🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov16.163545.5382@nntp.nta.no> styri@nta.no writes:
>> It would make sense for Usenet and similar entities to be common carriers,
>> but nothing short of a court decision would establish that.
>
>Why should all services on Usenet and similar entities be common carriers?
>Email - sure. Moderated newsgroups or mail distribution lists - not. Routing
>a message is one thing, storing a message for public access is another.

You've covered two cases -- ordinary mail, and moderated groups/lists --
but not the interesting one, unmoderated groups/lists.  Common carriers are
often *not* free to carry illegal traffic once they know it exists (indeed,
such traffic is usually sufficient grounds for them to discontinue service
to you).  Moderators would (probably) remain responsible for their postings
even if the network involved was formally a common carrier.  It's the
unmoderated groups whose legal status is very unclear.

The question is not whether a network can ignore illegal traffic when it's
brought to their attention, but whether they are responsible for it even
if they weren't aware of it.  Publishers are; they can't get out of (say) an
obscenity charge just by claiming that they didn't know what their staff
was doing.  They are legally obliged to pay attention and make sure that
they publish no illegal material.  Common carriers typically must act on
illegal traffic when they become aware of it, but are not responsible for
seeking it out.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry