| gabriel rosenkoetter on 11 Feb 2004 01:50:03 -0000 |
|
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:34:55AM -0500, Arthur S. Alexion wrote:
> Unfortunately this happens a lot. Law enforcement mechanisms which may
> themselves be illegal or unconstitutional are allowed to persist because the
> enforced penalty is cheaper than a defense.
I'd say the law enforcement mechanism was fine in this case. In the
case of a newsfeed, there really is a server at the defendant's site
that really is hosting kiddie porn. The problem is that the
legislation drags in a middle-man when it *should* be punishing
those responsible for taking advantage of the children in the first
place. That's brokeness in the legislature, not brokeness in the
executive branch.
By the same token, it's not the state troopers' being wrong when
they pull me over for speeding, it's that US speed limits are
absurdly low, which is a direct result of US drivers bordering on
incompetence behind the wheel. (This one's even more complicated.
I'm reluctant to suggest that speed limits should be raised on the
grounds that I'm capable of controlling vehicle at higher velocities
because the majority of the drivers on the road really just aren't.)
> While a guilty plea and a payment of a fine does constitute techinical
> ?precedent?, it evolves the expectations of those involved as it continues,
> and in doing so, lessens the chance that there will be a successful challenge
> in the future.
This is unfortunate, no doubt. But in the kiddie porn example, the
solution is to get legislation passed that places the blame in the
right place AND dictates a functional prosecution method. This is
tough, since there isn't even a national, much less international,
standard for the age of consent. It's yet another example of the
ways in which national governments are basically inadequate in the
age of the Internet.
> I haven't logged on to usenet for at least six or seven years. My
> recollection of those times, however, was theat there were a few new groups
> every time I logged on.
Your recollection is correct. But the newsgroups implied in the
article about the Voicenet case have been around since the early
'90s, so the suggestion that a new group slipped through is an
inadequate defense in their case. (Imho, the right thing for
Voicenet--or their child company, whoever's actually the plaintiff--
to do is plead guilty to whatever lesser offense they can get this
down to so that no one ends up in jail and they don't wind up in
financial ruin. Then they need to clean up their act: we're talking
about five minutes of INN configuration here. They should have
already done this, provided they're not prevented from doing so by
some sort of gag order. Suing the news station, if they really
didn't notify Voicenet of the situation in advance of showing up
at the same time that police cruisers did, is something only worth
attempting if Voicenet is sure they're right.)
> Sorry for nit-picking, but even at the five a week
> rate you mention, that comes to over 250 a year, an addition for each and
> every business day.
But the default for INN is to NOT accept new group feeds. Also, the
new groups that pop up weekly are almost never porn. They're about
new computer games, new comics, new discussion groups. Simply never
adding new groups is one option, adding only those that their users
request is another, taking a glance and deciding which may interest
any of their users and accepting those is the Right Thing to Do.
Having one vaguely pornographic image of a child pop up in
alt.lifestyle.furrie (I don't think that exists, and I'm not
checking) wouldn't resulting in the firestorm we're hearing about.
Carrying alt.binaries.pictures.preteen would (and rightly so).
> that isn't what was reported. The report said that he said that it didn't
> change. [Again, sorry if my defense attorney ?slip is showing?. ;-)
I'm going WAY out on a limb here, but I choose to believe that he
was misquoted, or insufficiently quoted. I believe he would make
much the same argument I just did, given the opportunity. (I also
thought he was a she, but it's been a few days since I read the
article.)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:09:15PM -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
> Although I agree with this statement I think it is overly broad in the
> context of this discussion. I don't know of too many constitutional
> challenges to the possession of child pornography of known child victims.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is really important, and addresses Bob Schwier's later
response. Art and religious/ethnographic photography is qualitatively
not porn, and no court would dispute that. Widely disseminated
photographs of underage individuals in nudist enclaves is
questionable at best, and probably criminal on the part of the
person doing the desseminating. (It's one thing for a nudist to keep
an archive of their family vaction. It's another for those
photographs to wind up in alt.binaries somewhere. Intent matters to
the law; that's not news.)
Bob: it isn't necessary for a human to look at every image in the
world and judge whether it's child pornography or not, it's only
necessary to look at the circumstances in a given case of alleged
infringement. This is why we have courts and, despite some problems,
they're basically functional.
> What would they be challenging? That child pornography is protected free
> speech?
That's a hard challenge to foot given the current legal climate. I'm
not convinced it's Wrong, though. (I really dislike the manufactured
term "protected free speech". Either speech is free or it isn't, in
my mind. Goes for hate speech too. That doesn't mean I've any
interest in breaking or challenging those US laws, of course: they
don't infringe on my life at all.)
> Assuming that Voicenet knew of the presence of child pornography
^^^^^^^^
> on their severs and did nothing about it, why shouldn't they be liable?
That's where you're (consciously, I think) crossing the line you
draw above. We don't know that. And, really, it's none of our
business.
> Playing devil's advocate to my own argument, if Voicenet was not aware of
> child pornography on their servers and the government just came in seized
> their servers, the government is going to have a tough road to hoe.
Unfortunately the government will NOT have a tough row to hoe (one
doesn't hoe roads; it'd be hard to drive on them then ;^>). This
issue is emotionally charged, like a witch hunt. The news channel
has proclaimed Voicenet to be pornographers, and there will be an
assumption of guilt in the court given the socio-political climate
of the US. This is unfortunate, but it's still not law enforcement's
fault: that's brokeness in the judicial branch resulting from
horribly deeply-ingrained thinking that's... well, I'll just call it
less than enlightened.
> is only my opinion as an individual and not nesscarily those of my
> employer.
Speaking of tough rows to hoe. :^>
I'm reminded again how good it is to have you on the mailing list,
Jon. Thanks.
--
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net
Attachment:
pgp9cAHbXEjtB.pgp
|
|