Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!purdue!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!apple!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Net.Porn ?
Keywords: porn, underage, lawsuit
Message-ID: <517@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 30 Sep 88 17:21:22 GMT
References: <1278@cbnews.ATT.COM> <509@optilink.UUCP> <1957@spdcc.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 46

In article <1957@spdcc.COM>, dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
> 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've actually read bits and pieces of soc.motss in the past, and while
you are correct that Donahue is typically a lot weirder in its sexuality,
and frequently more explicit, TV stations have the resources to fight
lawsuits; how USENET sites would be willing to?  I wouldn't have guessed
that the sexphone services would be fighting lawsuits, but they are.

> 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

In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you -- I used a list of groups 
from a previous posting, and perhaps soc.women was a little overbroad
to include.

Nonetheless, there are a lot of people out there that would be quite
disturbed at the possibility of a teenager, still struggling to decide
their sexuality, being encouraged in the direction of homosexuality
by soc.motss.  You may wish to disagree as whether this is a bad
direction or not, but remember that most people in this country would
consider it a bad direction; consider having the average person on a
jury considering a civil suit against a USENET node.  ("USENET made
my son a homosexual!")

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer
..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer