From: ssteele@eff.org (Shari Steele)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:22:37 -0400
Subject: August 17: AA in Utah; posting for Keith Henson
Message-Id: [none given]
From: ssteele@eff.org (Shari Steele)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA in Utah; posting for Keith Henson
Date: 17 Aug 1994 10:05:39 -0400
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Lines: 79
Sender: daemon@eff.org
Approved: usenet@eff.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: eff.org
Shari, could you post this into eff.talk (with all except alt.slack
of the groups which have been involved)? My home account has not been
able to post most of the time lately. Re the other items, a call to
408-295-6336 might get you the official stuff, otherwise, a call to
the court in memphis might be the best way. Keith (415-856-3100)
-----
Thought you folks who have been following the latest AA BBS bust (for
which Robert gets arrested again Monday) might be interested in a list
of the GIFs involved.
The grand jury indictment is by Scott M. Matheson, Jr, United States
Attorney (#4714) [whatever the number means?] and Richard N.W.
Lambert, Assistant US Attorney (#3971). Address is:
478 United States Courthouse
350 South Main St.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
The case number is 94-CR 107J, VIO. Title 18, U.S.C. 2252(a)(1) and 2
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
MINORS AND AIDING AND
ABETTING
The formula for the indictment is:
Count (first # in list)
On or about (data in list), 1994 in the Central Division of the
District of Utah, and elsewhere,
Robert Alan Thomas
dba Amateur Action BBS
the defendant herein, did knowingly transport and ship in interstate
commerce by means of a computer from Milpitas, California to Salt Lake
City, Utah a visual depiction, to wit, AA (third number or numbers in
list) GIF, the production of which involved the use of a minor engaged
in sexually explicit conduct and the visual depiction being of such
conduct and did aid and abet therein; all in violation of Title 18,
United States code, section 2252 (a)(1) and 2.
and here is the list:
1 Feb 2, 6759
2 March 1, 8088
3 March 4 15287
4 March 5 15659
5 March 6 6522
6 March 9 15329 15290 15294
7 March 10 15286 16371
8 March 12 4331 11574
9 March 13 5289
10 March 16 6520
11 April 1 18294 18307
If you download any of these to make your own judgement on content, I
strongly suggest you encrypt them. DES at *least*. You can get PGP
from AA as well.
I was by Richard William's office today to pick up a copy of the
indictment. There was a *most* interesting msg on the answering
machine from Lambert, who said he had a custom official with him. He
told Richard not to bring any photographs with him (for a meeting they
were to have this afternoon) that they had all they needed. The msg
cut off, but the tone was suggestive that if he were to bring photos,
they might jail him! Since Richard had a lot of notes on his copies
of the photos, plus a mess of others which showed who the closeups
belonged to and where the pix came from, this put a severe crimp in
his ability to negotiate on the part of his client.
Ah, one other thing. Grand juries are secret. I don't think I ever
saw a signed copy of the indictment from TN. But this one at least
has a name on it which can almost be read. It is R. Clain Meinl (or
Mainl--last letter is extra large and could even be an s.) If by
chance this person is on the net and can or will comment it would be
of considerable interest to know what they were shown.
Keith Henson
From: brandinius@aol.com (Brandinius)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:21:42 -0400
Subject: August 15: Constitutional Questions-AA BBS
Message-Id: [none given]
From: brandinius@aol.com (Brandinius)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions-AA BBS
Date: 15 Aug 1994 11:35:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Distribution: inet
References: <hudCuKA41.40C@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com
In article <hudCuKA41.40C@netcom.com>, hud@netcom.com (Hud Nordin) writes:
>Let's try again.
>
>They were investigated bu a US postal inspector, accused of violating
>federal laws, tried in a federal court, with a federal judge and a
OK, I see clearly now.
However, it's a sign of the complexities of this case that folks have been
following this discussion for weeks now and these issues are still
confused. Hell, I've been a member of AA for almost 6 months now, since
just after the initial bust, and have been following the case through CUD
and other online mags, and none of this has been made very clear from the
start.
Anyway, thanks for the info.
From: hud@netcom.com (Hud Nordin)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:21:03 -0400
Subject: August 15: Constitutional Questions-AA BBS
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: hud@netcom.com (Hud Nordin)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions-AA BBS
Organization: Cybernetic Arts
References: <hudCuG0n2.A6y@netcom.com> <32jre7$84@search01.news.aol.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 05:33:36 GMT
Lines: 43
In article <32jre7$84@search01.news.aol.com> brandinius@aol.com (Brandinius) writes:
>In article <hudCuG0n2.A6y@netcom.com>, hud@netcom.com (Hud Nordin) writes:
>>
>>It was about *federal* laws.
>
>Uhhhh...no.
>
>If that were the case, Dirtmeyer or his ilk would have just persecuted
>(sorry....prosecuted) the Thomases in CA. The fact that everything on the
>BBS was legal prevented them from doing such, and caused the feds to force
>the case to somewhere that the "community standards" bullshit would hold
>water. Swamp water, to be exact.
Let's try again.
They were investigated bu a US postal inspector, accused of violating
federal laws, tried in a federal court, with a federal judge and a
federal prosecutor, and might wind up serving time in a federal
prison. The "controversy" involves the different community standards
of Tennessee and California, but the case is about federal law.
The original poster, sysop@dump.com, wrote at length about the laws of
Tennessee, for instance:
> HOW CAN THE ACTION OF CITIZENS OF TENNESSEE TO KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE
> LAWS OF TENNESSEE BE HELD AGAINST THESE SYSOPS? The telephone call was
> initiated by citizens of Tennessee with the intent of obtaining
> material that is illegal in Tennessee.
And:
> Again, I am not a lawyer. I just don't understand how a sysop of one
> state can be held accountable to the laws of another state if the
> transportation of illegal material is initiated and carried out by a
> citizen of another state.
The Thomases are being held accountable to federal laws.
--
Hud Nordin
Cybernetic Arts hud@netcom.com
Post Office Box 2066 Telephone 408.248.0377
Sunnyvale, California 94087 Facsimile 408.248.0416
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:20:26 -0400
Subject: July 31: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtpsL7.KrI@netcom.com> <mr.775608694@gonix>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 02:10:13 GMT
Lines: 32
In article <mr.775608694@gonix> mr@gonix.com (Mike Riddle) writes:
>But I agree with David that the material, as it has been described in
>other messages, would likely bring a conviction in many places and is
>difficult to defend for all except the most rabid/radical civil libertarians.
Defending the principles of freedom of expression guaranteed under the
First Amendment do not require defending the content of the speech.
The decision in the Amateur Action BBS is dangerous because it means that
speech defined in one jurisdiction as illegal thus becomes illegal in all
jurisdictions when electronically accessible. The minimal level of
tolerance thus becomes the national standard. The decision would also seem
to shift method of access: It is not that material is available *in* a
restricted community, but that it is accessible *from* the restricted
community.
Given the highly permeable boundaries of electronic communications,
the Memphis decision resembles the Church's attempts to stifle
Gallileo and scientific progress: A few dogmatic "true believers" can
(attempt to) control the dissemination of information that they deem
unacceptable.
This is not a "pornography issue," but a speech issue. Although the
outcome of one case in a single Federal district is not likely to have
significant impact, the danger of a sequence of similar prosecutions
poses a chilling effect for any and all public access systems that risk
becoming vulnerable to over-zealous prosecutors who impose local standards
at the national levels by threatening criminal sanctions.
A
jt
From: brandinius@aol.com (Brandinius)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:19:46 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asse
Message-Id: [none given]
From: brandinius@aol.com (Brandinius)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asse
Date: 30 Jul 1994 20:35:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 25
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Distribution: inet
References: <mr.775608694@gonix>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com
In article <mr.775608694@gonix>, mr@gonix.com (Mike Riddle) writes:
>But I agree with David that the material, as it has been described in
>other messages, would likely bring a conviction in many places and is
>difficult to defend for all except the most rabid/radical civil
libertarians.
Although it WAS legal in the city the BBS was located in, hence, that
argument should not hold water. In Bumflick, TN, it was indeed, however.
