1994-07-29 - Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking

Header Data

From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
To: nzook@fireant.ma.utexas.edu
Message Hash: 04dfb535976b41e5074aa06da7c9908c021cf75ebca70ebd6a0a52fd258c50be
Message ID: <m0qTmUy-0005LfC@ideath.goldenbear.com>
Reply To: <9407290326.AA16170@owl.ma.utexas.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-29 08:07:17 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 01:07:17 PDT

Raw message

From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 01:07:17 PDT
To: nzook@fireant.ma.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking
In-Reply-To: <9407290326.AA16170@owl.ma.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <m0qTmUy-0005LfC@ideath.goldenbear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


>    Look at the system.  Imagine you were trying to sue/prosecute a sysop who 
>    utilized such a system.  One what basis could you attack?  All decisions
>    to allow access were determined by the parent.  The sysop genuinely
>    attempts to verify that adults are adults.

"Reasonable mistake" as to the age of a minor is already an affirmative
defense in Oregon with respect to a prosecution for furnishing/distributing
obscene material to a minor. ORS 167.085(4). If you're really excited 
about this, you might look at _Ginsberg v. New York_, 398 U.S. 629. A
little poking around makes it look like that's the lead case re
prosecutions for furnishing obscenity to minors. It includes as an
appendix a list of 35 states' "furnishing obscenity to minors" statutes,
circa 1968 (cites only).

In Oregon, it looks like a sysadmin would need to know or have good reason
to know (a) that the material furnished was obscene, and (b) that the person
the material was furnished to was a minor. The standard of "obscenity" for
what minors can see/can't see may be stricter than the traditional Miller
test (Ginsberg) but can't be so strict as "no nudity regardless of context",
at least here in Oregon.

Version: 2.5