🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxBytJ.Epz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>Whatever happened to the 70-column standard in posts?

People with busted software...

>1.  It is not necessarily illegal to distribute "child pornography."  It
>is illegal to do so in the U.S., and probably in Canada, but there are
>other countries connected to USENET.  Do they have to abide by our laws?
>If that's the case, the US section of USENET needs to abide by the laws
>of the other countries on the net...places where the right of free
>expression is not recognized.  Entire subheirarchies of newsgroups would
>have to vanish.

[Illegal in Canada too.]

For some reason it's a common remark that "they have to abide by
our laws", or "we have to abide by theirs".  No.  You only have
to abide by your *own*.  Period.  Where news goes across jurisdictional
boundaries, it is up to the receiving side of the link (hopefully
with the help of the sending side) to enforce whatever local legal
(or whatever else) requirements there are.

Many people who are in a "legal area" worry that they can be charged
somehow by the country where the material is illegal.  This is almost
entirely false.  The only laws you have to answer to are the ones
in your own country.  Other countries do not, legally, have any
jurisdiction over you, and cannot come and arrest you.  They cannot
even ask your police to arrest you unless an extradition request
is made.  And there's no way that an extradition request will
be granted for a "crime" that isn't illegal in your country, and
only very rarely for a "crime" that was illegal in your country
*and* committed in your country rather than the country requesting
extradition.

[Somebody's going to jump in with US kidnappings of foreign
nationals in other countries.  Yes, I know about that.  Have
patience... ;-)]

Example: there's no way that I could be extradited to another
country for posting something that's legal in my country.
It's also *very* unlikely that I could be extradited to another
country for posting something that's illegal in my country too -
my country is going to want to take the wack at me.

The only people subject to charges are the people *within*
the area where the material is illegal.

[I should point out that there are exceptions.  If you piss off
an Ayatollah (eg: Salmon Rushdie), or the US government (amongst
a few other western and many other governments), all bets are
off.]

If you're in a "legal area" for the material in question, the only
thing that you *should* do is keep your postings in the proper
groups so that people who don't want to carry the material will
be able to block the groups and have a reasonable expectation that
they'll stop most of the material.

This is only reasonable, for there are many reasons aside from
"censorship" or "legality" that a site may choose not to receive
a particular group.  Ie: sheer volume, disinterest, budget/bandwidth
restrictions.  People would get equally pissed off at me if I
sent out megabytes of GIFs daily of my pets into news.admin.

>2.  Pictures of nude or partially nude children does not necessarily
>constitute "child pornography" (US legal definition notwithstanding).
>A picture of a nude is not necessarily erotic -- it is frequently art.
>I personally do not get turned on by the image of a naked person.  Such
>pictures are nice to look at, if only because the human figure is
>beautiful.  There is nothing inherently "dirty" about the human form,
>regardless of the model's age.  So long as everyone involved consents,
>there should be no problem.

I entirely agree.  And so, largely, does the US Supreme Court.  They
have ruled on several occasions that there are some "obscenities"
that aren't protected by the 1st amendment.  Contrary to Taz, however,
they have also ruled that the context of the material is irrelevant,
that the material itself must be intrinsically "obscene".  Now, of course,
I'm (and they too are) using the subjective term "obscene".  Which
means many things to many people.  The Supreme Court is, at the present
time, defining it as something that, in itself (regardless of context),
*will* (not might) lead to significant (not trivial) harm.  This
also happens to be the situation in Canada too, but the dividing lines
aren't necessarily in exactly the same place.

[References?  Ask Carl Kadie, he's got 'em all.  He just tends to
exaggerate when he tries to describe 'em in his own words.]

And no, I don't consider simple nude pictures of children to be
obscene.

However, obscenity isn't really the point.  The laws against
"child pornography" hinge almost entirely around "consent".
And since a minor can't legally give consent for anything,
*any* nude picture of a child *could* get you into legal trouble.
Though, a DA isn't likely to charge based on anything in a family
album.  But it *has* happened.