The thing you have to remember is that the Feds have been after AA BBS for
years, and tried something similar to the "Kiddie Porn" thing a long time
ago to try to take them down and failed. Apparently, it's taken them this
long to devise a strategy that they felt would work, and find an area
where the jury would be sufficiently shocked by pornography that they'd
want to lock 'em up and read 'em the bible.
I hope like hell the conviction is overturned, or we're in deep shit here
in Cyberspace. I get the feeling, if things continue in this fashion, that
we may be in the "golden age" of net computing right now, and it'll be
just a few years before it's all corporatized, sanitized, and puritanized,
and you'll be paying $50 a month for the "priviledge" of participating in
such.
From: jburgin@unixmail.haverford.edu (Joshua M. Burgin)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:19:11 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
From: jburgin@unixmail.haverford.edu (Joshua M. Burgin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Date: 30 Jul 1994 23:08:12 GMT
Organization: 100 Pure Stuff, Inc.
Lines: 64
Distribution: inet
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <louieCtqv71.GoJ@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com> <31ehnh$46j@Venus.mcs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.82.1.37
Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.COM> writes:
>In article <strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com>,
>David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, but:
>>1. Based on the facts I've read so far, I have no sympathy for these clowns,
>>and it has nothing to do with my views on pornography. They were stupid in
>>accepting a subscription from a State where the materials provided were in
>>violation of that State's laws.
>>
>>2. This is not 'the doom of free speech', or 'the end of bbs's' or any other
>>of the overblown prolix reactions from the 'engage mouth before brain is in
>>gear' crowd.
>>
>>David
>
>If this decision stands, however, it absolutely *IS* the end of anyone with
>a reasonable mind and not wishing to get butt-fu**ed by the law in Memphis
>carrying alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless, to name one.
>
>That is, if there is *any way* for a person to get access from that
>jurisdiction. That immediately nails all the national network providers
>and nearly all regionals as well (how many will screen subscription
>requests this closely?)
Karl's right. My question is this, what exactly do people propose to
do with national service providers. Are they going to have to change
_all_ their hadrware and software so that certain states/counties only
get certain newsgroups and/or are allowed to download only certain
files?
This is ridiculous? I always thought the idea of a subscription to
anything was so that you showed that _you_ took effort to get
something. If you paid for it you can't say "It was their fault, they
sent it to me." That's why the jury dropped the child porn charge,
because the cop (?) sent it unsolicited, just to trump up some
charges.
I think the burden this puts (or implies) on sysops/sysadmins is
ridiculous. Are they just going to stop their BBSses all together? I
doubt it. But I certainly think this case should be appealed, and the
conviction revoked.
Mainly because of the subscription idea. I like the idea of "You paid
for it, you downloaded it, you knew what was in there, no problems
here." The deal with the X-rated Satellite services works the same
way. I think this whole backwater, let's bow down to the most
repressive standards on the planet, ruling, is nonsense.
There are _reasons_ for different laws in different states. There are
reasons that states are allowed to determine their own community
standards. And as such, I don't think that Memphis laws should be
forced onto California residents. That's what this does.
Even if the BBS had limited their subcription to CA residents only
(which is hard enough to do), they still might run into trouble in
some country in CA (I'm just making an example). What does the jury
propose they do? Limit the BBS access to themselves?
Joshua
--
Joshua M. Burgin <jburgin@unixmail.haverford.edu>
Nietzsche Pops - The Uberbreakfast.
From: mr@gonix.com (Mike Riddle)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:18:30 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
Date: 30 Jul 94 22:51:34 GMT
From: mr@gonix.com (Mike Riddle)
Organization: Greater Omaha Public Access Unix
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtpsL7.KrI@netcom.com>
Lines: 54
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>The argument that the prosecution sought a conservative venue to get the
>conviction, for example, is just nonsense. The defendants sent the material
>there, and having done so themselves exposed themselves to the contemporary
>community standards of that community.
The concept of community begs the question, "which community?" See below.
>Putting it another way, it's a bad idea to send anti-Islamic propaganda to
>Iran if you're planning a trip there anytime soon, or if you know the
>Iranians can get you extradited for it.
>This is a very bad case for an EFF or CPSR to take on, unless there were
>primary civil rights violations having nothing to do with the specific
>materials involved. They will not only lose (in my view), but be branded as
>porno defenders. They have bigger policy fish to fry than to take on that
>burden gratuitously.
One of the many posts on this subject said that the judge rejected the
defense attempts to have the community be defined as either California or
Cyberspace. This issue is the only one that I can see the EFF or CPSR
getting involved in, and the answer might get the Thomases off. But the
answer would be valuable in its own right.
Remember that the AABBS was and always remained in California, and the
users took deliberate acts to obtain a connection. At first impression,
it's difficult to see how Tennessee could possibly be the correct venue
from a policy perspective. One can easily see how the prosecution would
appreciate a perceived Bible-belt, computer-illiterate jury.
The question of community is important because the _Miller_ test requires
the material be offensive to contemporary community standards. Should
that be California, where the AA BBS operated? Should it be Tennessee,
where the material was downloaded? For that matter, who transported it?
Was it the sysadmin in California who made it available, or was it the
users in Tennessee who entered the correct computer commands?
Or should the community be Cyberspace, however one defines it? Almost
any answer to the community question *except Tennnessee* brings a greater
probability of acquittal.
But I agree with David that the material, as it has been described in
other messages, would likely bring a conviction in many places and is
difficult to defend for all except the most rabid/radical civil libertarians.
--
<<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
mr@gonix.com
aka mr@rlaw.omahug.org
finger mr@gonix.com for PGP and RIPEM keys
From: kensmith@crl.com (Kenneth Smith)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:17:53 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS trial--jury out
Message-Id: [none given]
From: kensmith@crl.com (Kenneth Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.sex,alt.bbs,alt.slack,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.sex,alt.bbs,alt.slack,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Date: 30 Jul 1994 16:15:57 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest]
Lines: 28
Distribution: inet
References: <jktaberCtEqty.AMG@netcom.com> <118524@cup.portal.com> <118548@cup.portal.com> <118598@cup.portal.com> <319s2k$5vc@Venus.mcs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: ai-lab comp.org.eff.talk:29900 misc.legal:58710 alt.sex:95490 alt.bbs:21296 alt.slack:14075 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d:26141
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) wrote:
[...]
: That's 2.5 MILLION dollars and 110 years! Even with time off for good
: behavior and all, if this case stands they're both finished and, IMHO, so
: is much of the erotica available on the net in the US for those sites which
: are interstate.
[...]
: This is a serious case folks. We're going to be talking to the lawyers
: IMMEDIATELY here, as the ramifications of this may be that we can no longer
: sell accounts to users across state or even local boundary lines -- or we
: may have to drop all the erotic material on the net!
This is real dangerous stuff. Just imagine for a minute that all of the
people in some small town agree that all forms of reference to excreta
are totally obscene. Couldn't the people over in the alt.gardening
suddenly find themselves in jail for suggesting manure be place around
your rose bushes. You my think this is a long why from the present
situation but I must point out that income taxes started out as a
temperary measure effecting only the rich. These things must be stopped
before all your rights of free speach are lost. It will not happen
suddenly. But rather so slowly that you will not notice it until its too
late to complain because you can't complain about the lost rights because
that will be a crime too.
It used to be "give me liberty or give me death" now its "give me
liberty or give me a hang nail".
From: raoul@athena.mit.edu (Nico Garcia)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:17:03 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
From: raoul@athena.mit.edu (Nico Garcia)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Date: 30 Jul 1994 21:28:58 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 61
Distribution: inet
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <louieCtqv71.GoJ@netcom.com>
<strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu
In-reply-to: strnlght@netcom.com's message of Sat, 30 Jul 1994 17:56:11 GMT
In article <strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
people download it from is out of our control' argument. If one is going to
run a bb with doubtful material (in some venues) one had better not take
subscriptions from those venues, if one can be physically brought there and
tried.
I.E., take no subscriptions except from your mother, because *no*
legal or reasonable effort will guarantee your safety from
prosecution. The prosecution hunted, entrapped, and persecuted a
commercial vendor for a questionable but essentially legal commerce,
by inventing offenses. If they were interested in *preventing* crime,
a simple letter to the BBS operators that such activities were illegal
in that district would have ended the practice (IMHO). Instead,
they picked on them, forcing them 1500 miles from their homes for
prosecution, and tried to confiscate their entire livelihood, in the
belief that these victims would roll over.
Oh, wait, I forgot: anything bad that happens to them now is their
fault for resisting. If the BBS compromised, the government wouldn't
do *anything* bad ever again, would they.
Why does this sound familiar?
pornography. There are, for example, some bbs with crypto software whose
export from the U.S. is a violation of ITAR. What is the remedy?
The simplest remedy is to repeal ITAR. It is effective only in making
bureaucratic access to ordinary documents and computer systems trivially.
The third is to have some brains. Don't put stuff on your bbs that might be
illegal in your own jurisdiction or any jurisdiction you might be
extraditable to, or even any jurisdiction (for example outside the country)
you may wish someday to travel to. You can be tried in most countries
The correct solution is not to waste everybody's time and money going
after pornographers. Spend the legal fees on a children's lunch
program and sports teams, and you'll prevent far more sex crime than
this silliness ever has.
2. This is not 'the doom of free speech', or 'the end of bbs's' or any other
of the overblown prolix reactions from the 'engage mouth before brain is in
gear' crowd.
It is a threat, to any small computer operators who don't have the
time to investigate the variable and changing regulations of every
district that is accessible over the net.
Nico Garcia
raoul@athena.mit.edu
--
The values that define our common-sense world are under assault. Some have
taken to extremes the spurious notion of freedom without responsibility, and
are trying to tear down moral guardrails. Those who live on the shoulders
are told by their pals that they are in the middle of the road. Nothing is
wrong any more (except, of course, conservative thoughts and expressions).
From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:16:24 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <louieCtqv71.GoJ@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 19:43:06 GMT
Lines: 49
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) explains:
> 1. Based on the facts I've read so far, I have no sympathy
> for these clowns, and it has nothing to do with my views on
> pornography. They were stupid in accepting a subscription
> from a State where the materials provided were in violation
> of that State's laws.
The "local community standards" doctrine does not explicitly
specify what is illegal. That is determined by legal precedent
in each jurisdiction. The information provider is therefore left
with the task of reading the minds of potential jurors in order
to try and guess whether a conviction might be obtained in their
locale, and to do this everywhere the information provider offers
service. A formidable task.
The net effect of this is to intimidate providers into offering
nothing that doesn't meet the lowest common denominator of public
acceptance.
Many mail order video retailers will not ship anything to Utah,
North Carolina, or Tennessee. It looks like sexually oriented
BBS services will now have to do the same.
If some uninvolved citizen of Memphis had joined the BBS, been
horribly shocked by the material provided, and complained, I
might actually have a small amount of sympathy for the "community
standards" argument. But for a postal inspector to join the
board for the sole purpose of trying the case before the most
unforgiving jury possible is a complete travesty.
The only people whose community standards were violated were the
jury members who were compelled to watch hour upon hour of
strange pornographic images through no fault of their own.
> 2. This is not 'the doom of free speech', or 'the end of
> bbs's' or any other of the overblown prolix reactions from
> the 'engage mouth before brain is in gear' crowd.
No. It's just another small step by the federal government to
control through intimidation what sort of communication persons
may privately engage in. Somewhat unexpected from a government
which once advertised itself as the liberal alternative to
Reagan, Bush, Falwell, and Robertson.
--
Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
From: ksw@flashflood.cs.odu.edu (Kyle Wilson)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:15:41 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
From: ksw@flashflood.cs.odu.edu (Kyle Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Date: 30 Jul 1994 19:03:27 GMT
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va
Lines: 26
Distribution: inet
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <louieCtqv71.GoJ@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: flashflood.cs.odu.edu
David Sternlight writes:
>1. Based on the facts I've read so far, I have no sympathy for these clowns,
>and it has nothing to do with my views on pornography. They were stupid in
>accepting a subscription from a State where the materials provided were in
>violation of that State's laws.
This would seem to imply that anyone operating a bulletin board system
is expected to have an expert knowledge of what it is and is not legal
to publish in each of the fifty states... I know that ignorance of
the law is no excuse, but this is ridiculous. Are sysops, then, also
to be expected to track the movements of all subscribers, and cancel
the subscribers' memberships if they choose to re-locate to more
conservative parts of the country?
>2. This is not 'the doom of free speech', or 'the end of bbs's' or any other
>of the overblown prolix reactions from the 'engage mouth before brain is in
>gear' crowd.
Really, I think such comments about those who have posted previously is
uncalled for. Let's try to keep the discussion civilized. Although
by no means definitive, this ruling does raise a number of disturbing
questions, which I don't think can be as easily dismissed as you
imply.
--
Kyle Wilson
ksw@cs.odu.edu
From: jburrell@crl.com (Jason Burrell)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:14:54 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
From: jburrell@crl.com (Jason Burrell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Date: 30 Jul 1994 19:20:59 GMT
Organization: South Texas Communications
Lines: 66
Distribution: inet
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <louieCtqv71.GoJ@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtrLto.9nC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) wrote:
I had a feeling who this was from before I even looked at the From: line.
: I thus have no sympathy for the pornographers in this case. They accepted a
: subscription from wherever (Mississippi?) and thus it was they who put
: themselves under that jurisdiction.
The point, David, is that, when you get right down to it, the BBS
operators did nothing "physical"; it was the receiver, the person who
called from an area where it was against community standards, and then
downloaded the pictures.
: But this issue does raise an interesting point: what about bbs without
: access controls, which are on the Internet? The issue goes beyond
: pornography. There are, for example, some bbs with crypto software whose
: export from the U.S. is a violation of ITAR. What is the remedy?
[deletia]
: of those jurisdictions alone, is no defense. That is--if it's an
: extraditable crime in Delaware, but not in California, and it's uploaded in
: California and accessible from Delaware, the California bbs operator loses.
[deletia]
: 1. Based on the facts I've read so far, I have no sympathy for these clowns,
: and it has nothing to do with my views on pornography. They were stupid in
: accepting a subscription from a State where the materials provided were in
: violation of that State's laws.
Stupid, maybe. Now the question is if what they really did was "wrong".
: 2. This is not 'the doom of free speech', or 'the end of bbs's' or any other
: of the overblown prolix reactions from the 'engage mouth before brain is in
: gear' crowd.
Whether it is the end of BBS's or not is irrelevent. It doesn't matter,
David, it's the principal behind the conviction. I know of *many* adult
BBS's that are *not* subscription services, and are available across
state lines. So, there's really nothing those sysops can do short of
closing themselves into their own state. So they can either shut down,
close themselves into their own states (and hope to God someone doesn't
login and say they're from [e.g.] California when they're really in Tenn.)
: David
: --
: The values that define our common-sense world are under assault. Some have
: taken to extremes the spurious notion of freedom without responsibility, and
: are trying to tear down moral guardrails. Those who live on the shoulders
: are told by their pals that they are in the middle of the road. Nothing is
: wrong any more (except, of course, conservative thoughts and expressions).
--
Jason Burrell |GCS/CM/S/M d++ H s:+ !g !p+ !au !a w+++ v+>!v C++ UC+
Jburrell@crl.com |P+>++++ L+ 3 E+ N+++ K--- W--- M-- !V -po+ Y++ t++++ 5+++
San Antonio, TX |jx R+ G tv++ b++ D- B-- e u++>+++ h* f+ r* n---->+++ y?
World Wide Web: |file://crl.com/users/ro/jburrell/Index.html
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:14:12 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Reply-To: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight)
Organization: DSI/USCRPAC
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <louieCtqv71.GoJ@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 17:56:11 GMT
Lines: 73
Readers who claim the postal inspector sought out a town with a conservative
set of contemporary community standards to get these porno publishers
convicted omit an important point. The bbs operators took the risk on
themselves in making their stuff accessible there. Since it is a
subscription bb, they cannot even make the 'we just had it on our bb--where
people download it from is out of our control' argument. If one is going to
run a bb with doubtful material (in some venues) one had better not take
subscriptions from those venues, if one can be physically brought there and
tried.
I thus have no sympathy for the pornographers in this case. They accepted a
subscription from wherever (Mississippi?) and thus it was they who put
themselves under that jurisdiction.
But this issue does raise an interesting point: what about bbs without
access controls, which are on the Internet? The issue goes beyond
pornography. There are, for example, some bbs with crypto software whose
export from the U.S. is a violation of ITAR. What is the remedy?
