🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ws7ms6wkgx.fsf@granite.sover.net>, Fred G. Athearn
<fga@sover.net> wrote:
> 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.  
> 
> 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.

Some ISPs will make a moral statement by not subscribing to certain
newsgroups, but that would be done as part of the charter of the ISP.  For
example, I would suspect that the "Christian Science Reading Room ISP"
would refuse to carry alt.sex.erotica.* as a matter of stated policy, and
any person who signed up with them should be told that up front.

In the case of a "neutral" ISP who is in the business only for the money,
it's *work* to remove certain newsgroups and also to monitor newgroup
control messages to prevent certain types of groups from being
established.  So to assume that the lawyers *aren't* forcing this is
something like assuming the moon is made of green cheese -- no amount of
wishing will change the facts.

Not well considered?  No joke!  But when did government, any government,
ever make well-considered changes of this nature.  It's ALL knee-jerk
reaction.
-- 
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
http://www.accutek.com/~satchell
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim -- George Santayana