From: jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 14:13:27 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: AA BBS sysops found guilty
Message-ID: <9407292112.AA11348@bilbo.suite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



The list is currently discussing use end-point filtering vs source-point  
filtering vs total Net-filtering to control access to various  
Net-material.  Well...

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.

It is my understanding that the AA BBS sysops try to verify the  
"adultness" of their subscribers.  It didn't help them in this case.   
"Adultness" wasn't the issue.  "Accessible from Tennessee" was the issue.   
It seems that the stuff on the AA BBS was legal for California, but  
considered illegal pornography in Tennessee.

What I wonder is why the postal inspector wasn't charged with anything  
(well, actually I don't wonder, the question is rhetorical).  Unless I'm  
wrong, it was the postal inspector's actions that caused the erotic  
material to be downloaded from California to Tennessee.  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.

What is the point I'm trying make?  Well, the list is currently discussing  
the benefits of end-point filtering to keep "bad stuff" from getting into  
"good homes".  Of course, this implies the "bad stuff" is out there  
somewhere waiting to be downloaded.  If this Tennessee verdict holds, just  
putting "bad stuff" stuff out there will become a crime, regardless of  
where in the US you put it.

"If you upload it, they will come!  (and get you)"

I'm hoping this case will get overturned on appeal to the US Supreme  
Court.  However, even that could be a mixed blessing depending on the  
wording of the SC decision.  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.  In either case, there is  
an implied assumption that the material is somehow conveniently rated  
and/or categorized.  This sets the stage for government sponsored rating  
systems, and the bureaucracies to enforce them.


Jim_Miller@suite.com