[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Re[4]: Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the SCA

On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Chuck Graves wrote:

> Greetings, all.
> >>    Frankly, no one has taken away your right to privately post whatever 
> >>    you damn well please.
> >Wrong.  If you post to a list that is avliable to minors or that has 
> >unrestricted access, you can be liable for distributing obscene material 
> >to a minor (if the material is judged obscene).
> And there was the point I was making--"public" availability.

And the Atlantia Mailing List is a public list.  Anyone can be on it and 
read the material posted.  Granted, the chances of someone who has no 
idea what the SCA is getting on is pretty small, but...

> >>     And checking the content of a private post is tantamount to opening 
> >>     your private mail. Nasty business without a court order.
> >Wrong again.  E-mail is considered a telephone call and is regulated by 
> >such rules.  Of course, it's illegal (or was) to tap a phone line.  
> I believe that's the right to privacy. Bawdy songs (or anything else) can 
> still be sent--just point-to-point instead of general distribution.

Sure, but even point-to-point is still grounds for procsocution, if the 
material is judged obscene.  You are trafficing in 'pornography'.  
Technically, e-mail is (right now) considered a phone call.  For example, 
it's illegial to call up you lady (or lord) and 'talk dirty' to them over 
the phone. Violates certian communications regulations you see (such as 
using the seven dirty words one's not allowed to use on TV).  Once again, 
the chances of getting nabbed for this are slim...

> >Regan OTOH, was all for spying on American citizens. >      

> I doubt Donald Regan was interested--and I'm not sure his boss, Ronald Reagan, 
> cared either. And if you're worried about folks like FBI, ATF, or NSA, remember 
> they were all chartered and funded by Democrats.

It was Reagan.  Sorry.

> The problem is folks are going to have to start treating lists like 
> bulletin boards--for all the world to see, no matter how small the 
> individual (in size or mental capacity).

That's correct.

> The real heartache is for owners of the 'adult' lists. They're going to 
> have to come up with approaches to verify 'adulthood'--probably driver's 
> license or SSN. Of course, you'd have a much more difficult time 
> 'faking' a driver's license or SSN--you'd have to change the state motor 
> vehicle database or national Social Security database.

Right now, using a credit acrd number (ie. pay per view) is accepted for 
many 'adult' lists.

> Personally, I don't particularly like 'decency' laws in general. But I'm 
> a lot more tolerant of them than I used to be--I suppose parenting 
> changes a person. (Of course, 'obscenity' laws make more sense to me 
> than a drinking age of 21--fight and die for your country, elect your 
> president--but don't expect a beer!?!)

Yeah, but gets to decide what is obscene?

* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion * 
*                              Michael Surbrook                           *
*                susano@access.digex.net / surbrook@aol.com               *
*            Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT            *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *