Mike Duvos says:
Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> writes:
The WSJ op ed page today has an article on the 1st Amendment in Cyberspace by Stephen Bates that focusses (analytically) on pedophiles and Usenet. It is not hysterically negative but discusses the "downside" of our technology.
Just what the world needs. Another reporter who spends a short time on Usenet and emerges to proclaim to the clueless masses that the Internet is bursting at the seams with child porn GIFs and that the pedophiles are frolicking uncontrollably.
I must disagree. His analysis that discussion by pedophiles on alt.sex.intergen is likely 100% covered by the first amendment was a statment we would all agree with. I'd say his article was more on the lines of "here are problems" not "here are problems -- lets regulate the net". He didn't appear to be advocating any new laws or law enforcement activities. I thought that the article was a bit of a downer, but it was hardly horrifying. Indeed, I'd say it was quite well written. Perry