long)
going to Interlog. Thank you Istar, for destroying
the best ISP in Toronto.(service,shell,censorship)Inforamp since'94.

scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 01:37:26 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
>> You have already admitted that removing newsgroups in some cases
>> is a valid defense to the problem.
>
>Actually, I didn't "admit" any such thing. All I admitted was that it's
>iSTAR's right to do what they please with their servers.

Ok- I'll rephrase- you admitted that having newsgroups that are
specifically designed to carry illegal materials makes prosecution
easier. 
>
>> Therefore iStar does a risk analysis of the law, their newsgroups,
>> and current political climates. They decide to remove some newsgroups.
>
>Exactly, couldn't have put it better. It was a politically motivated move.

Law enforcement is always sensitive to political climates. The
decision to prosecute is made by a district attorney or county
attorney (in the US, I assume a similar function exists in Canada)
who is either appointed or elected. Political motivations will never
go away entirely. Deciding that prosecution risks are increased during
times of public awareness of things like child pornography is common
sense.



>

In article <31f2624e.411715@news.inforamp.net>, mackbig@inforamp.net
(Andrew Mackie) wrote:

> satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) wrote:
> >I dunno how it works in Canada, but in the United States a judge (and a
> >jury, for that matter) will accept a good-faith act in an attempt to abide
> >by the law in a very positive light.  So by showing that they tried to
> >obey the law by getting rid of those newsgroups that on their face contain
> >illegal content, they can ride through any complaint without the water
> >ever getting above the legal Plimsoll line.

> A drug dealer stops selling heroin and crack, but still sells weed and
> hash.  The courts would definitely commend them for trying to be more
> legal.  Almost legal does not cut it.  Ban everything or nothing.

Time to buy a clue, Mr. Mackie.  The *proper* analogy would be that the
drug dealer stopped selling heroin, crack, weed, and hash, but continues
to sell Herbal Ecstesy.
-- 
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
http://www.accutek.com/~satchell
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim -- George Santayana

In article <satchell-2107961314220001@ppp66.accutek.com>,
satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) wrote:

> In article <31f2624e.411715@news.inforamp.net>, mackbig@inforamp.net
> (Andrew Mackie) wrote:
> 
> > A drug dealer stops selling heroin and crack, but still sells weed and
> > hash.  The courts would definitely commend them for trying to be more
> > legal.  Almost legal does not cut it.  Ban everything or nothing.
> 
> Time to buy a clue, Mr. Mackie.  The *proper* analogy would be that the
> drug dealer stopped selling heroin, crack, weed, and hash, but continues
> to sell Herbal Ecstesy.
> -- 

Amusing.  But I think a closer analogy would be:  the drug dealer stops
selling out the front door, but there's so much leaking out the side door,
windows, chimney etc. that the junkies still hang around.  They just have 
to look a little harder, or go to any other crack house on the street where
the front door is still wide open.

Non-junkies just don't bother stopping by.

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

rgd@inforamp.net (Bob Daniel) wrote:


>
>Amusing.  But I think a closer analogy would be:  the drug dealer stops
>selling out the front door, but there's so much leaking out the side door,
>windows, chimney etc. that the junkies still hang around.  They just have 
>to look a little harder, or go to any other crack house on the street where
>the front door is still wide open.

And right there you have the basic answer in your grasp. 
They stop selling and the junkies go to another house on
the same street. Which means that the dealer cannot be 
convicted of selling drugs when the sale is made next door.
Therefore the dealer has lowered his risk.

Se how easy it is?

scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:48:59 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
>> Ok- I'll rephrase- you admitted that having newsgroups that are
>> specifically designed to carry illegal materials makes prosecution
>> easier. 
>
>I think you have me confused with someone else.

Let's see, I posted an extension to your analogy explaining exactly
why banning certain newsgroups lessened risk. You posted the
following:

> I agree completely with your extension of my analogy,

Nope- I don't think I have the wrong person...;-)

richard@news.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) wrote:

>Directly or indirectly ? Just curious.

For the record, I don't work for any internet service provider.  The
opinions I've expressed in this thread have not always been consistant
with my personal values, but I've posted them because they illuminate
the current state of the law.  If I had been retained by iSTAR I would
have advised the removal of the suspect newsgroups to minimize their
exposure to criminal prosecution.  On the other hand, if I were in
iSTAR's shoes I may not have removed the groups at all.

Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor

In article <31f2e9fe.6338427@news.skypoint.com>, jmanso19@skypoint.com
(Jim Manson) wrote:

> rgd@inforamp.net (Bob Daniel) wrote:
> >
> >Amusing.  But I think a closer analogy would be:  the drug dealer stops
> >selling out the front door, but there's so much leaking out the side door,
> >windows, chimney etc. that the junkies still hang around.  They just have 
> >to look a little harder, or go to any other crack house on the street where
> >the front door is still wide open.
> 
> And right there you have the basic answer in your grasp. 
> They stop selling and the junkies go to another house on
> the same street. Which means that the dealer cannot be 
> convicted of selling drugs when the sale is made next door.
> Therefore the dealer has lowered his risk.
> 
Absolutely.  No argument.  But the dealer may not be in business
much longer if all the junkies go up the street.

Could we possible stretch this analogy a little further?
You know what they say, a discussion without an analogy is
like a fish without a bicycle.  Or something....

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

In article <4ss9md$4ok@galileo.cuug.ab.ca>,
Scott Barker <scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:14:39 GMT, Chris Lewis (clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca) wrote:
>> If iStar wasn't carrying them in the first place, they wouldn't need to
>> ban them.  What makes you think iStar carries these groups that you're
>> thinking of.
>
>Because our site's news comes in via iSTAR, and we most definitely are
>receiving the mentioned groups (I should know, since I'm the news admin at our
>site).

Is iStar your only feed?

And, if there really are articles in those groups, are they cross-posted to
other less flagrantly named groups?

iStar could be passing articles in those groups through to you without the
groups existing (via the junk group, or crossposting), or the articles being
visible to their users.  They may not even have noticed.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 03:38:36 GMT, Chris Lewis (clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca) wrote:
> Is iStar your only feed?

Yes (via Enernet).

> And, if there really are articles in those groups, are they cross-posted to
> other less flagrantly named groups?

No. (BTW, we're not talking about the iSTAR-banned groups, but other groups
which should also have been banned, based on iSTAR's reasoning).

> iStar could be passing articles in those groups through to you without the
> groups existing (via the junk group, or crossposting), or the articles being
> visible to their users.  They may not even have noticed.

True...

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 3 days. If you don't   ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail. ]
[ Unsolicited commercial and junk e-mail will be proof-read for US$100 ]

"A layman knows he has to kick it.; An amateur knows where to kick it.; A
   professional knows how hard."
   - ???

In article <4t0576$qu@news.interlog.com>,
Morton Goldmacher <alchemy@interlog.com> wrote:
>richard@news.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) wrote:
>
>>Directly or indirectly ? Just curious.
>
>For the record, I don't work for any internet service provider.  The
>opinions I've expressed in this thread have not always been consistant
>with my personal values, but I've posted them because they illuminate
>the current state of the law.  If I had been retained by iSTAR I would
>have advised the removal of the suspect newsgroups to minimize their
>exposure to criminal prosecution.  On the other hand, if I were in
>iSTAR's shoes I may not have removed the groups at all.

Fair enough. The dumbest thing they did was to put in writing
that they shouldnt tell their customers. This is consistant with
the general disdain they seem to regard users ofthe their
fine (sic) system.

Of course anybody is free to drop and pick up whatever newsgroups
they want, but in drawing attention to a situation thats been
extant for years and years, they're forcing the issue in a
reactive and very unpleasant way.

The *proper* way to drop them is to just drop them, not
tell anybody and if somebody notices (and yeah, like they're
gonna complain they can't get alt.sex.with.kids in *writing*)
is to just say: "uh, we dunno, maybe it's out upstream feed..."

Blaming iStar because they pass a picture of a guy blowing a horse
is like suing Canada Post because they deliver magazines in
brown paper wrappings. The ponit being, you can never tell
whats in a news article, and at god-knows-how-many gigs
a day, it's impossible to tell whats in them any more.

-- 

Richard J. Sexton     |  VRx Network Services - WWW & UseNet R&D 
richard@vrx.net       |  ISDN/ATM, Natural science, recycled karma.
                      |  ANTIQUE WRISTWATCHES:  HTTP://WWW.FINERTIMES.COM

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 22:30:35 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
Goldmacher) wrote:

>
>Mr. Shaw's point regarding changing community standards is irrelevent
>to the discussion of whether obscenity can be well defined. If
>community standards are a measure of obscenity (and it is not) the
>definition of obscenity would be open to change, but that fact alone
>doesn't mean that the standard is undefinable.  

I understand your discussion of whether the particular 'thing' defined
as obscene in Canada can be described well enough for a legal charge
to be enforceable, which is a very different thing than is there any
absolute standard of obscenity that allows a government to write an
unambiguous law in the first place (that is not simply the product of
the states interpretation of 'community standards').

>The statement that community standards are changeable carries the tacit assumption that
>they can be ascertained and applied.
>
>An article is obscene if its content can be proven to be injurious to
>the fabric of society.  

Iran considers not poking fun at people in high places as obscene
enough to issue international death warrants and bounties and require
total banning of a book for something most in Canada would consider a
simple humorous fable.  A simple representational picture of most
anything is 'obscene' by their standards, which totally shapes their
art to something different than Canada's.   I assume their rational is
a similar one to this "injurious to the fabric of society".  

Now in Canada we take a much more reasonable approach, and try to ban
only the really offensive stuff, but the problem is that once started
censorship tends to grow without limit.

>The depiction of explicit sexual conduct is
>never obscene unless it is degrading, dehumanizing or imbued with
>violence.  

Can I show my confusion with this 'definition' with an example ? The
cbc broadcast a movie, made at least partly with government funding,
that shows men pretty obviously (if not graphically) masturbating
under a blanket while a woman does a (very graphic) strip-tease in
front of a rowdy group of prison inmates.  In another scene a women
grants a request to give her panties to a prisoner, so he can sniff
them while watching 'the show'.  Are you suggesting I could take the
cbc to court on this one, certainly this seemed pretty degrading and
dehumanizing but I don't recall them being taken to court.  In fact I
am told they are there to protect us from the sex and violence of
American tv and that is the rational for the government enforcing an
oligopoly in broadcasting in Canada.  How do they define "degrading,
dehumanizing", what do they use to draw the line ?

>By adopting this definition the Supreme Court of Canada
>began to take obscenity out of the realm of being "a relative thing,
>and subject to personal interpretation."  A jury or judge would be
>charged with the responsibilty of deciding whether something is
>obscene, but the law is clear about what makes something obscene. 

It's based on the law and the law is more or less based on the
community standards of the country.  Again I am not talking just about
the interpretation, I am talking about the basis.

>I
>amagine that Mr. Shaw would say "Different juries and judges can and
>will arrive at different conclusions regarding the same stuff", and he
>would be correct about that.  But only because they may see the
>material differently from each other, not because the law is ill
>defined.  In every trial the evidence can support differing
>conclusions and the jury or judge must decide which conclusion they
>have been convinced of.  This indeterminacy is different from the
>inderminacy of a law which is vague or unsettled.

I'm saying a little more than that. I am mainly looking to what basis
the law was created on, and give or take a little personal attention,
or lobbying, the law will reflect community standards.

>
>The difficulty that Mr. Shaw should be concerned with is not that
>obscenity is incapable of being defined, but the uncertainty of
>whether a given image or article falls within the definition. 

I don't like to limit myself, I think that once in awhile the
government may make a mistake.  I think that it is people doing this
that keep Canada fairly free, and if all people ever questioned was
the details of the law's implementation we would soon have a big
problem.

> In R.
>v. Metro News Ltd. a publisher or distributer was charged with
>disseminating obscene porn.  This was in 1986 when the definition
>incorporated community standards.  The defendant argued that he could
>not have known that community standards were offended and therefore he
>did not have the  intent to commit the offense.  The Ontario Court of
>Appeal held that the mistake of not knowing that the material was
>obscene is not a mistake of fact, a valid defense, but a mistake of
>law which is no defense at all.   Metro News Ltd. was convicted.
>>In a police state where the rule of law is non-existant anything can
>be banned or censored.  
>In a religious dictatorship any "anti-god"
>sentiments can be criminalized.  Things are a little different in
>Canada.  It is instructive to read R. v. Trembley, (1993), in which
>the Supreme Court of Canada defines obscenity as it applies to
>indecent performances in a public place.
>

Do you believe there are any limits as to what can be banned in Canada
with our current constitution, other than the limits the government
self-imposes out of reasonableness and community standards that would
ban only the most offensive.