In thinking about this, let's recall that if not posting or uploading could
have avoided a criminal act, then uploading and arguing that it's only
criminal in some jurisdictions under whose laws the uploader is physically
vulnerable (as by edtradition) and there is no technical way to keep it out
of those jurisdictions alone, is no defense. That is--if it's an
extraditable crime in Delaware, but not in California, and it's uploaded in
California and accessible from Delaware, the California bbs operator loses.
There are thus two possiblities. The first is new law which applies to
interstate electronic traffic and which says, in effect, legal at origin,
legal at destination. I think this unlikely since it would mean State A
could dictate the laws in State B.
The second is a technical solution--that is, a way for bbs operators with
net connectivity to control the destinations of traffic, not via the current
advisory method, but by a control method. Then "sensitive" materials can be
restricted to, say, the bbs' home state and others where the bbs operator
was willing to assume they are permitted. We don't have this right now, and
whether it is technically feasible or not is not clear. The bbs operator in
question DID have the global remedy of controlling access to his board and
particular groups thereon, since it was a subscription board. Apparently he
failed to do that properly for the subscriber from Mississippi.
The third is to have some brains. Don't put stuff on your bbs that might be
illegal in your own jurisdiction or any jurisdiction you might be
extraditable to, or even any jurisdiction (for example outside the country)
you may wish someday to travel to. You can be tried in most countries
without your presence if you refuse to show, and if found guilty you WILL be
on a list at the border. You don't get turned away, you get sent to their
pokey in some cases.
Sorry, but:
1. Based on the facts I've read so far, I have no sympathy for these clowns,
and it has nothing to do with my views on pornography. They were stupid in
accepting a subscription from a State where the materials provided were in
violation of that State's laws.
2. This is not 'the doom of free speech', or 'the end of bbs's' or any other
of the overblown prolix reactions from the 'engage mouth before brain is in
gear' crowd.
David
--
The values that define our common-sense world are under assault. Some have
taken to extremes the spurious notion of freedom without responsibility, and
are trying to tear down moral guardrails. Those who live on the shoulders
are told by their pals that they are in the middle of the road. Nothing is
wrong any more (except, of course, conservative thoughts and expressions).
From: Pierre Uszynski <pierre@shell.portal.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:13:14 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops found guilty
Message-Id: [none given]
From: Pierre Uszynski <pierre@shell.portal.com>
Newsgroups: ailab.cypherpunks
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops found guilty
Date: 30 Jul 1994 02:11:06 -0400
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 40
Sender: daemon@ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
I said:
> I remember that the charges were actually more subtle (though just as
> silly) and numerous. To discuss it further we need to know the detail
> of which charges brought a guilty verdict, and which were thrown out.
Well, talk about subtle: (From the netnews threads)
"The Thomases were convicted on 11 criminal counts, each carrying
maximum sentences of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Thomas was acquitted on a charge of accepting child pornography
mailed to him by an undercover postal inspector."
The thread is currently in comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.sex,
alt.bbs,alt.slack
In none of the thread did I see a mention that the difference between
"shipping material" and "Making material available for net access" was
even considered to matter. The judge also seems to have disallowed the
jury from interpreting "community standards" to include what we call
"electronic communities" (not that I would expect a bunch of random
jurors to even consider this distinction).
Interesting quotes from the thread:
: "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
: power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
: law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the
: courts must abide by that decision."
: - US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
and
: In the list of grievances in the July 4, 1776, declaration of
: independence, one was "transporting us beyond seas to be tried for
: pretended offences."
Pierre.
pierre@shell.portal.com
From: Pierre Uszynski <pierre@shell.portal.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:12:32 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops found guilty
Message-Id: [none given]
From: Pierre Uszynski <pierre@shell.portal.com>
Newsgroups: ailab.cypherpunks
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops found guilty
Date: 30 Jul 1994 00:41:11 -0400
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 51
Sender: daemon@ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
(Oops, sorry, this went through private mail but was supposed to be
aimed at the list...)
Jim Miller was saying:
> I read in the paper today that the sysops who run the AA BBS were found
> guilty of distributing pornography. For those of you who are not familiar
> with the case, the AA BBS is an adult BBS residing in California. A
> Memphis TN postal inspector signed on to the BBS under a false name and
> downloaded erotic material to his computer in Tennessee. For various
> reasons I cannot fathom, the Californian sysops were dragged into a
> Tennessee count, tried by a Tennessee jury, and found guilty.
I remember that the charges were actually more subtle (though just as
silly) and numerous. To discuss it further we need to know the detail
of which charges brought a guilty verdict, and which were thrown out.
The guy who posted all the details earlier will probably do so for the
(temporary) conclusion. (hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
posted the stuff to comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.privacy, and
alt.sex.pictures.d at least, and maybe even to this list, I don't
remember.)
> All the BBS
> sysops did was make the stuff available via a dialup BBS. It's not as if
> the BBS sysops personally took the time and effort to physically mail the
> stuff to Tennessee. Is it valid to call an end-point initiated download
> an "act of distribution" on the part of the BBS operators? Apparently it
> does.
At least that's what the Tennessee people think, but they did get the
cooperation of California law enforcement... One more reason to
place a few real borders between provider and user. Again, we need the
detail of the verdict and charges.
> At best, the SC decision could include
> language says that persons downloading information are responsible for
> ensuring that the material is not in violation of local laws. At worst,
> the SC could say that the operators of information systems are responsible
> for insuring material is not made available to persons in certain regions,
> if the material violates laws in those regions.
And both are similarly unreasonnable: At best, how do you know for sure
before you download, and at worst, are you supposed to know the law for
all countries, states, counties and cities with access to Internet and
connected networks when even an attorney cannot possibly know the law
for a single state?
Pierre.
pierre@shell.portal.com
From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:11:49 -0400
Subject: July 30: The Strange Case of Amateur Action
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: ailab.cypherpunks
Subject: The Strange Case of Amateur Action
Date: 30 Jul 1994 00:28:01 -0400
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 89
Sender: daemon@ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
Timothy C. May, our respected titular leader, writes:
> Anyway, Keith confirmed that *several more* cases are
> pending, and I joked (gallows humor) that the Mormons would
> get them next. A few days later, charges were filed in Salt
> Lake City.
I am sure that Robert Thomas and his lovely wife will be making a
grand tour of all the backwater venues known to the Justice
Department. It's sort of like the Lyndon Larouche thing, where
we had the "Grand Jury of the Week" for a number of years until
an indictment was obtained. I'm no fan of Lyndon, but we should
recognize that the wheels of oppression are usually greased on
the less popular citizen-units. Besides, I'm still angry that
my paid-up subscription to "Fusion" got nuked when the Feds
decided to have a giant garage sale with the assets of Lyndon and
all of his friends.
Amateur Action BBS was always somewhat of an enigma in the
electronic world. I subscribed to the board a number of years
back, and can confirm that the opening screen advertising the
board as "The Nastiest Place on Earth" was no understatement. The
BBS had GIFs of virtually everything one could imagine
consenting adults (and consenting animals, small household
appliances, and even an occasional live lobster) engaging in.
Curiously, although the board constantly paved new First
Ammendment ground with sexual oddities, its editorial policy with
respect to discussions of such issues was notably less liberal.
Whenever someone became the victim of questionable activities by
law enforcement and a discussion would start in one of the
message bases, Robert would delete the entire thread and replace
it with one of his own messages, banning further discussion of
the topic, and usually stating that the victim deserved what he
got. He accused users who started such discussions of "making
trouble" and would frequently say things like "It's my BBS and I
can run it any way I want to."
You may remember Operation Longarm, in which the Feds obtained
the download logs of BAMSE BBS in Denmark, raided the homes of
all the board's American users looking for child porn, and
pressured the Danish government to jail the sysop, fine him a
huge amount of money, and take all his computer equipment. All
over a few underage GIFs which did not constitute even a tiny
fraction of the material carried on the board, and probably went
unnoticed by most of the users.
When BAMSE finally managed to get some new equipment and get back
on the air, cleansed of material offensive to the Justice
Department, Robert posted a lengthy message stating for a fact
that the board had always been run as a federal sting operation
with the sysop in on it from the start, and that all the American
users had gotten what they deserved.
