Re: AA BBS - Thomases are going to jail...
We have a Problem . . . H. Keith Henson Part of the Federal Government's law enforcement mechanism is under the control of the Religious Right. By reaching out thousands of miles through cyberspace connections, the RR is using Federal power to suppress constitutionally protected activities which they find offensive. I expect the RR people involved feel that what they are doing is fair return for Federal power being used to suppress the school Christmas pageant in a thousand sleepy little towns in middle America--and less dangerous than offing abortion doctors, or killing gays. Most of you reading these groups are familiar with the AA BBS case. In a nutshell, a postal inspector in Memphis called Amateur Action BBS in California, downloaded a dozen files, ordered other stuff, shipped the sysop some unsolicited kiddy porn, then arrested the sysop (Robert Thomas) and his wife (Carleen) for kiddy porn and (by Memphis standards) obscenity. They were tried in Memphis last summer by an obviously biased court. (The judge and prosecutor made no attempt to hide their longstanding mutual admiration.) The Memphis jury found the sysop and his wife guilty of obscenity, but even they couldn't buy the kiddy porn charges, and acquitted on that charge. Friday (Dec. 2, 1994), in the worst perversion of justice I have ever witnessed, the sysop and his wife were sentenced to three years. They were lucky to get that little time. I got a look at the pre-sentencing report. (I may be able to post some of it later.) The recommended sentence included about twice this amount of time based on the kiddy porn charge they were *acquitted* of. Those reports are simply *amazing*. They cover family members and history out a generation or so in all directions, not to mention school, medical records, tax filings, and any police record--even if you were found innocent! It seems to be the function of these things to put your entire life in the worst possible light. Someone should take the form and do one for Christ just prior to the Crucifixion. It would run something like: ". . . questionable father, . . low class occupation (carpenter), . . . accused of impersonating a doctor by healing sick, . . . known to associate with low class persons, . . . travels about (vagabond), . . ." Back to the problem. I find the situation intolerable--without having a clear idea of how to deal with it. With little more effort (though a lot more skill than the postal inspector demonstrated) the RR-controlled Feds can create crime and venue problems for just about anyone running a BBS or net node. Certainly *any* system which carries alt.sex.* is subject to the same treatment by the Religious Right (in the guise of the Memphis Feds) as AA BBS. In fact, the very .gifs that were found obscene in Memphis were made "freely distribute," by Robert and have been posted *many* times to the net. Could we use economic retaliation? I won't use Federal Express any more because it and Graceland (and the cat houses near Graceland) seem to be the economic mainstays of Memphis. Unfortunately, even a very effective economic boycott is not going to have an effect on the zealots, and depressing that area further might make it an even *more* repressive backwater because the last of the intelligent/tolerant people would move out. On the other hand, economic pressures might induce the more sensible part of the community to pressure the zealots into being more tolerant (at least of people 3 time zones away!). In recent years economic pressure has induced two states to change laws. A positive sign that economic pressure might be effective is that the local newspaper did *not* support the prosecution. Research question: Why did the Memphis Feds back off after the Deep Throat trials? Is the law any help? After nearly a year of watching the process, I am *quite* pessimistic. In its own way, the court system is deeply corrupt. I think even the RR folks know this is a political case and not a criminal one. In political cases, leaving a person out on bail during appeal is normal, but in this case, it is very much in the government's interest to have Robert out of circulation so he cannot pursue the Electronic Communication Privacy Act suit and other causes of action against them in civil court. Robert's motion for bail during appeal was denied. Are there political routes? Yes, but chancy. It is possible that a political fight with the RR might backfire and result in heavy restrictions on the nets. Coming down hard on the nets would be very popular with the Administration forces after the Clipper debacle. The power of the net to organize political force must be quite worrying to those in power. (It is clear to me that modern day revolutions, anywhere in the world, and peaceful or not, would be organized through the net. In some places this has already happened.) It may be that a general cutting down on the powers of the Federal Government is in order. This has pros and cons, and support (in some areas) even from the RR. How *does* one shrink the unshrinkable? Tax revolts (in the form of massive political pressure) seem to come about when the tax rates get as high as they are now. Another possibility is that the formation of private money may greatly shrink the ability of governments everywhere to collect taxes. Should people start thinking about direct action? I hope we don't come to this! There is nothing I can think of worse than arousing the technically knowledgeable to take the infrastructure apart. Problem is that pinpoint damage (like taking the 901 area code down for a few days or weeks) is somewhere between impossible and probably impossible. (Though ATT managed to take down their entire phone network for a day with a missing "case" statement.) Your thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Please post encrypted through a remailer chain if you absolutely *must* post ideas about the last paragraph! S ,.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- H. Keith Henson writes
It may be that a general cutting down on the powers of the Federal Government is in order.
