🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NILS.95Jun19114038@sparrowhawk.dartmouth.edu>, nils@cs.dartmouth.edu (Nils Nieuwejaar) writes:
>
>_What_ they are banning is the least important issue here.
>
>The fundamental issue is that they think they can ban anything at all.

	I understand that. Bear with me because I'm merely playing
	devils advocate.

>You may be in favor of 'banning smut', but how would you feel if they
>decided talk.politics.guns was a likely hangout for militia members,
>and had it banned?

	That's not covered in the bill, is it? The laws that they
	want to apply to Internet are existing laws that cover 
	telephones, television, radio, etc.

>Of course, there are numerous other more pragmatic issues as well.
>First, if I'm an internet provider and somebody in Amsterdam posts
>'smut' on alt.binaries.pictures.misc, when it propagates to my site I
>will become a violator of this new law even though I haven't actually
>done anything.  What do I do?  Scan every single posting that comes in
>to be sure it is clean?  Not bloody likely.

	That's the big question in regards to the bill. No easy
	answer if you're a politician.

>Second, 'obscenity' is determined by 'community standards'.  If I run
>a BBS in California, and somebody from Tennessee dials in, if they
>find something on the BBS that violates TN community standards, I've
>violated the law even if that something isn't 'obscene' in California.

	Are there any current laws that set precedent for this?


 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    Peter R. Cook, Software guru, Republican, Tama, Paiste, and DW user, 
    Animaniacs lover, Pete's Wicked drinker, VAX man, Quantumite, Iron 
    Maiden fan, Blue Steel, PRC Records owner, gun owner, sword collector.
    "The only thing the Democrats have to offer is fear itself" - D. Armey