🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: torfree.general
Article #144

Re: LAWYER AS LAWMAKER COP JUDGE & JURY

#144
From: Stuart Lynne
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 00:00
50 lines
3543 bytes
In article <DuCMt7.AFF@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>,
Chris Lewis <clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>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.
>
>>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.

I'm not aware that there are any precedants with respect to Usenet. I.e. who
is responsible for postings in alt.sex.pictures.kids. The poster who may or
may not be in Canada or the ISP who has it on his server. What if the porn
isn't in alt.sex.pictures.kids but has been posted to alt.something.else
or rec.photography or news.news or?

What are the guidelines? Is the ISP responsible for kiddie porn in any or
all of the above situations? If none then Istar and others have gone
overboard. If all then every ISP in Canada should turn their news machines
off immediately because there *is* kiddiel porn flowing in news groups that
will not be caught by cursory inspection of the name space.

>>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.

But can they tell me if I'm responsible for it if *I* didn't post it when 
it just sitting on a machine I administer?


-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com>      604-933-1000      <http://www.wimsey.com>
PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00  88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68
Technical Details
Message-ID: <4s536u$2km@wolfe.wimsey.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <31db3548.17224920@nnrp.tor.hookup.net> <4rvr0i$e2j@wolfe.wimsey.com> <4s17kj$29u@news.interlog.com> <DuCMt7.AFF@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 106cdd,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid106cdd,public
X-Google-Thread: fc3d0,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc3d0,public
X-Google-Thread: 114af9,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid114af9,public
X-Google-Thread: 103731,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103731,public
X-Google-Thread: fb1ea,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb1ea,public
X-Google-Thread: 1083bf,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid1083bf,public
X-Google-Thread: 10aaae,f8bab2bf5ee053cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid10aaae,public
X-Google-Thread: 10643c,90d13f7a863f087a
X-Google-Attributes: gid10643c,public
From: sl@whiskey.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: LAWYER AS LAWMAKER COP JUDGE & JURY
Date: 1996/07/12
Message-ID: <4s536u$2km@wolfe.wimsey.com>
X-Deja-AN: 167952612
distribution: inet
references: <31db3548.17224920@nnrp.tor.hookup.net> <4rvr0i$e2j@wolfe.wimsey.com> <4s17kj$29u@news.interlog.com> <DuCMt7.AFF@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>
organization: Regex
newsgroups: torfree.general,tor.general,mtl.general,van.general,ont.general,bc.general,can.infohighway,can.legal,can.general,soc.culture.usenet,alt.news.media,soc.culture.canada,io.general,eye.general,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.cpsr.talk