Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Net.Porn ?
Keywords: porn, underage, lawsuit
Message-ID: <1957@spdcc.COM>
Date: 28 Sep 88 16:48:56 GMT
References: <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM> <509@optilink.UUCP>
Reply-To: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Distribution: na
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 25

In article <509@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>solution: verify the ages of your subscribers, and make sure that
>potentially suit-generating groups (alt.sex, soc.women, soc.motss)
>aren't available to the under-18 set.

God help me for making this comparison, which is only to make a point...

I don't know what Clayton Cramer thinks is discussed in soc.motss,
for I'm sure he'll be the first to proclaim he doesn't read it, but its
discussions are considerably less sexually explicit than early AM TV
talkshows like "Donahue", "Oprah!" or "Sally Jesse Raphael", all of which
are available to the preschool set.  ("Mommy, mommy, what's a wife-swapper?")
The idea that a minor reading soc.motss would be grounds for a lawsuit is
ludicrous.  I hope gay teenagers DO have a chance to read it if they have
access to USENET one way or another.

I don't read soc.women currently, either, but I've never seen anything
there which would indicate that its content should be a concern to minors
other than introducing them to the lowest standards of rudeness and
lack of consideration.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer