🚀 go-pugleaf

evans@reptiles.org (Tom Evans) writes:

> Of course Bob is not here to counter this decision but I would like to 
> point out that it was the Toronto Freenet who made the article available
> to Bob's newsfeed in the first place. Yes, it was forwarded from an 
> alt.sex...story newsgroup by Bob to can.general, but never the less, the 
> TorFreenet first carried the article on other newsgroups that it offers. Now 
> Bob was naturally not the author so it would appear that there is a raft 
> of worms in this newly opened can of alleged "child pornography. The 
> fictional article depicted three 16 year old children engaging in 
> sexual behaviour, two females and a male. 

I think the argument has always been made that we should not hold ISPs
responsible for knowing the content of every message on every group.
However, should they be aware that one of their users is conducting
some illegal activity, illegal according to the laws as we have them
now, they may be forced to act. The argument has always been made, as
well, that we don't need new laws to govern the net. The laws as
they exist now are adequate. Prosecute the law breakers. Period.
The net is like a printing press. Don't hamper the press becuase
of a few bad eggs.

-- 
If you try to use my email to sell me something, I'll
hunt you down and parody you. This is your first and last
warning!