1994-06-02 - Re: Pedophiles in Cyberspace

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Message Hash: 42b6a54bac9832c354c33e5d618521aaa12c8916edcfead5a4a9a309f34a206d
Message ID: <9406021745.AA02447@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199406021710.KAA21953@netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-02 17:47:55 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 2 Jun 94 10:47:55 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 94 10:47:55 PDT
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: Pedophiles in Cyberspace
In-Reply-To: <199406021710.KAA21953@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9406021745.AA02447@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Mike Duvos says:
> Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> writes:
>  > The WSJ op ed page today has an article on the 1st
>  > Amendment in Cyberspace by Stephen Bates that focusses
>  > (analytically) on pedophiles and Usenet.  It is not
>  > hysterically negative but discusses the "downside" of our
>  > technology.
> Just what the world needs.  Another reporter who spends a short
> time on Usenet and emerges to proclaim to the clueless masses
> that the Internet is bursting at the seams with child porn GIFs
> and that the pedophiles are frolicking uncontrollably.

I must disagree. His analysis that discussion by pedophiles on
alt.sex.intergen is likely 100% covered by the first amendment was a
statment we would all agree with. I'd say his article was more on the
lines of "here are problems" not "here are problems -- lets regulate
the net". He didn't appear to be advocating any new laws or law
enforcement activities. I thought that the article was a bit of a
downer, but it was hardly horrifying. Indeed, I'd say it was quite
well written.