Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
From: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: US Senate bill on computer-transmitted obscenity
Message-ID: <636@sigma.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 20:41:07 EST
Article-I.D.: sigma.636
Posted: Thu Mar  6 20:41:07 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 00:23:24 EST
References: <228@bu-cs.UUCP> <279@hadron.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan)
Lines: 18
Keywords: porn, child abuse, network

In article <279@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:
>Reading further into the NoVa/DC Scanner, one sees that the intent
>of this bill is to prescribe specific penalties for use of computers
>and computer networks to describe and trade locations of children
>who are considered usable targets for sexual abuse.
>Does this change anyone's attitude toward this bill? [...]
>[Note that I still haven't read the bill, and so it could be still
>different from what the expanded notice makes of it.]


Does the fact that something _can_ be used for an illicit purpose
automatically mean that it should be repressively regulated? I don't like
the actions that this bill is intended to deal with, but I fear that
it will cause the heavy hand of the law to fall on many, many innocents
while leaving the guilty untouched.


--