In the Steven Knox case, when a 23 year old honors student at the
University of Pennsylvania was convicted on federal child porn
charges for videos of fully clothed adolescent girls doing
gymnastics, we were again treated to the deletion of any
criticism of the government and another Robert Thomas editorial
claiming that "Knox got what he deserved." This was accompanied
by another collection of factual inaccuracies and threats towards
anyone who dared to comment further on the subject.
Robert always seemed to have the attitude that if he never
permitted any criticism of the government porn agenda on the
board, and stayed within the letter of the laws of the state of
California, the Feds would never come for him.
Robert was wrong.
I finally got sick enough of this game playing that I stopped
calling and allowed my subscription to expire. There were more
than a few other users who felt the same way. But of course no
message critical of the way the board was run stayed online for
more than a few nanoseconds under Robert's watchful eye.
I always felt that Robert would someday be the recipient of a
major "attitude adjustment" at the hands of his beloved
government. It is ironic that although the issues raised by this
case are of the utmost importance, Robert Thomas is just about
the last person anyone would have chosen as their First
Ammendment Poster Boy.
Strange bedfellows and all that. :)
--
Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
From: yorick@garnet.msen.com (Steve Arlow)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:11:07 -0400
Subject: July 30: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
From: yorick@garnet.msen.com (Steve Arlow)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Date: 30 Jul 1994 00:24:32 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562)
Lines: 20
Sender: yorick@garnet.msen.com
Distribution: inet
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com> <strnlghtCtpsL7.KrI@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
In article <strnlghtCtpsL7.KrI@netcom.com>,
David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote:
>The argument that the prosecution sought a conservative venue to get the
>conviction, for example, is just nonsense. The defendants sent the material
>there, and having done so themselves exposed themselves to the contemporary
>community standards of that community.
Absurd. How can the community standards of Memphis be at issue here?
Thomas did not open up a porn shop in Memphis. He did not advertise
his BBS in Memphis newspapers, on Memphis TV or radio stations, or on
billboards alongside Memphis highways. The prosecution has presented
no evedence that his product was ever present or actively promoted in
Memphis until *they* phoned long distance from Memphis and downloaded
it to their computer.
--
"It's a LOVE SONNET, of course!! But / Steve Arlow, Yorick Software Inc.
I wouldn't mind if it were also / 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103
something I could say to the cat!" / Farmington Hills, MI 48335-5634
-- Willy (Joe Martin) / yorick@mail.msen.com / (810) 473-0920
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:09:59 -0400
Subject: July 29: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Reply-To: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight)
Organization: DSI/USCRPAC
References: <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 18:27:07 GMT
Lines: 126
In article <tsalagiCtprJ7.MuA@netcom.com>, <tsalagi@netcom.com> wrote:
>Poking around, I dug up this little gem. Please excuse the reposting, but
>
>Article 36907 of comp.org.eff.talk:
>Xref: netcom.com comp.org.eff.talk:36907
>Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
>Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!pa.dec.com!chaos.bsu.edu!remailer
>From: cops@aa.bbs.com (Standard Post Office Procedure)
>Message-ID: <199407281950.OAA08844@chaos.bsu.edu>
>Subject: AA BBS - CONVICTED !
>Organization: AA BBS - down for the count!
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 14:50:57 -0500
>X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA04788; Thu, 28 Jul 94 12:56:03 -0700
>X-Received: by pobox1.pa.dec.com; id AA06156; Thu, 28 Jul 94 12:56:01 -0700
>X-Received: from chaos.bsu.edu by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94)
> id AA28909; Thu, 28 Jul 94 12:52:58 -0700
>X-Received: (from remailer@localhost) by chaos.bsu.edu (8.6.8/8.6.6) id OAA08844 for comp.org.eff.talk.usenet@decwrl.dec.com; Thu, 28 Jul 1994 14:50:57 -0500
>X-To: comp.org.eff.talk.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
>X-Remailed-By: Anonymous <remailer-admin@chaos.bsu.edu>
>X-Ttl: 2
>X-Notice: This message was forwarded by a software-
> automated anonymous remailing service.
>Lines: 58
>
>
>Prepare yourself for the flurry of indictments following
>this landmark conviction ...
>
>MEMPHIS, Tenn -- A federal jury convicted a California
>couple Thursday of transmitting obscene pictures over a computer
>bulletin board.
>
>The case has raised questions, in this age of international
>computer networks, about a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
>defines obscenity by local community standards.
>
>``This case would never have gone to trial in California,''
>defense lawyer Richard Williams said.
>
>Prosecutor Dan Newsom, an assistant U.S. attorney, said the
>trial was the first he knows of for computer bulletin board
>operators charged under federal law with transmitting pornography
>featuring sex by adults.
>
>Robert and Carleen Thomas, both 38, of Milpitas, Calif., were
>convicted of transmitting sexually obscene pictures through
>interstate phone lines via their members-only Amateur Action
>Bulletin Board System.
>
>The Thomases were convicted on 11 criminal counts, each carrying
>maximum sentences of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
>
>Thomas was acquitted on a charge of accepting child pornography
>mailed to him by an undercover postal inspector.
>
>The Thomases refused to comment after the verdict. They remain
>free on $20,000 bond to await sentencing, for which no date was
>set.
>
>Williams said his clients will appeal, arguing the jury was
>wrongly instructed on how to apply the Supreme Court's standard on
>obscenity.
>
>The trial raised questions of how to apply First Amendment
>free-speech protections to ``cyberspace,'' the emerging community
>of millions of Americans who use computers and modems to share
>pictures and words on every imaginable topic.
>
>Williams argued unsuccessfully before trial that prosecutors
>sought out a city for the trial where a conservative jury might be
>found.
>
>During the weeklong trial jurors were shown photographs carried
>over the Thomases' bulletin board featuring scenes of bestiality
>and other sexual fetishes. Williams argued this was voluntary,
>private communication between adults who knew what they were
>getting by paying $55 for six months or $99 for a year.
>
>Their conviction also covers videotapes they sent to Memphis via
>United Parcel Service. The videotapes were advertised over the
>bulletin board.
It seems to me the objectional civil liberties issues, namely attempted
entrapment by the postal inspector, were dismissed. If I were a civil
liberties group I would now go after the postal service for this gross abuse
of civil rights.
If the only basis for the search and seizure was the entrapment by the
postal service, I would move quickly to get the conviction thrown out on
those grounds. It is very straightforward, and need not involve the
substance of the material carried.
On the other hand, if the evidence was obtained by legal means, it sounds to
me like a straightforward pornography conviction, and that the defense was
caught in extremis--bestiality materials, selling porno, advertising porno
tapes and then sending them across state lines. This is not the Zenger case
and it seems to me they got exactly what they deserved, although my personal
attitude to porno and porno peddlers is to ignore them.
In other words, I am not an anti-porno crusader; just an ordinary citizen,
and I can see nothing wrong with what happened to them AS LONG AS THE
EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED LEGALLY.
The argument that the prosecution sought a conservative venue to get the
conviction, for example, is just nonsense. The defendants sent the material
there, and having done so themselves exposed themselves to the contemporary
community standards of that community.
Putting it another way, it's a bad idea to send anti-Islamic propaganda to
Iran if you're planning a trip there anytime soon, or if you know the
Iranians can get you extradited for it.
This is a very bad case for an EFF or CPSR to take on, unless there were
primary civil rights violations having nothing to do with the specific
materials involved. They will not only lose (in my view), but be branded as
porno defenders. They have bigger policy fish to fry than to take on that
burden gratuitously.
David
--
The values that define our common-sense world are under assault. Some have
taken to extremes the spurious notion of freedom without responsibility, and
are trying to tear down moral guardrails. Those who live on the shoulders
are told by their pals that they are in the middle of the road. Nothing is
wrong any more (except, of course, conservative thoughts and expressions).
