response 100 of 382:

Dec 28 03:22 UTC 1995

   The bandwidth that the page soaks up is definietly a waste, compared
to just about anything else that could be done on Grex.
   *Any* site can have pornography or whatever on it.  Grex can, too.
But that doesn't differenciate Grex from the rest of the places on the
net, and if Grex isn't any different, there really isn't any reason
for us to exist.  We don't have a fast system, our link speed is
laughably slow.
   Grex is somewhat rare when you look at the quality and type of
conferencing here.  That's what makes us special.
   The content of the page in discussion doesn't thrill me, either.
The person has a right to say it, but I have to wonder what *we* as
a system want for Grex.  I am all too aware of the fine line that
this treads, but I am, in general, for getting rid of this stuff on
Grex, because of the load it will present to us if unchecked.
   There have been many FTP sites that have tried to provide a
warehouse for electronic erotica, and *all* of them, every single one
has been shut down when it was discovered that the sex-specific part
of their system was impacting whatever it was that the site did in
the first place.
   *Every* site that I know of that carried sex related files.  Those
that are around now will in all likelyhood soon go away.  If anyone
knows of a permenent sex site I'd like to hear about it--but it will
be a rare exception to what I'm saying.
   So, if Grex doesn't do something about this, the graphic sex stories
on this particular page, we'll get more.  We'll get as much traffic
as we can bare.
   As an aside, make a guess which is the most popular conference on
Grex, when measured by counting up all the .cf files on /home.  Take
a guess.

response 102 of 382:

Dec 28 05:52 UTC 1995

One way or the other we need to change our "acceptable use policy" here. 
Our current AUP is: 
(1) No graphics or other media besides text and hypertext.
(2) No Server side programs (CGI)
(3) Nothing illegal

I do not want to see web site building on Grex burdened down by a large number
of additional rules. I want to have a simple set of rules that we as the 
members who foot the bill for this service are happy with. 

At the same time I don't want to be in the position, as a person who 
typically enforces and explains these rules, that in addition to the rules
we told you about, there are unwritten rules. Let's get them all out up front.

I want to know. 
(a) Should we add a rule that says no huge files? 
(b) Shoule we add a rule that says no hacker sites (these are typically
    lists of pointers to resources on the net which tell how to break into 
    systems)
(c) Should we have a rule that disallows sex-stories which are sufficiently
    explicit that minors should not be reading them. (I am not talking about
    mere indecency here, like the silly Exon Amendment).
(d) Should we add a rule that says no more than x amount of bandwidth?
(e) Should we relax the graphic prohibition to allow, perhaps, very small 
    graphics.

I have serious problems with not installing rule (c). We are putting these
stories, which are admitted to be inappropriate for anyone below 18 by the
author himself (read the disclaimer), on the web with no hint of a mechanism to
prevent kids from getting to it. I cannot believe anyone thinks seriously for
even a moment that that silly disclaimer will stop a curious youngster whose 
mom or dad isn't peering at the monitor with them. Not installing rule (c)
amounts in my opinion to gross irresponsibility, and I think you should all be
thinking seriously about these matters.

Why are all those silly congressmen cooking up overreactions to the internet?
Yes, they are overreacting. We are just handing them the bait, though.
We are stirring them up. I hope we can deal with this before the Observer finds
out about it.
isn't

response 104 of 382:

Dec 28 20:43 UTC 1995

  My thoughts on Steve's questions are a), a rule that says no huge
files is quite reasonable.  We aren't an ISP.  I'm getting tired of
finding 900K SPARC binaries, or some 'bot tar file here.  b) I don't
think we can make a rule about no "hacking" sites, because there are
lots of reasonable things that are extremely close, like the BUGTRAQ
list that crimelab.com puts out.  Sure, there are vandals who use
that, but its still a very rasonable resource. c) Yes, something to
stop hardcore sex stories/pictures is reasonable.  We don't have the
bandwidth to carry them, plain and simply. d) We can't easily say
no more than "X" K of bandwidth, becuase then we'd have to write
enough monitoring software to carry that out.  Thats a neverending
job.  Besides, only a small, very small number of people abuse things.
With a little automation, they can be singled out pretty easily.
e) No, we shouldn't allow graphics files on Grex until we get an
ISDN connection.  Then and only then do we relax things, if we ever
do.  Remember, as soon as we open that ability up, we're going to
have all these technically clueless but very nice people crashing into
whatever boundary we set, and we're going to be forever explaining
to them that we can't allow <whatever>.  Thats another endless job.

