[9375] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: International Enforcement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Gingery)
Sat Jan 1 03:57:23 1994
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 01:40:26 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Gingery <lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu>
To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
Cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu, Privatizing the Internet <com-priv@psi.com>
In-Reply-To: <01.1993Dec21.05h49m32s.PAUL-c100000-c100000@TDR.COM>
On Tue, 21 Dec 1993, Paul Robinson wrote:
[ bulk of original omitted ]
> Or let's take another case. A Canadian judge has prohibited distribution
> of any information about a particular murder case that happened there.
> Because his edicts have no effect in the U.S., the Buffalo News has run a
> full coverage of the story; people bring copies of the paper with
> them into Canada are having them confiscated at the border.
>
> Now, if someone in the U.S. posts messages about that case onto a newsgroup
> that is distributed into Canada, is a crime committed? Is the person who
> posts the messages (where it is legal to do so) committing a crime in
> Canada? Is the person who reads the messages committing a crime? Both?
> Neither?
My own opinion on this is based on a "sense of Justice" rather than
specific legal knowledge. Presumably there may be treaties with weight of
law which would put "any of the above" in the position of "committing a
crime", but as to WHO ACTUALLY comitted a crime, presumably it would be
the "source" for the Buffalo News, who violated the prohibition on
distribution of "any information about the ...case..."
As society becomes more and more complex BECAUSE of the "Global
Village", smarts have to be applied by the JUDGE in a case like this. If
he/she isn't up to it he/she should be removed from the bench. This is
the "knowledgable professional" in the case, and the one on whom the
burden of foresight should be placed. Stuffing the burden on the carrier
who moves the E-Mail across the border, merely screws up the flow of
NEEDED communications. Similarly, zapping the one operating the system
from which the "illegal" information can be downloaded is invalid as it is
not reasonable to require such editing of E-mail. If the judge wants to
lay that additional burden on a given person, that's up to the judge, but
he/she better be ready to ALSO censure every postal employee who might
carry a letter containing comparable information -- for "distribution".
In the case of the 14-year old's nudie pictures, (omitted from quotes
above), it's a matter of control BY THE PARENTS of the kid downloading the
picture. As for distribution of the child porn, it's a matter for the
originating country. The victim of such porn is the subject of the
picture. Other acts which may follow viewing by perverts are NOT tied
directly back to the picture's availability, legal or otherwise. Such
acts MUST stand on their won, and any precedent of law to the contrary
are wrong and should be cast out, just as some "common law" precedents
are ignored. The real crime is the making and posting of the picture, not
the incidental (and perhaps unknowing) portage of it. You don't execute
the postman for delivering the gun through the mail that was used in the
crime.
Bruce Gingery lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu
