🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred G. Athearn (fga@sover.net) wrote:
: Well if, as seems likely, such things will still be distributed
: on usenet whether on not they have those particular news groups
: then the ISP is still "knowingly" distributing the stuff by
: keeping up a usenet feed at all.  For that mater it will still be
: "distributing" even *those* groups as per the store and forward
: usenet system.

If there's illegal content on an IRC channel, what will they do.. remove 
the entire feed to that IRC network if they can't control an individual 
IRC channel?

: You could also make a good case that going after groups with
: names that make clear what the content is will just make these
: things jump around.  Suppose the kiddie porn set latched onto a
: little-used group about gardening practices in urban settings.
: Some victory-garden types might get quite a shock.  

Well, they'll have to ban the gardening newsgroup =)

: I don't think that the lawyers are forcing this and I don't think
: it is any sort of well considered solution.  Some ISP just wants
: to make some sort of a statement.

Bah, of course the lawyer is pushing this... haven't you heard any quotes 
from Margo?

--
+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Lawrence D. Lee               | The debate is heating up, so come join  |
| lalee@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca | us in vrfa.general and vrfa.hot-topics  |
| Full Time CST BCIT (Sept '95) | The topic is censorship and the FreeNet |
| Vancouver FreeNet Volunteer   | so come stick in your point of view.    |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+