Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!killer!pollux!gnu From: gnu@pollux.UUCP (GNU Delevopment Team) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Who defines Net.Porn ? Keywords: porn, underage, lawsuit Message-ID: <12588@pollux.UUCP> Date: 29 Sep 88 11:29:36 GMT References: <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM> <4805@whuts.UUCP> <3498@c3pe.UUCP> <2647@swlabs.UUCP> Reply-To: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) Distribution: na Organization: Department of Electrical Engineering; S.M.U.; Dallas, TX, 75275 Lines: 28 In article <2647@swlabs.UUCP> jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: >In article <3498@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: >>Recent Virginia laws make it a serious offense for a store to sell materials >>that are LATER found to be "obscene". A simple extension of that law >>would be: "Oops, your public access Unix machine has an article, posted >>two weeks ago, that we found to be obscene today. We'll confiscate >>the machine." > >Especially since uunet is in Virginia. If that site was forced to close >at this point, connectivity would be adversely effected, to say the least. Do they actually _confiscate_ and _close_down_ a store or other facility for a "first offence" of this nature, especially when there's no intent to break the law? Surely, this would initially result in just a fine or reprimand. Also, as has been pointed out before, sites like uunet, which do not originate postings, are rather in the position of a common carrier, like the phone company. The phone company is not held liable for Joe Blow making obscene phone calls -- Joe Blow is solely responsible for his calls. Of course, if site XXX continually originates postings which are obscene under some law, sites like UUNET may be forced to deny XXX a net connection. Thus it becomes each site administrator's responsibility to insure that his/her users comply with the law. Wolf Paul wnp@dcs.UUCP dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us