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