From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:34:06 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

Note that the original posting was posted to news.sysadmin, and I'm following
it up back to news.admin.policy.  News.sysadmin is defunct, but because its
replacement is moderated, and some systems are aliasing news.sa
to n.a.technical with B news, the moderator is being bombarded with bounces
by all of the B news sites that see it in n.a.technical.

DO NOT alias news.sysadmin to n.a.technical!

[Aliasing news.admin to n.a.misc is okay, because n.a.m isn't moderated.]

In article <1992Nov17.221810.7621@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <613@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

>>There are two issues here: child pornography (on which I seem to agree
>>with you), and culpability/responsibility of systems carrying articles
>>which are known to be illegal.  If you try arguing issue A and the other
>>guy is talking issue B your points will just be going right by each
>>other :)  For many news admins on the net, the second issue is the
>>most important, since it bears directly upon their responsibility (or
>>lack thereof) for such things found on their systems.

>   In the strict legal sense, you don't know anything is child-porn until it
>has been ruled as such. The same goes for obscenity.

Far too many people are getting hung up on the term "porn" in child-porn.
"Child-porn" is merely a shorthand term for what the law covers.  The
law isn't defined as "pornography involving children".  Or "obscenity
involving children".  The law is defined, in the US at least, as:

      ".... visual depictions
      produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
      See 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2); United States v. Moncini, 882 F.2d
      401, 404-406 (CA9 1989)."

[Thanks Carl]

This is a much more objective and technical definition than "pornographic" or
"obscene".  No community standards, artistic merit, etc apply.  The definition
is sufficiently clear that only in the most marginal of cases would a court
ruling be anything but pro-forma.  In those cases, the test is simple - whether
it meets the above definition:  pictures produced using minors engaged
in sexually explicit conduct.  Simple.

*Not* whether:
	- it had artistic merit
	- it was within community standards
	- it was unreasonable censorship - remember the issue is
	  child abuse, *not* pornography.
	- viewing the pictures could cause harm to society

>   So a sysadmin doesn't "know" that anything in a.b.p.e is illegal.

On the contrary, given the above legal definition, a SA will usually
have no trouble knowing whether a specific picture is illegal.  If,
for example, you see a picture going by that shows a minor having
sex with anyone or anything, it is illegal, period.  Simple.

>   So the question as I see it is not on of keeping child-porn off the net, but
>rather will you as a sysadmin cut services valued by your users because 
>someone claims that some of it _might_ be illegal. I think not.

The definition is simple and objective, leaving little room for
semantic quibbling.

If you saw, say, a picture containing 6 year old having sex with an
adult: not only is the material itself illegal, but receiving (and I
presume transmitting) such material after you've been warned
is also a crime that *you* are committing:

      "[The law] requires only knowing receipt of visual depictions
      produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

[inserted missing phrases from beginning of previous quote]

It's worth noting, in a similar vein, the suit against Compuserve
that Carl also quoted elsewhere.  The court did appear to treat
Compuserve rather "common carrier"ish, in that they didn't have the
obligation to screen everything, however, the judgement seems also
to indicate that Compuserve wouldn't have gotten off if they had
known about the material.  (libel/slander in this case)

Just as I've been arguing all along.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy