Xref: utzoo comp.misc:4820 news.groups:7057 news.admin:4565
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!epimass!jbuck
From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: USSR International Computer Club (was: Information on the ICC)
Keywords: illegal activities
Message-ID: <2825@epimass.EPI.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 89 20:15:16 GMT
References: <825@afit-ab.arpa> <24302@apple.Apple.COM> <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> <5735@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2421@cuuxb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 63

In article <2421@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes:
>My comment was in reference to several things.  It is illegal to
>allow persons under 18 access to "pornography".  Hence, per se,
>alt.sex is "illegal" if a person under 18 has access.  Datum: how
>many University undergraduates are under 18?  How many university
>machines that support the undergraduate comp sci 1A have alt.sex?

There is a missing assumption which you're making, but not stating,
to make your argument consistent.  That is, you must also assert that
alt.sex is "pornography" -- this has a much more restrictive definition
than "obscenity".

>The US of A has laws prohibiting "pornography" involving
>"children" under 18.  This has been construed [in one case] to
>include a father taking the picture of his 18 month old child in
>the nude.  Hence, if an article on alt.sex talks about two
>teenagers boinking that can be construed to be illegal per se.

Another "undistributed middle".  The first point discusses an action
(taking a picture) though the decision in question was bogus.  The
second point refers to speech.  What's this "hence" business.  What do
your first two sentences have to do with the third?

>Also, some states consider various explicit descriptions
>"illegal".  Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding
>importation of "obscene material".  In this sense alt.sex could
>be so considered.

Well, maybe.  That's why it's an alt group.  Sites are expected to
choose, individually, which alt groups they will accept and pass.
If alt.sex is a problem in country X, it is up to news sites in country
X not to import it.

>Some countries have laws that prohibit encyphered communications.
>Technically rot13 is a cipher.

Oh, foo.  The prohibitions refer to attempts to prevent the government
spooks from reading messages if they wish.  Rot13 messages essentially
come with documentation about how to read the messages.  They aren't
in violation of rules like this, except in the sense that ASCII text is
a violation (guess what: ASCII is a code.  rot13 is a code in the exact
same sense -- it just gives the characters different names).

>Of course, none of the above has ever met a recent court
>challenge and "Free Speech" considerations are very much
>involved.  The point is that only one crusading States Attorney
>or southren[sic] High Sheriff[sic] is all that is required to
>make a stink.

So we should censor ourselves lest we be censored?  What's the point?
If you don't want a newsgroup on your machine, request that your news
feed not send it to you.

In practice, Usenet as a whole is in legal limbo.  We don't know if it's
a broadcaster or a common carrier, we don't know if it's like speaking or
publishing, we don't know what the rules really are.  (Anyone who thinks
they do know: please refer me to the court decison where it's been
declared officially).
-- 
- Joe Buck	jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck,
		or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites
We must guard against the blind urge to snatch at a quick answer in the form
of a formula.	- Martin Heidigger, "What Is Called Thinking"