1996-04-09 - Re: Australia’s New South Wales tries net-censorship

Header Data

From: “Robert A. Rosenberg” <hal9001@panix.com>
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Message Hash: 7ec60744b30d3d4585c7edf377d7a2f90a319a11ed7d65492a88319baa0eb1a8
Message ID: <v02140b01ad8f39982775@[166.84.254.3]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-09 10:11:01 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:11:01 +0800

Raw message

From: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:11:01 +0800
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
Message-ID: <v02140b01ad8f39982775@[166.84.254.3]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 9:01 4/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote:

>I'd be interested to know if the courts have ever had a case in
>which a person has been declared to have been in "possession" of
>illegal material merely by virtue of its momentary presence in
>their cache, screen buffer, or usenet spool.

If you want a real world analogy, there are cases where overeager USPS
Inspectors who want to "get" someone have sent them porno as a Return
Receipt Requested Item and then raided before the person had had a chance
to open the package. That is possession under the Law.







Thread