response 106 of 382:

Dec 29 06:27 UTC 1995

Maybe where we part is that I don't see anything inherently wrong with
pornography.  I don't care for it myself -- in fact, I find most of it to be
in what I consider to be pretty poor taste, to put it mildly -- but if people
really do enjoy it I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it.  If we do
decide that that isn't the sort of text Grex is intended for, and therefore
should not be tolerated, then where do we draw the line?  It makes me
uncomfortable that have that sort of story around, but it also makes me very
uncomfortable to remove it based on content.  I am concerned about the
bandwidth, though.

response 108 of 382:

Dec 29 06:29 UTC 1995

        re # 106 sliped in, I couldn't agree more though.

response 110 of 382:

Dec 29 17:13 UTC 1995

   I think I see a compromise here.

   Can we agree to limit/stomp/whatever "pornopgrapic" things on
Grex, simply because of the bandwidth they consume?

   It's a fact that porno consumes *huge* amounts of net bandwitdh
all over.  Absolutely huge.  Given that, and the fact that our
current net connection at 28.8Kbs, or the future 112Kbps ISDN
connection isn't enough to keep up with everything, can we all
agree that we should try to provent it, for purely technical
reasons?

   I have traits of srw's and scg's thoughts here; while I don't
personally "mind" the existence of pornography as scg does, I
find it uncomfortable being near it, and what that means for Grex,
as srw does.

   But the fact remains that we can't deal with it, technically,
so I think that we can agree to disagree with the principle of
it all, but agree that the technical aspects of this limit our
abilities.

   Note that this does that the inherent flaw of avoiding the
actual dissuccion over this, if and when we get Grex moved onto
something much faster, like a T1 connection.  But for the current
time we might be able to strike an agreement here.

response 112 of 382:

Dec 29 22:41 UTC 1995

I have stepped out of the Grexbunker so that you can all take your shots at
me. (I do have "special" underware on, however, but let's not discuss that
in too much detail, as it is a security issue.)

I agree that we need to address the content question separately from the
technical one. Let's not use our possibly temporary lack of bandwidth as an
excuse for censoring. If we are going to censor anything on Grex, let's be
up front with our users and explain why it is necessary.

Steve Gibbard said it makes him very uncomfortable to have the web page
removed based on its content. Its content is pornographic. There is a law
against providing pornographic material to minors. I do believe that it
is sufficiently explicit that it would fall under the domain of our current
laws which protect minors from exposure to this material. I believe this law
exists for a reason -- not to harrass arthurp, scg, or raven, who are
advocating that Grex permit such stories to be publicly available to all, but
to protect children. Our society believes they need to be protected, whether
you agree or not is completely irrelevant. That is why youngsters are not
permitted in adult bookstores, and are not permitted to rent from the adult
section at Video Watch.  It's illegal.

This is not a question of backsliding, raven. Our community here has *never*
permitted such material to be accesible to children. Yes, back in the 50s
things were much more puritanical. I am not advocating going back to that.
Please don't start arguing slippery slope type arguments. 
I am advocating that Grex is part of a larger society, and has to play by its
rules. Grex cannot make up its own rules if they ignore the law.

I have answered ajax's question. I do think it is illegal to publicly post 
pornographic text on Grex, and therefore I think it is covered by our current 
policy which states that it cannot be tolerated. The problem, of course, is 
that there is such an extreme culture of permissiveness here, that no one is
able to recognize the danger.  Also the definition of pornography is a bit
of a gray area. Read the article if you are in doubt. I'm not.

Ajax seems to think that since Grex is not heavily sex-oriented, it's not 
a problem. "'Pornographic Text' isn't easy to find." Well, it may be true that
percentagewise it's a small amount, but it is extremely easy to find, now that 
I have found it. The ease or difficulty of finding it seems to beat around the
bush to me. So what? It's there. Anyone can read it.

more /u/arthurp/www/sex/brandi

Its warnings are nothing more than an admission up front that it does not 
belong where young children can find it. Those warnings will attact, not repel.

response 114 of 382:

Dec 29 23:35 UTC 1995

WARNING ADULTS ONLY

This is an explicit area. If you are not 18 or older, do not read or view
anything in this area. By accessing this area you are signifying that you
are of the age of majority, that you are not breaking any local laws, and
that you are willfully and knowingly attempting to view and/or read sexually
explicit material. If I receive any complaints about this page, I will be
forced to remove it, so follow the rules and don't ruin it for those of us
who want to be here.

[end excerpt]

If you're acccessing arthurp's page through a web browser, you have to go
past this document before getting to the story. (OK; maybe not *have* to,
but most people will...) Does the presence of such a disclaimer alter the
discussion at all?

response 116 of 382:

Dec 30 00:43 UTC 1995

Re #114: If a curious child got as far as the disclaimer, it is my thinking
that the above disclaimer might *encourage* the child. It is a good point that
adbarr has raised.

Censoring this type of matterial is no different than censoring newsgroups
if you are going to bring free speech into this. I'm not saying that there
isn't a place for such explicit matterials on the net, but rather that Grex
is not the place for this.

It starts with one story... and it has already eaten a considerable ammount
of Grex's bandwidth. How long before Grex is known locally as the X-rated
network for porno stories and graphics trading and who knows what else! This
is just an example of what *could* happen but allowing users access to stories
like the one found in /u/arthurp/www/sex/brandi is certainly an invitation
for something!

But what do I know!

response 118 of 382:

Dec 30 01:47 UTC 1995

Like almost everybody else, I've got mixed feelings on this one.  However,
in this area, I'm finding myself agreeing with srw.  However, I don't think
Grex is going to have to be responsible for ferreting out indecency.  I think
we can let others (the authorities, who else?) find stuff for us, and then
we react.  *How* we react is important.  Could we have a policy that requires
some sort of legal/court action to close down an obscene Web page?   Some
level of proof from the accusers?  I *will* fight back and disobey on a ruling
that says some religious argument/image/discussion is indecent (excepting any
"hot horny nuns" stories, of course :) ), since that becomes an opinion rather
than something that can cause "damage".  

I do think we'll need to comply to some extent, but we don't have to scour
our  own ranks for sacrifices to the Religious Right.  And if Grex happens
to have so much content that it bogs down the authorities just trying to check
it all out, we have another argument about how the new law (assuming it
passes) is unworkable.  Grex certainly doesn't have the staff for such an
effort, and I doubt the Powers That Be could compel us to obtain such staff.

response 120 of 382:

Dec 30 09:20 UTC 1995

  I tried to research the legality question a bit.  The web site
at "http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Pornography" has a number of
relevant articles.  The most relevant is by an EFF counsel, titled
"SEX AND THE SINGLE SYSADMIN: The risks of carrying graphic sexual
materials."  I urge all the board members to read this.  Also of
interest, providing definitions of "q" and so on, is
"CHILDREN, CHILD ABUSE, AND CYBERPORN: A Primer for Clear Thinkers."
 
  From what I understood (though you're better off checking the
articles themselves), there are two separate issues Grex needs to
be careful of:
 
  (1) Obscenity prosecution
 
  The laws vary from state to state, and obscenity itself is
based partly on community standards.  Not all pornography is
obscene - Playboy and Penthouse pictures generally aren't.
 
  However, the sex story on Grex, from what I skimmed, looks
like it would be meet the criteria of obscenity, if it involves
sex with people under the age of consent.  (Looked like it was
headed in that direction, but I didn't read that much - that
story is *long*).  If obscene, I *think* the legality of its
distribution still depends on local laws.
 
  (2) Exposure of inappropriate materials to minors (pre-18 y.o.'s)
 
  Laws on this vary from state to state, too.  From the second article
cited: "Most states make it illegal to expose minors to sexually
explicit material even when such material is otherwise legal (that is,
when it's neither obscenity nor child pornography).
 