From: vimrich@athena.mit.edu (Vernon R Imrich)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:07:19 -0400
Subject: July 29: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Message-Id: [none given]
From: vimrich@athena.mit.edu (Vernon R Imrich)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.sex,alt.bbs,alt.slack
Subject: Re: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Date: 29 Jul 1994 21:49:14 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: america-3.mit.edu
In article <gradyCtpIxv.6BA@netcom.com>, grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
|> This points out another reason why PGP ought to be used with recipients
|> of material explicitly decrypting only after certifying that it is legal
|> for them to do so.
|>
|> Then nothing but noise is shipped across state lines until the user
|> warrants that it is legal for them to create the final product via
|> decryption.
Given the way this was prosecuted with analogy to postal law, I
would think any encryption would simply be considered an "envelope"
for the package.
The difference here is in the passivity of the BBS. To send a
postal package, the senders initiate the receivers are passsive.
To download a file, the receivers are the ones who actively "reach
out and grab" the files while the BBS more or less just answers
the phone and sits back.
Anyone know if the ACLU is getting into this? Could help with
legal costs, and they're the best at constitutional speech law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (the Exchange) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: matt@physics5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:06:20 -0400
Subject: July 29: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AA BBS sysops convicted... grab your knees, kiss those asses g'bye.
Date: 29 Jul 1994 21:25:57 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics5.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: strnlght@netcom.com's message of Fri, 29 Jul 1994 18:27:07 GMT
In article <strnlghtCtpsL7.KrI@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> On the other hand, if the evidence was obtained by legal means, it sounds to
> me like a straightforward pornography conviction
Not at all straightforward. Obscenity is supposed to be decided by
"community standards". A couple from California were convicted
according to the standards of a community more than 1000 miles away,
one that they didn't take any positive steps to have anything to do
with.
There certainly are civil liberty implications here: are the standards
of the entire United States to be determined by the standards of the
most repressive jurisdiction anywhere within our borders? Assuming
we're all agreed that this would be a Bad Thing, how are we to
structure our laws and legal doctrines so that it doesn't happen?
Maybe the AA folks would have been convicted under a reasonable set of
laws; I doubt it, but I'm willing to concede it as a hypothetical
possibility. I have no doubt, though, that this particular judgment
against them was entirely unreasonable.
--
Matt Austern "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"
From: ozoneman@telerama.lm.com (Sysop of the ooohhh-Zone)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:05:16 -0400
Subject: July 29: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Date: 29 Jul 1994 14:11:28 -0400
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telerama.lm.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Chris B Donnegan (donnegan@world.std.com) wrote:
> >I bet this case goes to the Supreme Court. Is there a law that says
> >you can't sell something that's obscene, say, to a Mississippi
> >resident, evenn though your shop is in California?
> I think they're prosecuting under postal laws, aren't they? The decision
> thus far definitely has big-time implications for "borderless" cyberspace...
Like many who have been following this case, I am shocked that it has
actually has come this far. I have to wonder what the "counts" the
Thomas's were convicted on actually covered. Robert carried some
"unique" material on his system that, IMHO, is pretty risky to begin
with. I'd like to see the actual counts. (Keith, if you're reading..
;-) )
I think Keith had made a statement to the effect that "if I, being a
TN (for example) resident, drove to NY and purchased a magazine that
would NOT be acceptable in my local community, would the local police
go to NY and arrest the store owner for selling it to me in NY..?"
What about transmitting images that are copyright legal and of the
"hardness" of Playboy or Penthouse, for example. I understand that
the images in these magazine have never been found "obscene", even in
TN....
Lets hope the supreme court makes the right decision.
Oz
From: jburrell@crl.com (Jason Burrell)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:04:27 -0400
Subject: July 29: AA BBS - CONVICTED
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: AA BBS - CONVICTED !
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin
Date: 29 Jul 1994 21:33:47 GMT
Organization: South Texas Communications
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Earl Cooley (shiva@pentagon.io.com) wrote:
: I think something a bit more surgical would be better: route around the
: damage by cancelling net access to everyone in the state of Tennessee; do
: the same to Utah if they don't drop the charges they're considering. It
: looks like it is just too dangerous to deal with anyone from those two
: states.
: Of course, this will never happen, unless the various access providers can
: be convinced that the liability and risk is too high to do business in
: those states.
Which it is, at least I think so. The general way this is working is like
this: Say I'm 15 years old and my frields, who are k00l hackerz d00dz (no
offense to any 15 year olds out there) tell me that I can see <insert some
slang phrase for pornography here> if I pay $17.95 and get an account with
this company! Yep, all I have to have is a computer and $17.50 a month and
I can get a shell account from XYZ Internet Providers. Well, imagine my
surprise when I find out that XYZ has cut off alt.binaries.pictures.* from
my site in Tenn.!
So I eventually find out how to access alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
through the world wide web. Or I eventually figure out FTP, or I have some
guy E-MAIL me the stuff.
Now what? XYZ gets sued/held criminally liable because I did this? Uhhhh,
yeah, I think so. And saying that you have to be 21+ to have an account
won't work either. It doesn't work for adult BBS's like AA (to use them as
an example), and it certaintly won't work for the net. So my mommy and
daddy go appear on a certain late Saturday night show, talking about how
the net is bad, and it's chocked full of pedophiles, and so on. (Getting
the general idea from a previous episode, the last one I ever watched. You
guys know what I'm talking about...I think)
From: tjw+@pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:02:58 -0400
Subject: July 29: AA BBS trial--jury out
Message-Id: [none given]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.sex,alt.bbs,alt.slack,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Date: 29 Jul 1994 19:55:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixd3.cis.pitt.edu
In article <319s2k$5vc@Venus.mcs.com> karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>They were found guilty of 11 counts, each carrying a 10 year jail term and
>a $250,000 fine!
>That's 2.5 MILLION dollars and 110 years! Even with time off for good
>behavior and all, if this case stands they're both finished and, IMHO, so
>is much of the erotica available on the net in the US for those sites which
>are interstate.
Wow! You'd think the judge would make the sentences run concurrently, not
consecutively. They didn't do anything EVIL, such as violate copyrights. ;-)
>This is a serious case folks. We're going to be talking to the lawyers
>IMMEDIATELY here, as the ramifications of this may be that we can no longer
>sell accounts to users across state or even local boundary lines -- or we
>may have to drop all the erotic material on the net!
Or at least drop erotic material from YOUR bbs. I'd hurry if I were you
Karl. Better get rid of anyone who has an account who *might* be calling in
from across state lines. Of course, that could be anyone. Better shut down
until the case is appealed.
For you never know when YOU'RE going to be the next BBS that's set up.
You take care of your system and we'll take care of ours. It'll be faster
that way.
Let us know when you've decided to disconnect from the net. We'll throw you
a party! ;-)
>And some of you thought Copyright was a problem? Try *this* on for size!
On second thought, you better disconnect now. Don't wait.
What's that Henny Penny, Turkey Lurkey, & Goosey Lucy? What's that you say?
The USENET is falling?
Terry
--
To submit articles to alt.folklore.info write to: wood@vms.cis.pitt.edu
To contact the moderator write to: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu.
From: jburgin@unixmail.haverford.edu (Joshua M. Burgin)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:57:30 -0400
Subject: July 29: GUILTY: Re: AA BBS trial--jury out
Message-Id: [none given]
Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.COM> writes:
>In article <118598@cup.portal.com>,
>H Keith Henson <hkhenson@cup.portal.com> wrote:
>>CNN this noon had a report that the Thomas' were found guilty. As I
>>understand it, not on all charges. Will get the results and post them
>>as soon as I can get the data. Keith
>
>Correct.
>
>They were found guilty of 11 counts, each carrying a 10 year jail term and
>a $250,000 fine!
>
>That's 2.5 MILLION dollars and 110 years! Even with time off for good
>behavior and all, if this case stands they're both finished and, IMHO, so
>is much of the erotica available on the net in the US for those sites which
>are interstate.
>
I think the sentences run concurrently. Meaning they've actually got
somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years (or a bit more) with no
parole.
Although, I might be wrong.
Karl is _definitely_ right about this being a major case. Netcom
could have it's ass sued in Saudi Arabia for allowing users to ftp in
and get "illegal material."
i think the problem with il/legality in different states is nothing
compared to the difference between countries.
I bet this case goes to the Supreme Court. Is there a law that says
you can't sell something that's obscene, say, to a Mississippi
resident, evenn though your shop is in California?
Joshua
--
Joshua M. Burgin <jburgin@unixmail.haverford.edu>
Nietzsche Pops - The Uberbreakfast.
