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