[While many people may argue that the age 16 or 18 is ludicrous
as the dividing line, what about a 3 or 6 year old?  That's what the
true pederasts are after anyways.  I should also point out that
carrying nude (but not obscene) pictures of adults without their
consent can get you in serious trouble as well.  That's what they
used to go after Hugh Hefner with.]

>If you are concerned about the legal ramifications of carrying the abpe
>groups, then perhaps you should consider dropping that service.  It is
>one of the reasons that those groups are not carried at some sites.

And then the other group comes out of the woodwork waving library
codes of ethics denouncing censorship and insisting that all
publically funded sites *must* carry everything.  You can't win.

>While your fears about legal action are understandable, there is some
>question whether or not the legal system can make a case against you
>because of the contents of one of the newsgroups you carry.  This is
>one of the current issues being considered about electronic media in
>government, computer privacy, and legal circles.

A lot of that discussion hinges about whether USENET is a "common carrier"
or not.  Common carriers aren't liable for material that they carry.  Except....
Once a common carrier finds out that illegal material is being carried,
they do become liable if they don't do anything about it.  If a site
doesn't do something about known clearly illegal material, it can be considered
criminal negligence or even being an accessory to a crime.  There's
plenty of precedent for that.

Ie: once a site knows that illegal material is being carried, it doesn't
matter whether they're legally a common carrier or not, they're just
as liable.  Just as liable as, say, the BBSs that have been confiscated
and owners fined or imprisoned due to such things as calling card numbers
being present on their machines.  Or airlines who've had airplanes
impounded because they didn't take drug smuggling occuring on their
aircraft seriously enough.  US law in this regard can be *very*
draconian (ie: possession of large amounts of cash is considered ipso-facto
evidence of drug dealing, and it can be confiscated without hearing).

>|Something must be done, and it must be done fast, or we will risk getting 
>|a LOT of people in unnecessary trouble.  Imagine the circus the media will 
>|have when a UNIVERSITY gets in trouble for distributing child pornography?

>The media in the US and Canada has had a field day from time to time
>regarding just what comes over USENET.  The net lives on.

This is rather like saying that murder is okay because the human race
lives on.

Taz does have a point buried in all his childish ranting, puffing and
blowing.  This material very well could cause lots of people trouble.
The net lives on the sufferance of lots of people.  On governments,
employers, funders etc.   The police may never even think about charging
anybody, but a major media circus will still cause sites to drop of the
net, have SAs called to task by machine owners, feeds being cut off,
funding being yanked.  All sorts of unpleasant things.  It's happened
before, and I think that *real* child pornography being broadcast
over a.b.p.e could result in a much bigger circus than we've seen
to date, and result in many sites dropping out or feeds being curtailed.

After all, the U of M episode led to a letter from the Ontario
Government circulating a memo to Ontario Universities recommending that
a.b.p.e being dropped *only* because they had the mistaken impression
that the material was being "forced on people".  A media circus about
child pornography (by definition, a photograph means child abuse)
will lead to a memo demanding that a.b.p.e get cut off and maybe
even threats about funding curtailment or other disciplinary action.

I'm not sure what the answer is - you're right, making them unwelcome
in a.b.p.e will probably just make them appear elsewhere less predictably.
On the other hand, I'm sure that many sites would like to see something
done so that they can "refuse to operate beyond the law", and shown to
be responsible individuals when (not if) called to task.

One way is Elizabeth's - we treat this just like pyramid schemes or
other forms of fraud, or unsolicited email advertising.  You send mail
to the originator and his SA pointing out that such material is clearly
illegal, and escalate to feed sites if necessary.

Another way is to create an a.b.p.e.kids (or some such) so that
there's a clearly obvious place for it.  Then those sites that
choose not to operate outside the law can block it.  Though,
this is rather unlikely to be effective - so few sites would likely
carry it, that potential posters to it would know that posting to it
don't go anywhere.
-- 
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