From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:05:19 +0800
To: frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960617102038.00b7949c@panix.com>
Message-ID: <UllJ=kK00YUyI3Snos@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 17-Jun-96 Re: Remailer Operator
Liabi.. by Duncan Frissell@panix.co 
> However, even if remailers didn't exist, kiddies could still be unknowingly
> reached via mailing lists (anyone know who came up with the term "email
> exploder" that the Court used instead of "mailing list"?), freenet accounts,
> un- age verified accounts opened anywhere on earth, or borrowed accounts.
> The decision mentioned some of this.

I believe we used the term "email exploder" instead of "mailing list,"
particularly in cross-examination and closing arguments, to convey the
idea that such a device is often used for conversation, not just one-way
communication.

The fight-censorship list (mail exploder?) is part of the lawsuit, and
my sworn testimony included:

  the list sometimes includes material that could be considered
"indecent" or   "patently offensive."  Minors are not excluded from this
list.

-Declan