From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: Re: The FBI takes a trip to Cornell...
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:00:10 GMT

In article <9211202036.AA12053@crocus.cit.cornell.edu> escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer) writes:
>
>Here are some thoughts I have on this...
>
>First, I think that the action taken by Cornell regarding Usenet in general
>was refreshingly slight.  It would have been all-too-easy to restrict access
>to the whole alt hierarchy, or even all of Usenet, during the "interim"
>period during which investigations are occurring.

But why should they have shut down a.p.b.e in the first place?  Was the
group responsible for what one (or a few) individuals posted to it?

Would Mr. Lynn have ordered cornell.general (or whatever you have like that)
shut down if these individuals had posted the questionable item(s) there?

Would the university have closed off the Arts Quad if they caught someone
distributing alleged child pornography there?

I think not.  I think that in any of those circumstances, the individuals
would have been addressed, while the forum would have been left alone.

As such, I suspect that the closing down of a.p.b.e. was 99% due to
the erotic content.  And if I were at Cornell, I wouldn't look forward to
having Mr. Lynn re-institute the group anytime too soon.


>Some comments from around campus seem to indicate that the student population
>thinks that such an investigation is "too harsh".  I think that what the
>FBI is concerned about, and rightly so in my view, is the possibility that
>the student, or people connected to the student in some way, were the 
>people behind the camera for the photography.
>
>I think that the charge of _being the one with the scanner_ is much more
>serious that one of just downloading and/or viewing the pictures.  It's
>the difference between "trafficking" or "transporting" and "possessing",
>IMHO.

Well, I'm not going to get into an extended discussion over the pro's and con's
of anti-child-porn laws, but I feel quite sure that downloading and viewing
the pictures would not constitute an illegal act, in many cases.

Lots of people download files based solely upon the (very brief) subject
headings.  One can hardly be held liable for a crime when they downloaded
and viewed an image that they did not know to be "child pornography" a priori.



>Criticisms I have:
>
>> Marjorie W. Hodges J.D. '91, judicial administrator, said her office is
>> pursuing its own investigation.  The student may have violated a Campus
>> Code of Conduct status that forbids "trafficking, for profit or
>> otherwise, in goods and services, when incompatible with the interest
>> of the University and the Cornell community."  She would not comment
>> any further on the case.

Has the CCLU made a public statement regarding this matter?



-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk