From initial reports, the challenge to CompuServe did not come from the German government. It did not come form the German Parliament. It did not come form the German judiciary.

It came from one (repeat one) prosecutor in one (repeat one) city. I also suspect the U.S. journalists who reported the news may not know the difference between a "prosecutor" and a "procurator." It is a significant differnce in many legal systems. (Not to slag U.S. journalists too hard because I myself don't know which of the two Germany has.) The news reports on New York City television focused exclusively on the "sexual" character of the banning, without directly mentioning that other groups were also banned. "But," wrote Jonathan Oatis of Reuter in an article available on the Clarinet news feed, "many more span a host of topics, including Barney the dinosaur of children's television, Estonian politics and the New York Yankees baseball team." Also included in the reports of news groups banned is the clari.news.sex feed containing articles routinely filed by the Associated Press and Reuter. It has also been reported that self-help recovery groups were banned because the groups also had the word "sex" in the name. (In order to save the victims it was necessary to destroy them!) How did the 11 o'clock news here in New York handle the story? Two of the three channels stated that CompuServe banned "chat rooms," not news groups. The third got it right and reported on internet groups. The two channels who spoke of the "chat room" ban also stated that the rooms were banned because they contained "explicit" sexual images or graphics "depicting" sexual topics. What can we infer? No single thing directly save for the inaccuracy of the reports. But certainly even national-level tv editors are not yet sufficiently informed about the internet to know the difference between chat rooms and news groups. I'd say that this level of ignorance rather impacts on their ability to do their job in a professional fashion. (It also points to our collective failure to adequately inform them.) Second, the editors -- whether under pressure of deadline, personal psychological bias, or more sinister things -- can't pick up the idea that the verbal ("chat") and the visual ("explicit" sexual images) are two different things. Third, the sexual hysteria of the editors themselves significantly erodes their ability to perform their jobs in an objective fashion. CompuServe also got off easy under initial press inquiry. One spokesman for the company announced they were required to do it. He also stated that there was no way to cut the German customers off from the groups will making the groups available to other CompuServe customers. Based on other news reports, I conclude that CompuServe lied in both areas. (BTW, this is the first time I recall using the word "lie" on any post to the cypherpunks list.) I also infer that CompuServe did not "roll over" on this issue. The evidence shows, I think, that CompuServe is merely using one German prosecutor (or procurator) as an excuse to implement their own desired and previously prepared policy. CompuServe had, I think, several actions open. First, if the news reports that it was not "forced" to do anything by the single German, it could simply not have done anything. Second, it could have appealed the decision by the prosecutor to the courts (or submitted accurate information to the procurator and demanded that he consider it.) Third, it could have narrowly targeted the banned groups to alt.binary groups dealing with sexual issues. Fourth, it could have easily used software to cut off the feed to Germany. It did none of these things. It cut off all customers to an enormous number of groups. It inferrentially violated property rights (i.e. contracts) to customers promised internet access and now provided only a crippled version thereof. And it lied about the whole thing. Interestingly, none of the classic cypher-nasties were behind CompuServe's decision. The "big statists" in Washington didn't tell CompuServe to do it. The "hell with private property rights" bureaucrats didn't force CompuServe to do it. Nor did the taxman. The taxmen historically rarely do; they do not seek to ban "sin;" they tax it. The Treasury Department's Bureau of Booze, Butts & Bazookas (aka Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) is not behind this country's anti-booze, anti-butt, or anti-bazooka movement. They just tax all three. (They may kill you if you buy, transfer, or manufacture your bazooka without paying the US$ 200 (?) excise tax, but they're not out there in the forefront of those pushing gun control.) Additional facts that will be forthcoming in the future will point, I believe, to two things behind CompuServe's decision. The two leading causes will, I predict, be: First, the growing abstract systemic fear in this society produced by a society in crisis. This is a fear unnaturally re-directed at things like PGP and anonymity by various political poo-bahs to both deflect the citizens' fears from real causes and to rechannel that fear into areas where the same poo-bahs can claim credit for doing the "something" in "something has to be done." Second, the growing sexual hysteria within large sections of the population that does not exist in an abstract form and is not being artifically rechanneled but rather appealled to. CompuServe, in a rather brilliant move, managed to handle both groups, and blame a foreign force to boot. But while brilliant tactically, I do not believe they will succeed in continuing their policy. --tallpaul