Re: NYET to censors, REPOST

[Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>]

> 
> State Level:
> 1)  Declare to hold harmless those BBS operators for charges of Contributing
> to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of account
> holders, and maintain a NYET system of access for minors.  Certain
> acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods
> delegated to a regulatory agency.  Emphasis to be on ease and speed of
> verification.  Special consideration for in-house systems.
>
The best way to impliment this is to have no kind of verification done by
the BBS operator on their callers. This is the way that I run my system.
I am *NOT* responsible legaly, ethicaly, moraly, etc. for who calls my
system and uses it. If mommy or daddy don't want their kids to have virus
software or pictures of naked ladies then that is their problem not mine.
I refuse to take on a parents responsibility. (period)

> 2)  Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS.  Require
> BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of account holders for
> thirty days after opening of account for hold harmless agreement, and
> allowing deletion of said data afterwards.
>
Since there is no legal need to demonstrate age why should it be illegal
to misrepresent it? Why do I want to become part of the law enforcement 
community in the first place? I want to run a BBS, not become a oink-droid.

As to name, sorry but I specificaly have a 'guest' account on my system
and handles are fine as well. People have no responsibility to give me their
real name and I have no responsibility to ask.

As to deletion, I reserve the right to throw somebody off *MY* system for
any reason I deem worthy (incl. having a shitty day). It is my systems and
nobody should be able to set my admission standards.

> 
> I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression 
> currently enjoyed by the net, while reaffirming parental responsibility in 
> the upbringing of their children.  The burden of controlling access
> devolves all the way to the parents, making charges against BBS operators
> patently frivolous.  Porno charges would then be MUCH more difficult to
> press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to
> prevent access to minors.  If parents complained that they didn't want to
> go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the
> response is clear:  "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?"
> 
>
Protect the full expression of everyone but the BBS operator. Folks a 
BBS is equivalent to a newspaper or other 'press'. The only person on there
who has a 'right' is the person operating it. Don't give it up just because
somebody else is too busy to trust their kids.

The burden of cotrolling access devolves to the parent...period.

You sue me, I sue you in Federal court for civil liberty infringement.

Porno doesn't exist except in a seriously neurotic or anal retentive persons
midget mind. We are born naked, we die naked, why is it not ok to look at 
living people naked? 

My general responce is that if 'your' god will allow sin why can't you?