(02) Two common modes are to send messages as "mail" to individual named recipients, or for discussion [arbitrarily called "news"] into a set of subject noticeboards copied everywhere; which are open to any interested reader who cares to look. This is also a decentralised arrangement, where distribution is by each centre passing new material to its neighbours. I would liken it to the researchers' common room four pints into the evening i.e. discussion is very intelligent but playful through to outright zany. The further points in #2 though #7 of the IWF's paper are uncontentious.

(03) Liability of a writer sending his own or others' material through networks is much the same, in the country of sending, as if he used fax machines or paper leaflets. There is rather more dispute about the ISPs' role in passing material, possibly of overseas origin; also various modes have more or less centralised place and longer or shorter time of keeping.

(04) The police approach in Britain, in the 1996 "French" Letter by one Inspector French, was to seek a on ban over a hundred groups because their names suggested possible obscene content. This was done by threats, made under cover of secrecy. When news leaked out, the response was near-criminal dirty tricks by someone against two ISP figures. It's fair to say [especially among users rather than powerful players] that the attitude to this remains one of deep loathing, murderous hatred, and the hope that some perpetrators may yet be jailed or bankrupted for their part in it.

It would be pointless to conceal these sentiments for false courtesy.

(05) UK law as minimally interpreted means {a} it is arguable whether the ISP publishes articles by news but he certainly does possess it, and must remove material which is illegal even to possess i.e. child pornography. It is also held that {b} the offence lies in his wilful choice either to take possession of an illegal item knowingly, or to neglect reasonably feasible checks that would reveal its presence: ignorance is not bliss.

(06) An arms-length organisation including outside expertise was therefore set up by the ISPs to demonstrate their compliance, in its early form called Safety-Net and later the Internet Watch Foundation, which acts as a clearing-house for checking and forwarding such complaints. ISPs fund it collectively much as they do the national arrangements for "peering" [sharing] network transmissions. IWF needs ISPs, since they pay for it. But the ISPs need it - or something like it - and to keep it independent, because otherwise they might well be in breach of the law.

(07) The IWF regularly reviews its effectiveness. While accepting the limitation to possession in 5{a}, IWF queries the limitation to articles rather than groups in 5{b}. IWF is able to show that the number and bulk of such illegal articles is fairly small, a few ten-thousandths of the over-all news traffic. Taken together 28 newsgroups with a significant minority of such articles cover threequarters of this traffic, and 3 newsgroups with a near majority of such articles cover half of it.

In general terms these are a few ten thousandths of the number of newsgroups, amounting to a few ten-thousandths of the total number and volume of news articles in any one week.

(8) The proposition is therefore obvious and superficially attractive:

"If a ban on these newsgroups would stop most of the current illegal material circulating, and it is within IWF's power to make it happen, then surely it is not too much to ask that others suffer slight inconvenience to achieve this end." If it could work then other benefits follow too:

the IWF naturally wants to do what it can, within the limits of its powers and jurisdiction, to improve the situation. Public opinion wants something done. Money would be saved on this work and not expended, or turned to other more helpful uses. IF these assumptions hold good, then clearly it would be irresponsible not to take such a beneficial action.

(9) The converse is obvious too. If the practical outcome is that it would not work, or would even make the situation worse; if, on reflection, it is not something the IWF has power to do; if the chaos caused is out of all proportion to the small good achieved... then it is clearly wrong and foolish to go ahead with what is ineffective or even harmful. Deliberately doing the wrong thing out of vanity just to show you are doing something, or to assuage public opinion, or to save you money internally, is stupid and evil. It would be irresponsible to do it in such circumstances. The question, then, is to analyse these factors fully before leaping ahead.

(10) The IWF is not advancing a proposal to definitely do this. The IWF is not advancing a guarantee it will not do this. It is putting forward a policy option and asking: what would happen if IWF chose to do this... would it produce the promised benefits so IWF ought to go ahead with it, or would it be a complete disaster so IWF should drop the whole idea?

All guidance and reasoned argument either way is a useful contribution!

(11) The proponents need to spell out the aims they think they will achieve by such measures, and how the measures will get those aims. Firstly they are assuming that such a ban when put into place would not simply be circumvented and fail to reduce circulation of material at all. Then, in order of increasing priority, they must think to some extent that... (a) this means less people will be offended by seeing it unwanted, (b) those wanting to see it will be prevented from doing so,

(c) since the material makes those who want to receive it more likely to offend [questionable] then the ban will reduce their offending,

(d) this may actually result in less material being produced, so less offending being carried out to produce material, and

(e) in some way the ban may contribute to offenders being caught.

(12) What if the ban produces no benefit? Most obviously the proponents need to make some analysis on whether circumvention would be workable. The onus is on them to show it would produce at least some benefit, not simply to assume so. Circumvention has two obvious paths. First, I could point my news-client software at a free overseas news server and download news including groups not available in the UK in, oh, two minutes? The process is not hard. The second path is that an evader does not even attempt to avoid the ban on those groups but chooses some other newsgroup, say one which contains images from Disney cartoons, to circulate the illegal material. The bans could likewise march forward and ban each new refuge in turn. It is for the proponents to show, not simply that "we ought to do something to show we are doing something", but to show in practice they could chase faster than the evaders could run and actually reduce circulation of illegal material. This seems unlikely. (13) Etc.

(14) Could the ban do more harm than good? Let us assume that IWF actually gets itself into the sort of caucus-race outlined above. Though it is the least of our troubles, spreading into other newsgroups would increase the chance of people being disgusted by seeing the material unwillingly. It would at least do no good towards preventing willing readers from getting the material or, if this produces offending, reducing the consequent offending... no good towards reducing production of material, or offending in order to produce material. It might well actually reduce the number of people getting caught, as they get better at hiding their tracks and obtaining material from out-of-reach places.

(15) Is the ban in IWF's power to impose? This seems an odd question. But consider the example of the British Board of Film Censorship, originally set up by the cinema industry in circumstances similar to paragraph six above.... one precedent for people distrusting IWF!

As best I know it could enforce decisions on participating cinema chains:

[i] if they had some contractual obligation to follow its decisions, or

[ii] if the local and national officials with actual power in law to ban films said they almost invariably followed its rulings, so that the BBFC's decision was "as good as" the exercise of those officials' powers, or

[iii] in the case of video recorder films from 1984 onwards, the law lets the Home Office say some group's rulings decide what can be lawfully sold.

(16) IWF has none of the above powers. Suppose the IWF believes circumvention can be dealt with and advises the ban, but ISPs believe the ban will fail and choose not to follow it. Then nothing has changed in what the law says, or how it is interpreted, as a result. In particular the IWF cannot compel even one dissenting ISP to obey the ban.

[i] there is no contract whereby participating ISPs agree to follow every recommendation by IWF; and

[ii] IWF could seek endorsement from the Home Office that "we think the law will be interpreted in the new way the IWF recommends, and we mean

to raid and prosecute on that basis", though of course the courts would make the final determination how the law stood; and

[iii]IWF could even ask to have written into statute that the criterion for ISP's taking reasonable care is that they followed IWF directives wherever possible, but IWF certainly don't have such a law yet.

(17) IWF merely points out facts about how statute and evidence will likely be interpreted. For instance if IWF say "you have a picture on your server which seems to be adult-child sex and we think this is clearly illegal to possess" and the facts are correct, the response will be "thank you, we have removed it". If it is an innocent photo of a child at a desk, then the response will be "no, you are mistaken in this case."

Likewise if IWF says "we read the law as saying that, now we have a list of articles which are illegal to possess, you could be prosecuted if you chose to keep them or chose not to look at the list", the response will be "thank you, that's how we read the law too". But if IWF says "we now read the law to say that - if you don't block a channel which has had a fair minority of illegal content before - then you knowingly possess the next illegal item which arrives on it", the response would be "no, you are completely mistaken in this case: that is just not what the law says."

IWF is simply not the competent body to change the text or interpretation of the law; it could only petition the Home Office to do so. If it gives such wrong advice, then each and every dissenting ISP is free and likely not to comply with it at no risk to themselves. [Obviously this is not the same as where it tells someone they have illegal material they should remove, as the ISP is only "free" to ignore this at risk of prosecution].

Saying "don't have the article" de facto has teeth, where saying "don't have the newsgroup" is trivially ignorable. Issuing a wrong piece of advice with no enforceability can hardly even be called having a ban.

(18) Considering the first two factors, the proposal is "if a ban on these newsgroups would stop most of the current illegal material circulating, and it is within IWF's power to make it happen, then surely it is not too much to ask that others suffer slight inconvenience to achieve this end."

I think that readers can see it has two major problems. The first and rather fundamental one is that it would not stop the illegal material being circulated because it would be circumvented. The second is that even if IWF think circumvention is no problem and go ahead, they have no power to make it stick unless every single ISP opts in by consensus. The real trouble here is that IWF are not the competent body to alter how the law will be interpreted; what they would have to do is petition the Home Office to state that the law will be interpreted in that way, and this in turn would be open to legal challenge. The third and most difficult area is the most complex to argue i.e. that if IWF does not believe the measure will be rendered ineffective by circumvention and also thinks it can, by consensus or Home Office imprimatur, get a new interpretation of law to stick, then it still faces challenges that the amount of disruption it will cause to remove this few ten-thousandths of news is simply not justifiable for the small good it will do. This will be discussed later.

(19) Minor reasons. Doing something "to show you did all you could" is a two edged argument. If you think you will get some, though not maximum, benefit from a project then it favours going ahead. If you use that reason knowing the project is ineffective or counterproductive, then you brand yourself a cynical hypocrite. Likewise "doing what public opinion demands." If you think you will get some, though not maximum, benefit from a project then it favours going ahead. If you use that reason knowing the project is ineffective or counterproductive, that makes IWF no more than the white-collar equivalent of the people who attacked a paediatrician not knowing or caring the difference from paedophile.

(20) Saving Money. There are some strange implications in paragraph #33 of the original document. First, if the proposed ban worked, it would save IWF money, and this seems to be put forward as justification for arbitrary actions affecting others. Erm, no: internal efficiency savings are a good for IWF and its funders. They do not automatically justify {insert any external action} such as shooting those who oppose it in debate, though this might well save money. Second, the money saved can be put to other productive ends such as education to raise awareness of risk. It seems to imply that, if you're opposed to {external action, which would save money} then you are opposed to such educational initiatives. Erm, no: the money is provided by the funders for the clearinghouse function. If IWF can save expenditure, it can return some of its grant. If IWF wants to engage in new functions then it approaches new or existing supporters -- the national lottery, perhaps -- to approve the action and allocate the funding. Being opposed to the present proposal does not mean being opposed to other things that might be done with the money saved.

(21) This is not taxpayers' money, it is ISP's money which they have paid to have impartial people carry out the clearinghouse function for them on complaints. As in my para[06] there is an interdependence between the ISPs and the IWF. But ISPs do not have to fund it forever and live with every strange initiative. In the worst case the ISPs can simply set up a new clearinghouse and pull the plug on IWF, perhaps funding it sufficiently for one year to pass on complaints unprocessed to the new location [because it would be very had to have complaints go ignored] so long as this included acquiring a POBox and 0800/0845 number to be handed over at the end of the transition. This is not a definite proposal or something I have put to ISPs; call it a policy option from the Civil Liberties side.

(22) Suppose they called a war and nobody came? Obviously if the IWF can get the law interpreted in a new way and the Home Office to back that interpretation, though it is for the courts to decide, it is a threat ISPs have to take very seriously. ISPs have a lot to lose if there were an actual raid, which could put them out of business. Conversely if police forces were caught for acting way beyond the law in malicious prosecutions then they might be at risk for paying compensation in the tens of millions both organisationally and personally, while taking early retirement and looking for rented accommodation to spend it in.

