🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4s17kj$29u@news.interlog.com>,
Morton Goldmacher <alchemy@interlog.com> wrote:
>sl@whiskey.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) wrote:

>>ISP's every where would welcome guidlines from our legistlators.

>>Simply because if we know what the law says we will follow it and lobby to
>>have it changed if it is too draconian. Unfortunately we are in the position
>>of having a vague suspicion that we might be breaking the law with no 
>>guidelines to follow. 

>The Supreme Court of Canada has been very very clear about what is
>criminally obscene.  In Ontario the law has been tested in R. v.
>Langer where the line between criminal and lawful pornography
>involving children has been somewhat defined.

Agreed.

Recent BBS, video and other cases also provide more precedent about
where the line is drawn.  People shouldn't kid themselves that
the specifics of the medium matter that much.

Anyone who thinks there's no guidelines simply doesn't have the relevant
experience and training.  Whether it be law itself, policy creation and
enforcement or incident response.

>>Kind of like driving down a road with no posted limit. Just signs that 
>>say "caution speed limit enforced by radar" with the local constabulary able 
>>to pull you over for going over whatever they decide is the correct 
>>speed at *that* point in time. Their claim that you are speeding might never
>>hold up in court, but you still waste time and money defending yourself
>>against the prosecution.

>Any criminal or constitutional lawyer will be able to provide a pretty
>reliable opinion on whether something is criminally obscene.  He or
>she will also be able to tell you what the grey area of undetermined
>law constitutes.

Lawyers working in HR-related litigation will also.  Ie: sexual harrassment.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_