Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!milano!mcc-pp!patrick
From: patrick@mcc-pp.UUCP (Patrick McGehearty)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Free speech vs foreign laws
Message-ID: <479@mcc-pp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-May-86 10:44:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcc-pp.479
Posted: Tue May 20 10:44:05 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 01:37:36 EDT
References: <611@bu-cs.UUCP> <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> <20663@styx.UUCP> <1259@mulga.OZ>
Distribution: net
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 32
Summary: Favoring Free speech

In article <1259@mulga.OZ>, isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes:
> let me just say this. 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

To use the Soviet example, if I make comments critical of the Soviet Union
(slandering the State or whatever), I would not expect to be criminally
liable, even if those comments were published and carried into the Soviet
Union.  Whoever did the carrying would be in a different position.

I suggest that any sysadm in a "controlled information" society check the
local laws before assuming that any sort of "voluntary assumption of
guilt clause" will have any significant effect on his/her legal position.
I suspect that if the government in question is inclined to nail someone
for other people's net posting, the voluntary statement made in a foreign
country will be irrelevant to the case.  Rather, the focus will be on
who "allowed" the illegal material to enter the country.  I make this
assumption by analogy with the USA approach to illegal drug importing.

When I say something in my home country, I apply the laws and social
customs where I am to what I say.  When I am a guest in another country,
I (try to the best of my knowledge) to obey the laws of that country.

To conclude: I sympathize with the position of sysadms in societies without
strong free speech traditions, but cannot support such restrictions
on Usenet traffic as proposed.

Patrick McGehearty