>>Are not the 'nude beaches' in BC considered obscene in some (many ?)
>>parts of Canada, and are illegal (even if the statute used to prohibit
>>them is not defined as 'obscenity' the intent is the same).
>
>The only relevent questions are 1.) are they indecent in the host
>community, and 2.) are they public places (a more complicated question
>than the first)?  It is not relevent whether they may be obscene in
>Cape Breton or anywhere else.
>

You earlier explained that there is no community standards involved,
why is location important now ?

>>  This is a
>>key point in discussing censorship, there is always the assumption
>>that obscenity can be impartially defined, but a lot of cases would
>>seem to indicate it's judgement and local 'community standards', and
>>simple prudishness in some cases.
>
>In a prudish community the standard is lower.  Why shouldn't it be?

I feel there should be some universal standard of freedom from
censorship.

>Incidentally, prohibiting nude bathing is not censorship.  That is why
>"indecency" and "obscenity" have such divergent definitions.
>

While I agree it's certainly a different legal statute, are the two so
different in practical terms when it comes to interviews on the
nightly news? Would the olympics be televised to 240 countries if the
athletes were still required to compete in the nude ? :->

Anyway I realize that the crimes the state says they want to stop are
much more offensive than this, and I also want to say that I do agree
with the vast majority of Canadian community standards, even if I only
vaguely understand how they have been written down in law I agree with
stopping the sorts of crimes discussed in the headlines.  I just
disagree with censorship as a way of enforcing them, it's too
dangerous a tool to give to a government at any time other than
wartime (and they should be held accountable after the war for any
particular censorship act during the war)

***********************************************************

homepage at <http://www.icons.net/~horton/BayView.html>

***********************************************************

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 22:30:41 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
Goldmacher) wrote:

>The newsgroups banned by iSTAR have been listed many times in this
>newsgroup.
>

Sorry but I missed it, and have only seen a partial list, and I even
checked back on dejanews but found no definitive list.  If someone
would please e-mail me one, so as to not clutter the group up, I would
appreciate it.
***********************************************************

homepage at <http://www.icons.net/~horton/BayView.html>

***********************************************************

satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) wrote:
>Time to buy a clue, Mr. Mackie.  The *proper* analogy would be that the
>drug dealer stopped selling heroin, crack, weed, and hash, but continues
>to sell Herbal Ecstesy.
"buy a clue"  What grade are you in?  Grow up. 
>Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
>http://www.accutek.com/~satchell
>Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim -- George Santayana
--
Andrew Mackie,
mackbig@inforamp.net (not for long)
going to Interlog. Thank you Istar, for destroying
the best ISP in Toronto.(service,shell,censorship)Inforamp since'94.

Morton Goldmacher wrote:

> The opinions I've expressed in this thread have not always been consistant
> with my personal values, but I've posted them because they illuminate
> the current state of the law.  If I had been retained by iSTAR I would
> have advised the removal of the suspect newsgroups to minimize their
> exposure to criminal prosecution.  On the other hand, if I were in
> iSTAR's shoes I may not have removed the groups at all.

> Morton M. Goldmacher
> Barrister and Solicitor


Spoken like a true lawyer:
	I'm prepared to argue either side of the case,
	depending on who pays me.

	;-)

>Morton Goldmacher wrote:
>> The opinions I've expressed in this thread have not always been consistant
>> with my personal values, but I've posted them because they illuminate
>> the current state of the law.  If I had been retained by iSTAR I would
>> have advised the removal of the suspect newsgroups to minimize their
>> exposure to criminal prosecution.  On the other hand, if I were in
>> iSTAR's shoes I may not have removed the groups at all.
>
>Spoken like a true lawyer:
>	I'm prepared to argue either side of the case,
>	depending on who pays me.
>	;-)

I believe that what he is saying is that when advising others 
what to do, he is cautious about the risks and tells those people such, 
but when deciding what to do himself he is willing to take more risks and
stand up for his personal principles. He does not advise others what their 
personal principles should be.

Kevin MacTavish
----
Jackman & Associates
196 Adelaide Street West, Suite 200
Toronto, Canada   M4K 1K7
Tel: 416-599-7070
Fax: 416-599-2861