🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov20120155@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>   the test is simple - whether it meets the above definition:
>   pictures produced using minors engaged in sexually explicit
>   conduct.

>A picture of a vase might be produced by two minors engaged in
>sexually explicit conduct.  How would we ever know?  :) :)

Now we know why legal language is so bloody awkward ;-)

>   If you saw, say, a picture containing 6 year old having sex with an
>   adult: not only is the material itself illegal, but receiving (and I
>   presume transmitting) such material after you've been warned
>   is also a crime that *you* are committing:

>	 "[The law] requires only knowing receipt of visual depictions
>	 produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

>Knowing that sometimes people post child porn to a.s.p.e is completely
>different from knowing that a picture has actually been posted.

Are you sure about that?  In a country where a large sum of cash is considered
prima-facie evidence of drug dealing, where commercial aircraft can be
impounded because the airline doesn't take drug smuggling seriously enough,
where people who buy gro-lights can get raided, or where the whole stock of
a video store can be confiscated due to a couple of illegal tapes, I'd be
really careful if I were you.

>I never knowingly receive child porn, even if I carried a.s.p.e.  The
>situation is more like getting it in the mail unsolicited and
>unwanted.  Of course I am responsible for action if I notice it or if
>it is brought to my attention, 

This is the minimum responsibility - that is, you are responsible once
you are aware of it.  This is "real" common carrier responsibility.
We don't know yet whether the responsibility extends further.  In the
case of common-carriers, it does not.  And the Compuserve case had
"common-carrier"ish thinking applied, so they were not held responsible.
Whether a USENET site will be thought of in the same way is, as yet,
unknown.  Probably.  But I'd be careful about prodding the beast.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca