From: miron@extropia.wimsey.com (Miron Cuperman)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 03:25:01 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Remailers and liability
Message-ID: <1992Dec20.105340.11707@extropia.wimsey.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Here is a post which is somewhat relevant:

>Newsgroups: alt.censorship,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
>From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
>Subject: Appeals court declares child pornography law unconstitutional
>Message-ID: <1992Dec17.232618.19727@netcom.com>
Summary: New decision by Ninth Circuit may affect BBS operators
>Keywords: law pornography
>Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:26:18 GMT

     The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in US vs X-Citement
Video Inc., (CA No. 89-50556), that the sections of the Protection of
Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 that deal with 
distribution, transportation, and receipt of sexually explicit 
materials are invalid on First Amendment grounds.  The court let stand the 
prohibition on the production of child pornography.

     This ruling needs to be looked at more closely, but it may help to
remove sysop worries about someone posting such material on their system
without their knowledge, or about network nodes being liable for 
material passing through them.  This is a step forward, because it was
one of the very few real legal risks a US sysop had to face, and now
it appears to be dead. Do the lawyers out there agree with this analysis?

     Producing child pornography remains illegal, which is reasonable.

					John Nagle


Source: Wall Street Journal, 17DEC92, p. B10 (Western edition)