How could you doubt it?
This has pros and cons,
Name a con.
and support (in some areas) even from the RR.
That's ok. Without a government to wield, they would be ignorable.
How *does* one shrink the unshrinkable? Tax revolts (in the form of massive political pressure) seem to come about when the tax rates get as high as they are now.
Tax revolts do no good. Taxes are the _result_, not the cause. The cause of big government is popular gratuitous acceptance of government favor. If you want to shrink government, you've got to begin by changing the minds of a hundred million of your neighbors who think it's civilized to take a government job or contract, accept social security, apply for an SBA loan or FEMA assistance, and on down the list. I know a tax revolter who held an anti-tax rally on a tax-funded picnic ground without even noticing or acknowledging the inconsistency. This is why it's unshrinkable. We have met the enemy, and he is us. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLuRNEsDhz44ugybJAQHpIgP/a3fFhRrub8X3KQu5EHYy94+nsfOu788b Mv2yXisQSEBjUR41IIU7ieTzq5B9nPHY3D2wWJ70EQmZOJ2bWQl1HMosoRSwd3eL oNZQvu+DPsvZFAge/BQyFjCDaQCme9Xm+rXC8psqGmGT9avQE7ti+OSEnFQ+lSJj FYv/Lj69vlM= =4m98 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar) writes:
Tax revolts do no good. Taxes are the _result_, not the cause.
Perhaps. But anger over taxation can be a powerful galvanizing force that gets disinterested, apolitical, apathetic people to stand up and vote. It may not be your philosophical piece of cake, but it works. Besides, getting angry at the result of a policy is a good first step to questioning the policy itself. "If you don't like high taxes, think of where all that money is going."
The cause of big government is popular gratuitous acceptance of government favor.
It's hardly gratuitous. The general public feeling nowadays, that their money is being taken whether they consent or not. Given that (nonconsensual takings backed by prevailing law), it is perfectly rational to "get yours", i.e. milk the resulting machine for whatever you can do (including, i might note, disregarding prevailing IRS codes). It's not a "government favor", it's called "getting back your money."
If you want to shrink government, you've got to begin by changing the minds of a hundred million of your neighbors who think it's civilized to take a government job or contract, accept social security, apply for an SBA loan or FEMA assistance, and on down the list.
Not necessarily. It is quite enough to convince many of your neighbors that they (a) are not getting their tax money's worth back from the government(s), and that (b) there's a better way. Right now, it seems that (a) is gathering steam. The problem is expressing (b) - which many of us are convinced of - in terms Mr./Ms. Average Voter can agree with... and "taking money from government is uncivilized" does not strike me as very effective. -- perry --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry The Cynic perry@cynic.org To a blind optimist, an optimistic realist must seem like an Accursed Cynic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com [...] By reaching out thousands of miles through cyberspace connections, the RR is using Federal power to suppress constitutionally protected activities which they find offensive. [...]
After having spent most of Saturday at an EFF-sponsored workshop on sysop liability and the law I will throw in a few bits of information passed on at this event from real lawyers (Mike Godwin gave the "porno on the net" talk and the AA case was highlighted in it, but all of the lawyers there had interesting things to say about this situation.) First of all, "obscenity" is _not_ constitutionally protected. "Pornography" is protected if it meets several standards established in various decisions of the Supreme Court, obscenity is that which does not pass these standards. There are a lot of ways to get around the community standards part of the test if the questionable bits have any artistic merit, instructional or informational use, or do not simply appeal to prurient interest. The "community standards" bit is the last line of defense and the only one of much interest here.
