ALERT: UK anti-porn network proposal

[russw@netcom.com (Russell Earl Whitaker)]

The author of the following notice is in a sensitive vocational position,
and has asked me to post the following...


###BEGIN###

A Home Office press release issued on 15 Feb 94 announces the intention of
the Home Secretary to crack down on computer-distributed pornography.
Accordingly, last week the government introduced an amendment to the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is pending before Parliament.
The new clause in the Bill would amend the definition of *publication* in
the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

It is currently considered *publication* of a pornograph image if one
*record, shows, plays, or projects it.* The proposed amendment would change
this to read:

    ... record, shows, plays, or projects it, or, where the matter
    is stored electronically, transmits that data.

The problem, of course, is that there is no definition of what it means *to
transmit* pornographic data. There is no distinction drawn between primary
and secondary transmission. This could mean that bulletin board sysops,
commercial sites with Usenet feeds, and even BT, could ALL be engaged in the
*transmission* of pornographic data.

If this is correct, then people in the position of innocent intermediary
would have to rely upon a defense of *innocent dissemination*, much like
that found in UK defamation law. Essentially, if the police could show that
pornographic images had passed over one's computer equipment, then one would
have to prove that he *had not examined the [pornographic] article and had
no reasonable cause to suspect* that its publication was illegal. Aside from
being in the uncomfortable position of having to prove one's ignorance, the
*reasonable cause* language may imply a duty to inspect certain data in a
vain attempt to see if it contains pornographic images. This especially
could be true where one provides a data feed to a known past-pornographer.

It is not entirely clear why the Home Office thinks that this amendment is
necessary. If the intention is to catch commercial pornographers, it would
appear that *record* should include recording to CD-ROM or into RAM.
Likewise, *play* should catch purchasers. The justification might be that
proof of recording and playing is much more difficult than proof of
transmission.

CAVEAT: This discussion does not include radio and television broadcasts.
There is a seperate section of the Act which specifically addresses this
area. It is not clear whether or not the proposed *transmits* language would
have any effect upon that section, but presumably it could.

It is difficult to believe that large players like BT, Mercury, CompuServe,
etc, will let this pass without a fight. It could also be, however, that
they are unaware of the possible ramifications of the proposed amendment.

###END###

[I will forward responses to this message. - Russell]

Russell Earl Whitaker                           russw@netcom.com
Director, Extropy Institute
408-366-5435
================================================================