HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gelly@persoft.com (Brewing Chemist Mitch)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Keywords: peche kriek framboise faro gueuze
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:58:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: persoft.1992Nov10.145843.20613
Organization: Persoft, Inc.

In article <7Ef-qAbEBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>In <BxDtoz.17p@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>In article <nsF-qA2KBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>
>>>      ... because it is a FEDERAL OFFENSE to distribute child 
>>>      pornography over state lines.  This includes distribution by COMPUTERS
>>>      over state lines.
>
>>Well, Taz, old pal.  According to the header of this message, yours is
>>a UUCP site hanging off of infoserv.com.  According to your
>>.signature, momad is a BBS.  So I find it unlikely -- and I will be
>>happy to apologize profusely if I am wrong -- that momad distributes
>>news to *any* other computer, let alone one across the state line.  So
>>what are you so worried about?
>
>  #1) Yes, I happen to feed out to a couple of nodes, but they are from 
> 
>  #2)  80% of the callers to my system are from OUT OF STATE!

Hey, so drop a.b.p.e from your distribution !! Or would you lose most of 
your clients and business ??

>>>What I want is a discussion of this issue, and get it resolved quickly, bef
>>>the news media hears about this, because you better believe that this will
>>>be quite a sticky issue, and will endanger the a.b.p.e. newsgroup.
>
>>Shall I say it? ... Nah, I'd better not.
>
>  Why not.. Go for it!

Imminent Death of The Net !!!!

>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------    
>    Modem Madness       __________________        500 MEGz of GIFs
>         BBS          _/ ||                ~-_      Adult Access
>    516-295-xxxx    ,/   //       /~-       /  ~-_  ________---------------//
                                                    

Adult access huh? Sounds like you're making money offering access to a.b.p.e.,
so if you can't *afford* to drop it from your site, impose yourself as local
moderator.

I *wish* we got a.b.p.e. at our site ;-) - or 95% of the alt groups for that
matter.

Cheers,

  Mitch


-- 
--- gelly@persoft.com -------------------------------------------------------
         When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing
          to ask is if they ever press charges.  -- Jack Handey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1423 news.admin.policy:314
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Contraband data on the Net (again)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:45:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: seanews.1992Nov11.234511.9510
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail

In article <1992Nov10.192754.847@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>       This is a gross exaggeration.  For a while back in 1990, there
>were indeed problems like this.  But after much legal and political
>effort, they have been mostly resolved.  The two prosecutors most
>active in such activities (Cook and Thackary) lost their jobs.  
>The Secret Service agents involved are being sued in Federal court.  
>(Steve Jackson Games vs various persons).   The Sturges case in San
>Francisco ended up being a big political embarassment for the FBI.
>Read "The Hacker Crackdown" and get up to date.

Does Steve Jackson Games have its computers back yet?  It's what, the
end of 1992...

I don't know about you, but I make a living and feed myself using
my computer.  Government abuses of power will prevent me from doing
so.

I'm concerned.

Bill
-- 
SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 747 NEWS
E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1402 news.admin:8417 news.admin.policy:236 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:8929
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD 
    PORNOGRAPHY?)
Keywords: Pedophelia Child Pornography Porn Immoral Illegal
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:52:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes) writes:

>Now, I suspect that reasons 1 and 2 as given in my previous post
>are what really drove this decision, but maybe not. Hard to believe
>that they couldn't just have put a pretty quick expire time on the
>a.b.p. groups and let it go, but I guess they didn't want to.

A quick "du" of alt/binaries here (1k per block):

90	alt/binaries/sounds/misc
1	alt/binaries/sounds/erotica
169	alt/binaries/sounds/d
261	alt/binaries/sounds
10	alt/binaries/pictures/utilities
10	alt/binaries/pictures/tasteless
5367	alt/binaries/pictures/misc
5	alt/binaries/pictures/fractals
1	alt/binaries/pictures/fine-art/graphics
1	alt/binaries/pictures/fine-art/digitized
1	alt/binaries/pictures/fine-art/d
4	alt/binaries/pictures/fine-art
1	alt/binaries/pictures/erotica/male
1	alt/binaries/pictures/erotica/female
274	alt/binaries/pictures/erotica/d
1	alt/binaries/pictures/erotica/blondes
6697	alt/binaries/pictures/erotica
57	alt/binaries/pictures/d
12151	alt/binaries/pictures
1	alt/binaries/multimedia
12414	alt/binaries

This is on a monday with a two-day expiry time.  Volume is always lower
after a weekend; that last number could easily hit 20 megs by friday.
(Not to mention the occasional volume surges.  It's quite common to
receive over 5 megs in a.b.p.e in one day.)

