From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:48:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960617102038.00b7949c@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:53 PM 6/15/96 +1000, Zed wrote:
>
>Unlikely. The use of anonymous remailers was given as a reason for why it
>was impossible to effectively determine if indecent material was being
>distributed to a minor who was using a nym. I think pressure on anonymous
>remailers is going to increase as various groups complain that the paw
>innocent widdle kiddies are "vulnerable to corruption"(or some bullshit like
>that) because their age can be hidden. Read the decision. The CDA _may_ be
>declared constitutional if there was an effective and reliable way of
>preventing minors from accessing "indecent" material - which anonymous
>remailers make harder to do.

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.

DCF