From: karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:55:43 -0400
Subject: July 28: AA BBS trial--jury out
Message-Id: [none given]
In article <118598@cup.portal.com>,
H Keith Henson <hkhenson@cup.portal.com> wrote:
>CNN this noon had a report that the Thomas' were found guilty. As I
>understand it, not on all charges. Will get the results and post them
>as soon as I can get the data. Keith
Correct.
They were found guilty of 11 counts, each carrying a 10 year jail term and
a $250,000 fine!
That's 2.5 MILLION dollars and 110 years! Even with time off for good
behavior and all, if this case stands they're both finished and, IMHO, so
is much of the erotica available on the net in the US for those sites which
are interstate.
The *only* count which they got off on was the kiddie porn charge.
This is a serious case folks. We're going to be talking to the lawyers
IMMEDIATELY here, as the ramifications of this may be that we can no longer
sell accounts to users across state or even local boundary lines -- or we
may have to drop all the erotic material on the net!
Within Chicago what is on the net wouldn't violate community standards,
especially given what I can rent at the local video store (I live and work
in the middle of Lakeview, which is known to some as "boys town". Draw
your own conclusions.) :-) In Memphis, on the other hand.......
NETCOM in particular is in bad shape on something like this, what with their
presence nationally......
NOT good. Very, very not good.
And some of you thought Copyright was a problem? Try *this* on for size!
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice/Fax: [+1 312 248-8649] | 5 POPs throughout the area, all 28.8 equipped
MCSNet is a CIX Member | Email to "info@mcs.net" for a more information
Ask about "MCSNet Rewards" | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net
From: cops@aa.bbs.com (Standard Post Office Procedure)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:53:18 -0400
Subject: July 28: AA BBS - CONVICTED !
Message-Id: [none given]
X-Notice: This message was forwarded by a software-
automated anonymous remailing service.
Prepare yourself for the flurry of indictments following
this landmark conviction ...
MEMPHIS, Tenn -- A federal jury convicted a California
couple Thursday of transmitting obscene pictures over a computer
bulletin board.
The case has raised questions, in this age of international
computer networks, about a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
defines obscenity by local community standards.
``This case would never have gone to trial in California,''
defense lawyer Richard Williams said.
Prosecutor Dan Newsom, an assistant U.S. attorney, said the
trial was the first he knows of for computer bulletin board
operators charged under federal law with transmitting pornography
featuring sex by adults.
Robert and Carleen Thomas, both 38, of Milpitas, Calif., were
convicted of transmitting sexually obscene pictures through
interstate phone lines via their members-only Amateur Action
Bulletin Board System.
The Thomases were convicted on 11 criminal counts, each carrying
maximum sentences of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Thomas was acquitted on a charge of accepting child pornography
mailed to him by an undercover postal inspector.
The Thomases refused to comment after the verdict. They remain
free on $20,000 bond to await sentencing, for which no date was
set.
Williams said his clients will appeal, arguing the jury was
wrongly instructed on how to apply the Supreme Court's standard on
obscenity.
The trial raised questions of how to apply First Amendment
free-speech protections to ``cyberspace,'' the emerging community
of millions of Americans who use computers and modems to share
pictures and words on every imaginable topic.
Williams argued unsuccessfully before trial that prosecutors
sought out a city for the trial where a conservative jury might be
found.
During the weeklong trial jurors were shown photographs carried
over the Thomases' bulletin board featuring scenes of bestiality
and other sexual fetishes. Williams argued this was voluntary,
private communication between adults who knew what they were
getting by paying $55 for six months or $99 for a year.
Their conviction also covers videotapes they sent to Memphis via
United Parcel Service. The videotapes were advertised over the
bulletin board.
From: beebe@netcom.com (Mike Beebe)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:51:56 -0400
Subject: April 7: Amateur Action BBS Busted!
Message-Id: [none given]
[ Article crossposted from alt.binaries.pictures.erotica ]
[ Author was ]
[ Posted on 7 Apr 94 00:42:01 GMT ]
THE SYSOP'S INFORMER
SOURCE: --BAY AREA BUREAU--
ON FEB 3, 1994, AGENTS OF THE U.S. POST OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY SAN
JOSE POLICE OFFICERS, RAIDED THE HOME OF MILPITAS, CA, COUPLE ROBERT ALAN
THOMAS AND HIS WIFE, CARLEEN. THE COUPLE OPERATED THE AMATEUR ACTION BBS.
THEY WERE ARRESTED AFTER AGENTS TOOK INTO CUSTODY "THOUSANDS OF VIDEOS, 57
VIDEO DUBBING MACHINES AND ASSORTED COMPUTERS, PARTS, EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE
AND DISKETTES."
THE AMATEUR ACTION BBS, WAS AN ADULT ORIENTED BBS WHICH MADE
AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS, .GIFs OF AN ADULT NATURE.
BUT, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF BBS's MAKING AVAILABLE ADULT .GIFs TO THE
PUBLIC, WHY THEN, DID THE AMATEUR ACTION BBS GET BUSTED? THE ANSWER IS THAT
THE U.S. POST OFFICE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE FBI, AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE
JUST DEVELOPED AN UNDERCOVER STING OPERATION TO BUST AND RAID THE HOMES AND
OFFICES OF ANY BBS IN THE 50 STATES OF THE U.S. WHICH CARRIES GIFs THAT
DEPICT MEN OR WOMEN HAVING SEX. THE AMATEUR ACTION BBS WAS THE FIRST OF
HUNDREDS THAT ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY AGENTS ONLINE, POSING AS CITIZENS,
AND THEN GATHERING THE NECCESSARY INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE THE BUST IF
ADULT GIFs ARE MADE AVAILABLE.
THIS TYPE OF COMPUTER RAIDING HAS GONE FROM ELITE FILES (COMMERCIAL
SOFTWARE, ILLEGALLY COPIED AND MADE AVAILABLE) TO ADULT GIFs.
THE FEDS DO NOT CARE IF IT IS YOU IN THE PICTURE OR YOUR GIRLFRIEND,
ETC. IF HE/SHE IS HAVING SEX, OR TOUCHING THEMSELVES IN A SEXUAL WAY, AND
THIS MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE AS A GIFs FOR ADULTS (CONFIRMED ADULTS), THEN YOU
WILL BE ARRESTED IF CAUGHT.
GOING BACK TO THE BUST OF THE AMATEUR BBS, WHEN DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
ASKED THE JUDGE IF THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED SOME FORM OF ENTRAPMENT,
ASSISTANT U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY CARLOS SINGH REPORTEDLY STATED, "IT DOESN'T
MATTER. THE COUPLE RECEIVED THE STUFF, WE'LL PROSECUTE THEM."
IN RELATED NEWS, THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION HAS RELEASED THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS A WARNING TO SYSOPS OFFERING ADULT MATERIALS:
"SENATOR JESSE HELMS (R-NC) HAS REQUESTED THAT THE FBI BECOME MORE
INVOLVED IN THE FIGHT TO STOP ADULT IMAGES FROM BEING DISTRIBUTED ON
ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE INTERNET.
SENATOR HELMS STATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING HAS
NOW BEEN ALLOCATED TO GIVE THE FBI OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES A GREATER
ABILITY TO COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE INTERNET, TWO OF THE LARGEST
SOURCES OF ILLEGAL PORNOGRAPHY."
IT IS NOT SURPRISING TO KNOW THAT ALREADY, THE INTERNET HAS HAD AN
EMERGENCY ALERT FROM THE FEDERAL RESCUE TEAM, CONCERNING A VIRUS (TROJAN
HORSE) WHICH WAS JUST PLACED ON THEIR SYSTEM, BY AN UNKNOWN SOURCE.
"MIKE GODWIN, WORKING WITH THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, HAS
ISSUED A WARNING TO BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS IN ALL 50 STATES THAT FEDERAL
PROSECUTIONS WILL MORE THAN QUINTUPLE IN 1994, WITH AS MANY AS 100% OF
INVESTIGATIONS LEADING TO ARRESTS LIKELY.