There are whole hierarchies with less volume than
alt.binaries.pictures; misc for example only has 17 megs at the moment,
and we keep that for seven days (some of the groups for longer).

Don't judge your news admin until you've walked a mile in his shoes...
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                              kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                                         +1 606 257 2975
Dept. of Mathematics     "Your ball goes over them, it sails off the edge into
a huge cauldren of fire-breathing dragons."  "And they call this a par three?"
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.055540.505@dsd.es.com> rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:

   The other thing is that for a copyright violation to be a problem,
   the holder of the copyright must complain.  Since the holder of the
   copyright in this case would have to sue "usenet", which doesn't
   really exist as a legal entity (would they sue all sites
   world-wide?), its difficult to see what the problem would be,
   unless they chose to sue a few, wealthy sites as the problem.

The copyright holder certainly could sue the copyright violator, who
is the person who distributed the material over a public network by
posting it, not the people who received the material thus distributed.
Usenet does not really enter into the question as a body, as I see it.

As a parallel, consider someone who sells illicit copies of a book.
Having the publisher sue en masse the people who bought the copies,
for damages of, say, $10 per copy, seems ludicrous to me.  They have
not broken any copyright law and they were (we assume) unaware that
there was even an infringement.  The legal system simply recognizes
the damage to the copyright holder in the form of lost sales revenue,
which may be recovered from the renegade publisher.

Similarly in the case of netnews, the poster is liable, but the
network should not be.

However, if someone notifies me that our news spool contains an
illicit copy of something, I might try to contact the sender and
originating site, post a warning to appropriate newsgroups, or contact
the copyright holder or civil authorities.  I really do not know what
steps are legally incumbent upon me if I find that my news feed is
carrying illicit materials, so I might consult our corporate law firm.

I'm not even sure that I must remove the article from my spool, any
more than somebody who buys an illicit copy of a book must remove it
from the shelf.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1420 news.admin.policy:308 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:9033
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: Child Pornography (A proposed solution)
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:17:19 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <4079@sapwdf.UUCP>, wohler@sapwdf.UUCP (Bill Wohler) writes:
> 
>   american prudishness causes them to miss the point.  a naked person
>   is much more natural than one that is shot, stabbed, diced, or blown up.
>   i wish american censors would attack violence with the same energy as
>   they condemn the display of nudity.

It's hard to disagree much with this, but unfortunately the sites
in the US (for example) have to deal with laws that make the
possession of such material a crime, even if it is not an "approved"
topic for the newsgroup.

There is ample precedent for confiscation of equipment, etc, owned
by sites that had such `unauthorized' materials in public BBS
conferences, even though the operators of the BBS did not know about
it and did not approve of it.  Whether site administrators agree
with this policy or not, they ignore such laws at their own peril.

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes)
Subject: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:33:01 GMT

It's been driving me batty: I KNOW the supremes had a three-part
test for pornography, but I can only remember two parts of it:

1) Prurient nature, and
2) Totally without redeeming social value, but

what's the third one?

Of course, the old saw is "I dunno what it is, but I knows it
when I sees it".

And, to justify posting this, does the test have any relevance
for the issue at hand? It seems like a lot of people are, at
base, disagreeing on the NATURE of the material. Not having
seen it, I cannot comment on its qualification as "pornography".
Since our site no longer carries the a.b.p. hierarchy, I'm not
GONNA see it. And I don't care to, either. But does it pass, or
fail, the test?

