Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!balkan!dogface!zitt!joe From: joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Evidence (was Re: Musing on Constitutionality) Message-ID: <5RT1q1w163w@zitt> Date: 14 Oct 90 07:39:15 GMT References: Organization: The Shekhinah Project, Austin, TX Lines: 33 md3b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Matthew Donald Drown) writes: > jimp@sequent.UUCP (James Pilcher) > wrote: > >While I agree with you that holding sysop responsible for everything would > >be a disaster, you should note that a phone line is SUPPOSED to be private, > >whereas a net is assumed to be public. Bulletin boards have been misused in > >all kinds of ways; should a sysop who runs a board for child molesters > >be free of all responsibility? This has happened, here in Portland, by > >the way. > > In your definition then, if I were to start an alt.child-molester on the > net, then it would be perfectly legal. Damn, I could talk to child > molesters all over the world with no problem, instead of just in the > Portland area. On a raised-hackles note, it seems that the official straw boogie man of conversation about rights (and damned near everything else) nowadays is the "child molester". The term seems to be used in very much the same way that "communist" and "homosexual" and "witch" were used in the not too distant past. While no one doubts that >some< pedophiles exist, the media frenzy about it, and the way that people's rights are getting stepped on (see the recent Harper's article about the bogus preschool accusations and trials, for example) make Operation Sun Devil seem like a round of touch football. Come to think of it, a thoroughly anonymous, possibly moderated alt.child-abuser or similar mailing list might be a good idea; there appear to be relatively few self-help groups for these people, and a properly handled electronic discussion group might be a good idea. -- Joe Zitt ...cs.utexas.edu!kvue!zitt!joe (512)450-1916