  Here's are two tips from a list of them in the EFF counsel's article:
 
> * Take pains on your system to limit childrens' access to adult material,
> even if that material is not legally obscene (it may still be "indecent").
> This includes textual material dealing with adult topics. Hint: asking for
> a photocopied driver's license in the mail is probably not an adequate
> safeguard--too easy for industrious minors to circumvent. A good set of
> rules to follow is spelled out in an FCC regulation applicable to
> phone-sex providers--47 CFR 64.201. The easiest FCC suggestions for a
> for-pay BBS, online service, or Internet access provider is to require
> payment by credit card; the easiest for a nonpay system is have an
> application process that reasonably ascertains whether an applicant for
> access is an adult, and to have a procedure whereby one can instantly cut
> off that access when informed that a user is in fact a minor.
>
> * Don't delete discussions of sexual topics--they're Constitutionally
> protected. And even though the Supreme Court has not limited the
> definition of "obscenity" to visual depictions, as a practical matter,
> there is little legal risk in carrying textual narratives ("stories") on
> sexual themes.

response 122 of 382:

Dec 30 11:09 UTC 1995

re #117:  The distribution of pornography to minors is illegal within the
          U.S. under various state laws.  Those laws vary with respect to
          the definition of "pornography" and the age at which distribution
          is no longer proscribed.  Further, as Grex is engaged in
          interstate commerce (believe it or not), it is also governed by
          a similar federal proscription.

re #118:  The courts have been increasingly receptive to the theory that
          a computer bbs can be a "distributor" of material in a manner
          similar to a bookstore.  It cannot be held responsible for the
          content of what it "distributes" provided there is no good reason
          it should know of the problem with the distributed material.
          (An exceptionally high level of traffic related to pornography
          exchange or exchange of copyrighted materials, particularly on
          a for-pay system maintaining databases of "unscreened" material,
          puts a system at the highest risk, judging from past court action.)

          Should the system impose a regime of prescreening, or should it
          fail to adequately respond to user complaints, its failures are
          likely to remove it from the protective category of "distributor."
          A system cannot sit, complacent, waiting for the government to tell
          it that user complaints about web page content are well-founded.

          BTW, the "authorities" have prosecuted the owners of systems that
          contained vastly more data than Grex.

re #120:  I would find it extraordinary if, given current precedent, a court
          found that mere text was "obscene."  Moreso, given that the courts
          have already addressed the issue, the mere fact that a player in
          a text sex story is underaged will not suffice to render that story
          "obscene."

          With regard to EFF publications, beware.  They aren't of the
          highest calibre.  Take, for example, the reference to "constitutional
          protection" of discussions of sex.  The vast majority of systems
          are entirely private, and are free to censor on as arbitrary a
          basis as they wish.  Only state actors are restricted by the First
          Amendment.

re #121:  Let me guess....  No prosecutor is going to waste his time, based
          upon a single posting to a usenet group, to get search warrants for
          all files owned by a particular user on his host machine and for
          that user's home system, send two FBI agents to the enterprise that
          manages the host machine on two separate occasions to make
          inquiries and collect files, to bring charges against the user,
          to argue that the user is so dangerous that he should be held
          without bail, to change the charges against the user when the
          original charges are unsupported by the evidence, and to appeal
          the eventual dismissal of those charges....  Oh, wait.  Here I
          am talking about Jake Baker, as if a case like that could actually
          happen.

          The authorities certainly can target an individual.  After the
          SJG fiaso, it isn't particularly likely that they will engage in
          the sweeping overkill you envision, without some cause to charge
          the operators of the system as well.

          AOL doesn't police private exchanges, but protects itself by
          promptly reporting allegations of illegality to the Feds.  Any
          number of AOL users have been prosecuted for illegal conduct,
          yet the system itself has been left unmolested.

response 124 of 382:

Dec 30 13:31 UTC 1995

Aaron, you misunderstood the point I was making in #121. If you read
the whole paragraph, you'll see that the point I was making, was that a
prosecutor wouldn't waste his time just closing down a single webpage, he
would try to close the whole *system* down instead.

Yes, of course they will go after a single user, but I think the *method*
they will use to go after that single user is more likely to involve them
going after the whole system, rather than just that user's little piece of it.

Sure, if we were Compuserve, or Prodigy, or AOL, or the UofM, with those
organizations resources and money, they wouldn't be able to get away with
going after the whole system and would have to satisfy themselves with 
just the user's little piece of it. But in the case of Grex, small system,
no money, little resources, I could see them trying to just close us down.