Josh

--
Josh Hayes, Quantitative Sciences HR-20 U of Washington
josh@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu             206 543-5004
Let's talk about your car. It's screaming, "Wash me please!"
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1414 news.admin:8464 news.admin.policy:276
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:45:24 GMT
Followup-To: news.sysadmin
Organization: negligable

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov9011321@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>
>   If you want to have your jollies getting off on child pictures, and you can
>   still look yourself in the mirror, then make a newsgroup for yourselves!
>   ALT.BINARIES.PICTURES.PEDOPHELIA
>
>Looking at a child porn photo and yanking your willie is not
>pedophilia.  It is normal sexual fantasy accompanied by masturbation.

:s/normal/abnormal/

"Normal" sexual fantasy would be looking at pictures of *women*
and "yanking your willie" (you named yours?)

If you need to look at kids to get off, that is abnormal.

If you distribute photos of kids to be used in this manner, that is illegal.

>Pedophilia is when your sexual partner must be much younger than
>yourself in order to sexually stimulate you.  Normal people are

Pedophilia is when your sexual partner is not yet of sexual age.  I would
consider this to be anything under 15 -- and that is borderline (the only
legitimate reason to have sexual intentions to towards a 15 year old is
if you're a teenager yourself...)  The law has it's own definitions,
and those are really the only ones that we need to be concerned with.

>sexually excited by children, just as normal children are sexually
>excited by other children and by adults.  If you find child
>pornography disgusting, don't look at it.

I find it illegal.

>The evil of child pornography is in the exploitation of the children
>being photographed.  This is what the law punishes.  There is no law
>against lusting after children: and if there were, there aren't enough
>prisons to hold the "offenders."

Not "lusting after", no.  But there sure as hell ARE laws against
doing anything about it.  And if you get convicted of one of 'em
don't expect kind treatment by the other inmates.

>Also, don't waste your time trying to limit netnews distribution.  If
>you oppose exploitation of children, trace the photograph and file a
>complaint to the police about the poster (or the photographer if you
>get that far).

This is an eminently sensible suggestion.  However *legally* the 
photographer is NOT the only one liable.   Now that you have been
informed (as a news admin or sysop) if your system continues to
carry these pictures, you are also liable.  

Enjoy.


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
glockh belvars: cannot recover
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Keywords: Pedophelia Child Pornography Porn Immoral Illegal
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:43:53 GMT

In article <RZx+qAYLBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:
>	I have been using the news.groups of the usenet for a long time, and never before
>have I been so appalled at what I've seen.  

I might point out that there is no organization called "usenet" to either
support or decry anything. If you're concerned about the material in a
group, have your feed site shut it off.


-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"...I looked out my window, and saw Kyle Pettys' car upside down, then I
thought 'One of us is in real trouble'." Davey Allison, re: a 150MPH crash 
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Keywords: Pedophelia Child Pornography Porn Immoral Illegal
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:24:34 GMT

In article <nsF-qA2KBh107h@momad.UUCP> taz%momad@infoserv.com writes:

>      ... because it is a FEDERAL OFFENSE to distribute child 
>      pornography over state lines.  This includes distribution by COMPUTERS
>      over state lines.

Well, Taz, old pal.  According to the header of this message, yours is
a UUCP site hanging off of infoserv.com.  According to your
.signature, momad is a BBS.  So I find it unlikely -- and I will be
happy to apologize profusely if I am wrong -- that momad distributes
news to *any* other computer, let alone one across the state line.  So
what are you so worried about?

>What I want is a discussion of this issue, and get it resolved quickly, before
>the news media hears about this, because you better believe that this will
>be quite a sticky issue, and will endanger the a.b.p.e. newsgroup.

Shall I say it? ... Nah, I'd better not.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD  PORNOGRAPHY?)
Keywords: Pedophelia Child Pornography Porn Immoral Illegal
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:59:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.145214.19489@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>12414	alt/binaries
>
>This is on a monday with a two-day expiry time.  Volume is always lower
>after a weekend; that last number could easily hit 20 megs by friday.
>(Not to mention the occasional volume surges.  It's quite common to
>receive over 5 megs in a.b.p.e in one day.)

Yeah, but you could always lower the expire time to 0 days, i.e. expire
the whole contents of the groups every night... anybody who really wants
to be sure that they don't miss anything will have to scan the groups
just before expire runs.  (Here expiry for alt.binaries is currently set
to one day, i.e. things get expired on the second night after being
received.)

Users might not be happy with that, but for the time being I'd prefer
doing this to "censoring" selected newsgroups.  My personal policy for
alt.* is "all or nothing".  If my administration starts giving me hell
about a.b.p.e.* I'd sooner stop receiving /all/ of alt than submit to
arbitrary selective censorship.

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin.policy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Contraband data on the Net (again)
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:46:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.133722.9230@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <BxIDzq.Jrz@mtholyoke.edu>, jbotz@mtholyoke (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>[...]  And that being the case, under current precedent, certain
>>federal law enforcement agencies can come to every single Net site
>>and seize every piece of electronic equipment there.

>While that indeed seems to be the perception in the eyes of some high
>U.S. government officials, I would guess that there are some armed
>forces in the world which would react if this would start to happen in
>large numbers.

 ;-)  Alright, you got me.  I always bitch about the U.S.-centricism
of USians on the Net, too... but I /meant/ "in the U.S.", of course.
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1433 news.admin.policy:347
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Child Pornography (A proposed solution)
Keywords: Pornography Legal Child Porn
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:56:07 GMT
Followup-To: news.sysadmin
Organization: negligable

At the moment we seem to be talking about law enforcement, not
censorship (that is, censorship based on personal opinion unsupported
by any legislation).

Whether you like a law or not you ARE liable for breaking it until
it is changed.

Personally I think that efforts to redirect the very real issue
of what to do when illegal material (child pornography) has been
posted to the standard interminable "censorship!" argument is
reprehensible.

We have an issue to deal with.  We should do so.

note: this issue does NOT directly affect this site since we
don't even get the full usenet heirarchy, much less the alt.* stuff,
but copyrighted material can still turn up in, say, comp.lang.c, and
THAT is the issue (no, not copyright OR pornography): what to do about
material that violates your local laws, and what to do about it's posters
if they also happen to fall under the same jurisdiction.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lazy day, Sunday afternoon.			|
Like to get your feet up, watch TV.		|	-Richard Hartman	
Sunday roast is something good to eat,		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
must be lamb to day 'cause beef was last week!	|
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1375 news.admin:8355 news.admin.policy:175 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:8842
From: pechever@sal-sun24.usc.edu (Paul Echeverri)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 21:01:07 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sal-sun24.usc.edu

In article <1992Nov7.051827.18199@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jrc1947@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>Well, now I know my problem.  I'm a pedophilac.  What about you?  Now that
>you've spoken, go away and stop bothering us.  Us pedophilacs don't like
>being judged and condemned by someone who feels he knows all that is to be
>known about good and bad, legal and illegal.
Doesn't it give you that warm and protected feeling to be told by these
sources of InPhallibleWisdom (tm) exactly what's wrong with you?
Just another piece of pond scum...
		Paul (the heckler)
Flame me Fanboy!


-- 
"They robbed from the rich...and gave to the CRIMINALLY INSANE!!" -Ren & Stimpy
"Necro-Bestial Anal Buttsex!?" -GWAR  /   Two suns in the sunset... -Pink Floyd
"She was SO sensitive...so I squicked her."                    DikuMUDs forever
Stop the War on Rights...legalize drugs           Email: pechever@chaph.usc.edu
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Keywords: Are you all crazy?
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.034809.26566@becker.GTS.ORG> bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker) writes:

>	There's NO WAY anyone is going to "yank out of
>	existence" some newsgroup for any reason.

If for no other reason than that Bruce will just newgroup it all over
again.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1387 news.admin:8376 news.admin.policy:195 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:8894
From: isaac@cats.ucsc.edu (Isaac Truder)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 05:25:19 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


 > If you are a Teleco, are you responsible for what people pass over
 > your wires?  Is USENET any different?

Well, that's a raging debate here in the 'States.  The telephone companies
are always trying to claim they have a right to control what goes over the
phone lines (for instance, they're always trying to impose fees on people
who use modems instead of regular voice communication).  The opposite
argument, of course, is that communication is communiction, and one form
of it over the phone lines is as good as another.  I think it would be
extremely dangerous for a phone company to have a say in what is SAID on
their wires; this coming from my perspective and an understanding of
American legal tradition.
Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1372 news.admin:8347 news.admin.policy:170