Re: [Bug-gne]External Servers and Illegal/Extreme Content

[Imran Ghory]

On 18 Feb 2001, at 4:47, Bob Dodd wrote:

>All it reqiures to end up in court, is that the person you
> write about says "prove it".  The defendants are both the original
> author AND ANY PUBLISHER OF THE LIBEL. 

GNE could just not carry any potential libelous information (unless 
it gives a specific source), if GNE is just mirroring this data then it 
could plead the common carrier defence.

> The UK also has laws covering data protection, so that if we hold
> personal details on an individual, we must be registered with the UK
> government, and have a clear system by which we people can check their
> details for inaccuracies, and to insist upon corrections. 

The DPA is mostly an implementation of the European Data protection 
legislation.

And anyhow I believe the GNE would count as an exception to the DPA under 
part IV for the '98 act, for details see,

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80029--e.htm#32

> Next there are the obscenity laws, which are draconian in theor, but a
> little more relaxed in practice. It does mean that you have to be very
> careful with any material of a sexual nature, and anything involving
> "moving images" needs a rating code from the censors (yes, we have
> censors). 

That's why it would be better to have the servers containing such material to 
be 
legally independant of the FSF.

> Then there's our blasphemy laws. They're rather quaint and
> old-fashioned and protect only christianity, but they are technically
> quite draconian. Saying that the prophet Mohammed was a womanising
> drunk is legal: saying jesus christ was a womanising drunk would get
> you a small room with bars. Not that these laws get used much, but they
> are there if some politician decides to kick up a fuss.

I think they were repealed by the annual act of government which periodically 
disposes of antiquated laws.

> Anyone used to US-style first ammendment laws is probably amazed by the
> number of restrictions we place on free speech (there are probably
> more, those were just the ones off the top of my head)

But at least we don't make it illegal for someone to distribute DeCSS source 
code :-)

Maybe we should require authors to say that they will take full legal 
responsibility for the data.

Imran