(23) We must remember what happened last time. There have already been threats from the censorship side which I read as saying they would spread what they knew to be lies to create "killer tomatoes stalking our high streets" type panics in unscrupulous newspapers. Some people such as myself hold that lying, conniving and dirty tricks are not found alongside the character that seeks to control what others say and hear, but are inherently part of it. Any such struggle would have to look for help on an international scale, and have the sort of funds to flatten people for egregious deliberate libel campaigns, or launch private prosecutions. At very least anyone involved in criminal dirty tricks this time should be exposed internationally and pilloried until they well repent it.

(24) Neither side is lusting for destructive conflict to actually take place. It is more a matter of jockeying for position, and working out who can push how far, without open warfare.

(25) The story so far: page one outlined the background and the option for consideration. This response then analysed whether it would do no good and possibly some harm if circumvented, that there would have to be complete consensus as there is no power to impose such a change in how the law is interpreted, whether saving money is a justification, and the likely situation over actual conflict. If the proposal is seen at this stage as still likely to do a more moderate amount of good, then we must answer more complex questions as to whether this balances the damage it would cause the rights of others. This needs some wide ranging consider-ations, but they are always aimed at analysing what the particular actors involved situation can properly do or propose in the present situation.

(26) The relevant law is the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law as the Human Rights Act 1988. If UK courts are too lenient on UK laws or state decisions, it is still possible after all recourse to take it to the European Court of Human Rights.

(27) Article Ten states the following: "**1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, follows: in the interests of national security, territorial integrity [do not apply],

--or public safety, a specific injury would have to be shown

--for the prevention of disorder or crime, disorder needs to be proven

--for the protection of health psychological health? Similar to safety

--or morals, that a decline in behaviour is caused would need to be proved

--for the protection of the reputation [does not apply]

--or rights of others, could be applicable here

--for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or --for maintaining the impartiality of the judiciary. [do not apply]

(28)Interpretation: "Necessary" means that but the existence and extent of curbing free expression must be needed to prevent some proven worse harm occurring, and [proportionate] that no lesser measure would be sufficient to do so; "in a democratic society" means that this must be judged on the assumption of the most diverse, liberal and plural culture possible; "prescribed by law" means that the rules and penalties then must not be arbitrary but spelled out in advance, so everyone knows where they stand.

(29) Child pornography, and child abuse. Most people would consider child pornography to be pictures of very young children quite clearly either having sex with adults, or posed to show they are available for sex with adults. Generally the material objected to here clearly and obviously fits that definition; it is rarely a matter of fine judgement. Paedophile activity or child abuse is likewise generally considered to be adults having sex with very young, pre-pubescent, children. Paedophile thoughts or fantasies are not illegal, any more than thoughts or fantasies of murdering you neighbour, so long as they are not actually put into effect. The definition in law of child pornography is simply sexual material involving "children" i.e. under-16s, even of themselves or with others of the same age. In some countries it is defined in an extremely odd way as under-18s. Even in Britain we must remember people start being sexually active with others their own age mostly between 14 and 18.

(30) Unlawful to possess. Child pornography is illegal in most jurisdictions, with a varying definition of "child": in most places it is simply a matter that most consenting adult sex may be depicted minus a few extremes such as such with animals or with children. In Britain such material is -- uniquely? -- treated on a par with banned drugs, as illegal to possess as well as to distribute. Now to enforce such a law on a knowing owner is one thing. To impose it on a the postal service or the telephone company that they must, at least on complaint, delve into and remove messages in transit is unreasonable if the law is interpreted "in terms of the most liberal and plural society possible". That is, such a term would probably be affirmed by the British courts because they don't much care about upholding the law against the British government, but struck out if there were an outside reference to Strasbourg. Furthermore there is no denying that such a term was never applied to the postal or telecommunications services [naturally -- they were state monopolies at the time it arose], so "actual child porn must be getting through because they are not held liable". In which case, that is not an argument for unreasonably holding other carriers liable either.