"THE EFF HAS ISSUED A WARNING TO SYSOPS THAT THE FOLLOWING FILES,
WHICH DEPICT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS, ARE ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES AND CAN
SUBJECT THE SYSOP TO PROSECUTION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SYSOP KNOWS ABOUT
THE FILES OR NOT:
"-- DEPICTION OF ACTUAL SEX ACTS IN PROGRESS
"-- DEPICTION OF AN ERECT PENIS"
THE EFF ADDED THAT THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO SEXUALLY-ORIENTED
MESSAGES OR STORIES, JUST TO GIFs, FLIs, GL's (PICTURES).
Lets all be careful!
From: HPCwire article-server <more@hpcwire.ans.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 23:43:58 -0400
Subject: Internet Providers Face Disturbing Liability Issues August 31
Message-Id: [none given]
Subject: Internet Providers Face Disturbing Liability Issues August 31
Reply-To: philg@mit.edu
From: HPCwire article-server <more@hpcwire.ans.net>
Return-Path: <more@hpcwire.ans.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 20:06:37 -0700
Internet Providers Face Disturbing Liability Issues August 31
SUPERHIGHWAY REPORT HPCwire
=============================================================================
A news release from the Internet Business Association --
Washington, D.C. -- The Internet and future Information Superhighway may
find roadblocks ahead, warns the Internet Business Association (IBA). The
IBA said today that a disturbing trend is developing regarding the
vulnerability of those who maintain computers connected to the Internet.
System Owners, and not necessarily system users, are being held liable for
materials found on their machines.
"In order to promote and maintain the free flow of information, users must
develop a sense of personal responsibility," according to IBA attorney Mikki
Barry. "System owners should not be taken across the country to be tried
under laws that would not be applicable if the information wasn't stored on
a computer. Those who maintain machines that store or forward the information
that is the life blood of the Internet and the Information Superhighway
should not be held responsible for the content of the messages."
As an alternative, the IBA supports efforts to promote standards similar
to those that apply to booksellers. "Recently there was a case where an
information provider from California was brought to Tennessee and convicted
based on the community standards in that state," Barry added. "It would make
far more sense to target either the original author of the damaging
information, or the person who brought it into a state in violation of that
state's laws."
Members of the Internet Business Association are concerned that they might
be forced to defend themselves for the content of a small proportion of the
electronic information they provide. "I believe that this issue could do
more to shape the emerging face of the Information Superhighway than any
other," added Barry. "From a purely economic perspective, providers can't
possibly take on this type of burden. A book store is not held responsible
for the content of the books he sells. Neither should a BBS owner. The
sender of the message, similar to the author of a book, should take on
that liability."
For more information, please contact the Internet Business Association
at:
Debi Nolan 703/779-1320
Ben Merritt 703/757-0282 Media Relations
*****************************************************************************
H P C w i r e S P O N S O R S
Product specifications and company information in this section are
available to both subscribers and non-subscribers.
*905) Maximum Strategy 902) IBM Corp. 904) Intel SSD
912) Avalon Computer 906) nCUBE 907) Digital Equipment
*916) Maspar Computer 909) Fujitsu America 915) Genias Software
Silicon Graphics Ampex 921) Cray Research Inc.
*928) Kendall Square Research HNSX
*Updated information within last 30 days
*****************************************************************************
Copyright 1994 HPCwire.
To receive the weekly HPCwire at no charge, send e-mail without text to
"trial@hpcwire.ans.net".
From: mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 17:49:16 -0500
Subject: Comments at EFF workshop
Message-Id: [none given]
> From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
[...]
> By reaching out thousands of miles through cyberspace connections, the
> RR is using Federal power to suppress constitutionally protected
> activities which they find offensive.
[...]
After having spent most of Saturday at an EFF-sponsored workshop on sysop
liability and the law I will throw in a few bits of information passed on
at this event from real lawyers (Mike Godwin gave the "porno on the net"
talk and the AA case was highlighted in it, but all of the lawyers there
had interesting things to say about this situation.) First of all,
"obscenity" is _not_ constitutionally protected. "Pornography" is
protected if it meets several standards established in various decisions of
the Supreme Court, obscenity is that which does not pass these standards.
There are a lot of ways to get around the community standards part of the
test if the questionable bits have any artistic merit, instructional or
informational use, or do not simply appeal to prurient interest. The
"community standards" bit is the last line of defense and the only one of
much interest here.
> Most of you reading these groups are familiar with the AA BBS case.
>
> In a nutshell, a postal inspector in Memphis called Amateur Action BBS
> in California, downloaded a dozen files, ordered other stuff, shipped
> the sysop some unsolicited kiddy porn, then arrested the sysop (Robert
> Thomas) and his wife (Carleen) for kiddy porn and (by Memphis standards)
> obscenity.
This case is yet another example of bad fact leading to bad law. The big
problem here is that the sysops of this BBS were mailing out video tapes to
customers; while it may not be popular to criticize the current net.martyrs
of the month, the biggest reason they got busted is because they were
stupid. The fact that they shipped the video tapes made it much easier
for the Memphis prosecutors to claim that they were involved in
transportation of obscene material to Tennessee. It also blew apart any
claim they could have made regarding the fact that the postal inspector
connected to the BBS and "pulled" the bits rather than having them "pushed"
(e.g. he initiated the transfer and the sysops were unaware of the
transportation...obscenity stuff does have some reliance upon knowledge of
the contents and upon the alledged perpetrator knowing that the shipment
was taking place) because they then went and shipped this video tape, an
action which could not have been done without thier knowledge and in which
the transportation was caused by the sysop's action. It also meant they
they could not claim that they were unaware of the final destination of the
bits. Morons.
On the upside of things relating to this case, it seems that thier counsel
was rather inept, in fact the judge in this case "spoke from the bench" and
lambasted the AA couple's lawyer and being incompetent and completely
unable to handle the case. This will make it much easier for the couple to
appeal thier conviction, as the judge's opinion of thier counsel's
competency is now a matter of record.
> The Memphis jury found the sysop
> and his wife guilty of obscenity, but even they couldn't buy the kiddy
> porn charges, and acquitted on that charge.
The reason they were acquitted on the kiddie porn charge is that the law
enforcement officials acted too quickly. The envelope containing the
offending video tape of kiddie porn had been delivered the day of the
arrest and had not even been opened.
[...]
> Certainly *any* system which carries alt.sex.* is subject to the same
> treatment by the Religious Right (in the guise of the Memphis Feds) as
> AA BBS. In fact, the very .gifs that were found obscene in Memphis
> were made "freely distribute," by Robert and have been posted *many*
> times to the net.
Sorry, but "*any* system which carries alt.sex.*" is probably not providing
access to people from Tennessee, and even then the admins of such a site
can probably work thier case to be closer to the bookseller situation of
not knowing the specific contents of the aforementioned groups (the
signal-to-noise ratio on those groups actually acts in the admins favor :)
Additionally, all of the alt.sex.* groups are primarily text, which is
almost impossible to get an obscenity conviction on. There apparently has
not been a successfull obscenity conviction on text in over 20 years and
films are almost as hard to get a conviction on. The real danger is in
standard images, because the law requires the proof of obscenity to be
based upon the artistic merit of _the work as a whole_ which makes text
erotica almost completely immune and film safer than pictures.
In fact, the biggest danger most sites have is not from obscenity action
regarding the contents of alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.*, but from
copyright action regarding the contents of those groups. To nail someone
on copyright does not require them having knowledge of the copyright status
of the work (ignorance is no excuse in copyright cases.) There has already
been one case addressing this issue (Playboy v. Frenya [I think it was
Frenya, I can't remember exactly]) and the sysop lost.
You seem to have this big paranoia regarding the RR (who are actually
cypherpunk allies on many issues) which I will avoid discussing, but the
problem here is that you seem to think that the law in some way reflects
reality. It doesn't. Pick up a copy of "Cyberspace and the Law" [Cavazos
and Morin, ISBN 0-262-53123-2], read it, and then pass it on to other
sysops and sysadmins so that they know how to avoid doing something stupid
like the admins in the AA case. The best way to prevent something like
this from happening again is to make sysops and sysadmins aware of the
current law and how they can minimize thier exposure.
At the conference Mike said that he was working on a listing of the various
obscenity standards that he could find for communities across the nation,
so admins will eventually be able to limit access to certain subjects or
newsgroups based upon the location of the user.
jim