Most of you reading these groups are familiar with the AA BBS case.
In a nutshell, a postal inspector in Memphis called Amateur Action BBS in California, downloaded a dozen files, ordered other stuff, shipped the sysop some unsolicited kiddy porn, then arrested the sysop (Robert Thomas) and his wife (Carleen) for kiddy porn and (by Memphis standards) obscenity.
This case is yet another example of bad fact leading to bad law. The big problem here is that the sysops of this BBS were mailing out video tapes to customers; while it may not be popular to criticize the current net.martyrs of the month, the biggest reason they got busted is because they were stupid. The fact that they shipped the video tapes made it much easier for the Memphis prosecutors to claim that they were involved in transportation of obscene material to Tennessee. It also blew apart any claim they could have made regarding the fact that the postal inspector connected to the BBS and "pulled" the bits rather than having them "pushed" (e.g. he initiated the transfer and the sysops were unaware of the transportation...obscenity stuff does have some reliance upon knowledge of the contents and upon the alledged perpetrator knowing that the shipment was taking place) because they then went and shipped this video tape, an action which could not have been done without thier knowledge and in which the transportation was caused by the sysop's action. It also meant they they could not claim that they were unaware of the final destination of the bits. Morons. On the upside of things relating to this case, it seems that thier counsel was rather inept, in fact the judge in this case "spoke from the bench" and lambasted the AA couple's lawyer and being incompetent and completely unable to handle the case. This will make it much easier for the couple to appeal thier conviction, as the judge's opinion of thier counsel's competency is now a matter of record.
The Memphis jury found the sysop and his wife guilty of obscenity, but even they couldn't buy the kiddy porn charges, and acquitted on that charge.
The reason they were acquitted on the kiddie porn charge is that the law enforcement officials acted too quickly. The envelope containing the offending video tape of kiddie porn had been delivered the day of the arrest and had not even been opened. [...]
Certainly *any* system which carries alt.sex.* is subject to the same treatment by the Religious Right (in the guise of the Memphis Feds) as AA BBS. In fact, the very .gifs that were found obscene in Memphis were made "freely distribute," by Robert and have been posted *many* times to the net.
Sorry, but "*any* system which carries alt.sex.*" is probably not providing access to people from Tennessee, and even then the admins of such a site can probably work thier case to be closer to the bookseller situation of not knowing the specific contents of the aforementioned groups (the signal-to-noise ratio on those groups actually acts in the admins favor :) Additionally, all of the alt.sex.* groups are primarily text, which is almost impossible to get an obscenity conviction on. There apparently has not been a successfull obscenity conviction on text in over 20 years and films are almost as hard to get a conviction on. The real danger is in standard images, because the law requires the proof of obscenity to be based upon the artistic merit of _the work as a whole_ which makes text erotica almost completely immune and film safer than pictures. In fact, the biggest danger most sites have is not from obscenity action regarding the contents of alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.*, but from copyright action regarding the contents of those groups. To nail someone on copyright does not require them having knowledge of the copyright status of the work (ignorance is no excuse in copyright cases.) There has already been one case addressing this issue (Playboy v. Frenya [I think it was Frenya, I can't remember exactly]) and the sysop lost. You seem to have this big paranoia regarding the RR (who are actually cypherpunk allies on many issues) which I will avoid discussing, but the problem here is that you seem to think that the law in some way reflects reality. It doesn't. Pick up a copy of "Cyberspace and the Law" [Cavazos and Morin, ISBN 0-262-53123-2], read it, and then pass it on to other sysops and sysadmins so that they know how to avoid doing something stupid like the admins in the AA case. The best way to prevent something like this from happening again is to make sysops and sysadmins aware of the current law and how they can minimize thier exposure. At the conference Mike said that he was working on a listing of the various obscenity standards that he could find for communities across the nation, so admins will eventually be able to limit access to certain subjects or newsgroups based upon the location of the user. jim
participants (4)
-
hkhenson＠cup.portal.com -
jkreznar＠ininx.com -
mccoy＠io.com -
Perry The Cynic