It seems to me this was established by court rulings about
Compuserve and/or other information service providers.
The logic if I remember correctly was that explicitly
restricting access to some information makes one
accountable for any other information that is implicitly
I much prefer the type of controls that specify advance
warnings of content, that a person can choose to heed or
not. The main point is they choose for themselves. This is
part of adulthood IMHO. As for children, their adult parents
can make the choices for them.
>>> <dckinder @
com> September 17, 1996
2:42 am >>>
I am not aware of any doctrine or body of law that states
This sound's pretty harsh and arbitrary and seems unlikely
to advance any coherent goal.
I oppose censorship and favor employee privacy, but I also
think that legal rules should make sense.
Frankly I question whether laws of this sort actually exist.
They should be changed if they do. Please advise.
Duncan Kinder dckinder @
> Once you start censoring a part of the Internet, or any
medium for that
> matter, of a particular piece of information you are
responsible to make
> sure absolutely none of the information gets through. > If
you fail to do so you may be up for some pretty big law
> Leon O'Brien
> Managing Director > NetWorx Pty Ltd
> > > > ----------
> > From: potlicker @
> > To: firewalls @
> > Subject: Internet policy
> > Date: Tuesday, September 17, 1996 5:41 AM
> > > > > > Wankers PLC did a study of what their users
are accessing during business
> > hours. They found that 20 percent of all Internet
access from their
> > is viewing pornographic materials. Now they are
chewing their finger
> > and trying to decide who to blame. The obvious
approach would be to
> > access to the porno sites on their firewalls. How do
> > this issue?
> > PoT_LiCkEr