🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Shaun" == Shaun Foy <sfoy@zoology.ubc.ca> writes:

    Shaun> It is true that you could post an illegal picture to
    Shaun> any newsgroup and the ISP would unknowingly distribute
    Shaun> that picture. The important point, here, is that the
    Shaun> ISP did not knowingly distribute the material. The
    Shaun> same can't be said for ISPs that distribute
    Shaun> alt.*.*.child-pornography/pedophilia.  Those
    Shaun> newsgroups, obviously, aren't intended to discuss
    Shaun> gardening practices in urban settings.

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.

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.
-- 
Fred G. Athearn        fga@sover.net        http://www.sover.net/~fga
Rockingham, VT, USA    finger for pgp key   (802) 869-2003