At 01:17 -0400 9/19/00, Jodi Hoffman wrote:

Kevin Elliott wrote:

...

Read the stupid website if you don't believe me www.nambla.de.

Here's a little something else I picked up from the same stupid website (you know...the one you say only promotes sex between teenagers and adults...)

My god! Did you stay up all night to find this? It seems quite clear to me that the vast majority of the website is focused on man/teen relationships. Even so, if this were a website advocating man/baby relationships, especially those that included horses it would not affect my position one bit. These people have the right for their information to be put into the public forum. -- Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827 _______________________________________________________________________________ "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas

At 11:59 -0400 9/19/00, Matt Elliott wrote:

...

would not affect my position one bit. These people have the right for their information to be put into the public forum.

One small correction Kevin, they have the right to put their information into their own public forum. I don't have to allow them to put their information in my newspaper or allow their bits to travel across sections of the Internet that I own. I don't have to make it easy for them to spread their nonsense.

Oh yeah, now things get interesting. The issue of allowing such things in your newspaper is a problem you have with your newspaper, not them. If you don't like what your newspaper publishes complain to it, not to NAMBLA. The ISP issue is similar. I don't have a problem with an organization controlling the material it carries, BUT I have a serious problem with organizations- A. Not making the fact they do such things VERY clear in their user agreement, etc. OR B. Changing said agreement depending on which way the wind blows. Their is also a legal issue here that is worth mentioning. An ISP deciding to censor/filter traffic based on content potentially opens that ISP to serious legal risk. As long as an ISP acts as a simple bit shuffler their liability for user activity is tiny. They enjoy the same status as the telephone company (that of a common carrier) and thus have no responsibility for the traffic they carry. The moment the step over that line and begin to monitor said traffic they can no longer claim to be a common carrier. I believe their was an interesting case several years ago where an ISP in the Eastern US was held liable for pornographic material stored on one of there news servers, specifically because they had taken action in the past to remove such material. Regardless however, all such activities to restrict traffic ought to be done by contacting the individuals and/or organizations responsible (either carriers or originators), not by running to big momma government and whining about how such talk disturbs you. Using the government and specifically the judiciary as a big cudgel to beat people who's opinion you disagree with into submission is morally reprehensible. People who abuse government in such a way ought to be shunned with the same venom typically reserved for pedophiles and persons of similar ilk. -- Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827 _______________________________________________________________________________ "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas

Oh my! And when we are finished with this website, I guess it is about time I burn my copy of "Death in Venice", right? On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 01:52:54AM -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:

And more from this "only TEENAGERS and adults" website...

"Recently, I showed a friend a photograph of myself and a twelve-year-old boy with whom I was bonded years ago. We are standing side by side with my arm around his shoulder, in what I would consider a typical adult-child pose. My friend took one look at the picture and said, "You were lovers." To my surprise, he pointed out that there was absolutely no space between us. The boy had molded his body so that he was in continuous contact with me from his ankle to where his shoulder fit into my armpit. The author is classified as a violent felon, and so housed and treated, because the law defines sexual contact with a child less than eleven as a violent crime. The irony is profound. The child in question once had to go find his brother to help him remove a bothersome loose tooth because the author couldn't bear to cause him even momentary pain."

Try as I might, I have been unable to find a single page on that NAMBLA website that speaks of "teenagers and adults." All they ever talk about is "boys." "

-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America’s Moral Pride

Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280

-- 'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?' 'Here,' Montag touched his head. 'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded. Oskar Sandberg md98-osa@nada.kth.se