At 16:40 07-09-98 +1000, Christopher Higgs wrote:
>OK - I'll play devils advocate :-)
>
>Ann Navarro wrote:
>>Again, the point is not to say you *will suffer dire 
>>consequences*, but that to rely on a "that can't 
>>apply to me" defense when considering matters
>>pertaining to the Web, is premature and perhaps 
>>ill-advised. 

Yep, or to put it another way... oppressive governments will do oppressive
things. History keeps repeating itself on this one, while the T-shirts and
technologies keep changing.

>At Michael Abramovich wrote:
>>Australia has very strict anti-gun legislation.  To which 
>>body in the US do Michael and I lodge our lawsuit 
>>regarding the advertising and selling of illegal firearms.

Not sure if would apply to guns, but if it were "war on drugs" related, and
possibly the right folks were not getting their cut, push the right
political buttons and agents might well ignore national borders to bring
those they disdain to ~justice~. Would hardly be the first time.

>This is a valid claim that could easily be made right now - 
>let's shut down all websites advocating the use of 
>semi-automatic weapons!

In defense of such oppression, there are several informal free speech
groups which will mirror whatever is ~banned~ into a number of countries,
to counter such absurdity. They quite explicitly do _not_ endorse what is
being said, sometimes making their disdain evident.

>Sounds ridiculous doesn't it??

When oppression is allowed to happen, it sure does. And tragic.

>Seriously though, I can understand Ann's caution.  I think 
>we would be better off approaching this logically though.  

My turn to be the devil's advocate. You are not dealing with logic, but
rather with laws and governments.


Keep in mind that it is neither illegal nor an act of terrorism for
government officials:
	* to drop home-made fire bombs on children (and adults) in Philadelphia,
killing them and destroying an entire neighborhood in the resulting fire.
	* for military troops to shoot and kill a child tending goats on his
family farm (he was perceived to be a threat by them!).
	* to have a pharmaceutical factory destroyed by missile bombing, one which
is not owned by someone disliked by those who own the killing machines.

The harsh reality, when human life (or "international law") will not get in
the way of those who have the power, what makes you think any concept of
~justice~ will apply to mere Web sites?

>In other words, it shouldn't be "where the site is 
>located", but "where the site is advertised".  If I
>am promoting my site with Yahoo or some other 
>US based search engine, then perhaps I should 
>take some responsibility for ensuring my site 
>complies with their regulations.  

Huh? What, pray tell, does the fact that some ~service~ of dubious value
chooses to quite possibly infringe on your copyright content, without
necessarily your permission, much less request, have anything to do with
any of this?!?

>It would be analogous to deliberately selling your
>product/services into that country.  I imagine 
>Yahoo also would have a significant responsibility too.

Huh? Are you under some illusion that search engines list only that which
they are asked to list? Are you under some illusion that search engines
respect your privacy, and get your permission or invitation prior to
listing? Such, I can assure you, is very, very far from the reality I've
experienced.

>Obviously advertising your site with a search engine is 
>a deliberate action taken by you.  

Are you being tongue in cheek, and I'm missing it, or are you being absurd?
Huh?

>I'm not sure how this would work if the site was not
>submitted by you!  

Frankly, from painful experience I can assure you that when done without
consent it can have the same effect as other forms of theft of computer
services. About as socially constructive as postings someone's site to an
XXX news group as offering free and explicit pictures. Is not "we'll
benefit ourselves at your expense unless you take action in a way we'll
accept" pretty close to the practical definition of extortion?

>I think I've complicated the matter further :-(

The matter, no... the discussion, quite possibly.

/Harold

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll                       mailto:harold(at)driscoll.chi.il.us
#include <std/disclaimer>      http://homepage.interaccess.com/~driscoll/

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA