Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site mit-eddie.MIT.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Towards making hosts and their admin free from a criminal offence
Message-ID: <2026@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20-May-86 07:37:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2026
Posted: Tue May 20 07:37:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 06:24:05 EDT
References: <611@bu-cs.UUCP> <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> <20663@styx.UUCP> <1259@mulga.OZ>
Reply-To: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 91
Xref: watmath net.news:4875 net.politics:16202 net.legal:3478
Summary: What laws apply where and to whom, and what it means to Usenet

In article <1259@mulga.OZ> isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes:
>[...] The facts are: 
>(1)	You CAN say what you want.
>(2)	It MIGHT be illegal in some other country
>(3)	Is it you or "usenet" or the system admin or whoever who is the
>	vehicle for the illegal publication of your material?
>(4)	If it is NOT you who is responsible, why should anyone else be?
>Please address this issue and not America Vs the_rest_of_the_world

First off, I've added some newsgroups which are appropriate for the
discussion.

Usenet, as it exists, is a medium for the free exchange of ideas.  If
this is not compatible with the laws of another country, it should not
be distributed there.  Neither individual posters (in other countries)
nor Usenet in general (whatever that means) are in violation of any
foreign law for publishing these ideas.

It is quite obvious to me that no country (other than, perhaps, the
United States) has the right to legislate what I may or may not post
on an MIT machine, nor what MIT machines may or may not send to other
machines at MIT or elsewhere in the United States.

Having accepted this (and I don't believe any postings have disputed
it), we can look at the parties who _possibly_ could be in violation
of some foreign (say French) law.

1) French posters for violating laws about what may or may not be
communicated, in the electronic or by print media (which, if either
apply to Usenet is not clear).

2) French system administrators and/or owners, for providing equipment
to aid those breaking laws in (1), or for breaking laws limiting the
publication of certain forms of information and/or expression.
Additionally they may be violating laws similarly restricting
distribution.

3) Owners/sysadmin of sites in France which import and/or export
information and/or forms of expression which are restricted for import
and export.

4) (Questionable) Owners/aministrators of sites in other contries
which distribute to sites in France, for breaking laws similar to
those in (3)

Several conclusions may be drawn from this:

1) That the average Usenet contributor, reader, or system
owner/administrator is in no way affected by laws other than those
applicable in their place of residence, place of work, and the site(s)
of machine(s) they communicate with are located.

2) That Usenet readers, contributors, and/or system owners/administrators
in coutries which have laws similar to those described above may be
limited in what they may read, post, maintain on their machine, allow
readers to read, and/or redistribute.

3) That the existance of laws similar to those described above,
applied as described in (2) may make the existance of a system like
Usenet impractical in certain countries.  Note that laws being
considered in this country could have similar effects.

4) That by my interpretation, there is very little difference between
these issues as applied to Usenet are not significantly different from
the same issues as applied to other media.  Example: Pornographic
materials imported by Japan are "edited," (at least they used to be,
I'm not sure any more) but in no sense does this mean that Japan ('s
goverment) has any authority over the publishers of this material nor
does it mean that these publishers are violating any Japanese laws
which may prohibit publishing exactly what they are publishing.

That (3) is not desirable is, I think, not disputed.  What is disputed
is how it can be avoided and/or corrected.

I am strongly of the belief that it is for the citizens of a country
to avoid and/or correct.  I do not want to see Usenet become sanitized
medium, reduced to some common level acceptable to even the most
restrictive laws.  I also do not believe that this could be done.  The
ability of readers to freely post articles goes beyond what some
governments are willing to permit.

In summary, I sympathize with users in countries where local laws may
prohibit communication of the form Usenet provides, but must
respectfully tell them it is their (or if similar laws are passed
here, our) problem.

Sorry for the length.  I hope the content is thoughtful enough to
justify it.

Jeff Siegal