(31) What is censorship? Some people are able to get more influence for their point of view than it actually deserves in votes by monopoly purchase of the privately edited media that would present it; this may be tough luck, for those excluded, but it is not censorship. Once they can threaten force against people or property, via the state or freelance criminality, to shut people out of the communications allegedly open to all --- or shut the author up at source --- then this is censorship.

(32) Agreed removal of junk-mail. News is divided into many thousands of fairly exact topics. It is generally regarded as anathema to block material based on content. However if someone, in a single month, places the same article -- usually an advert -- separately in 20 different newsgroups [known as "spam"] then this is deleted regardless of content.

(33) Misuse of monopoly power. An argument slyly advanced by the censor-ship advocates is that the ISPs are only commercial operators, if they all decide not to carry certain channels -- and not to discuss that they are doing it -- under fairly overt gangland type threats of force, that "this is OK then as it is only a commercial choice." This was very much the approach around the "French" letter, from Inspector French [internat-ional note: French Letter is slang for a condom]. This kind of corporate state and hidden manipulation can be a great threat to the free movement of goods, persons, or information. Clearly we don't wan any individual or cartel to control say e.g. the main sea-ports or toll-roads and exclude commercial or political rivals from using them, nor likewise the main post and telephony systems and make arbitrary exclusions. When such a thing is threatened there is a clear argument that human rights would be best served by a "law of ports" which says -- apart from persistent nonpayers or direct misuse of the system to wreck it or harass individuals -- where monopoly or cartel is being used to make arbitrary exclusions, then the carrier should be made to carry all traffic for all persons who can pay.

(34) The IWF must(*) make a case, if it goes ahead with this option and is challenged, that the measures have benefits reducing harm which are reasonable in proportion to the damage or restriction caused to others. They believe that a ban on particular newsgroup channels -- if provenly effective -- would largely get rid of the circulation of child pornography through the news system, which amounts to a few hundred articles per week or a few ten-thousandths of the news system overall. The government would hold, since the circulation of material is closely associated with actual child abuse to produce it and thus part of the same offence, that this is a good in itself. [(*) i.e. "needs to, if it is going to win in court"].

(35) IWF might try to prove it gives rise to further benefits. Since it is fairly easily established that the average person is disgusted, not converted, by pictures of sex with children, they are unlikely to maintain that average people will be corrupted. There might be a very few people who are borderline paedophile and encouraged into actual abuse by the sight of such pictures. The proponents would have to consider the results of recent child protection surveys, which show that child abuse comes mainly from older brothers and cousins, then male adult family members, and that abuse by predatory strangers is a vanishingly small part [which is not to say it does not exist and is related to this newsgroup traffic]; they would have to see the problem in proportion. IWF might maintain and try to prove that the circulation of this material causes more child abuse rather than providing an outlet which reduces real sexual activity of paedophiles -- again this would be hard to show because probably untrue.

IWF might maintain, and try to prove, that the [hypothetical] strong reduction in material circulated here meant that actually less material was produced by a few hundred photos per week, whatever proportion that is of the total flow of child pornography, and hence that there was a proportional reduction in offending to produce it. Again this seems unlikely, given (a) that the number of active paedophiles and their level of actual child abuse are fairly stable and given (b) the lengths to which people will go to pursue their usual forms of sexuality. It seems most likely that the dirt would simply find some other channel to flow down.

(36) IWF would have to show it was effective at all, in other words they would have to address the likelihood of circumvention with reasoning and based on examples of previous experience, to produce and justify an estimate of the likely actual reduction in flow. They would have to address the point in para[14] that the ban might do more harm than good.

And, given that they cannot change how the law is interpreted, they would also have to deal with the point that such a ban can't be imposed without consensus.

(37)the Internet does not respond well to coercion. It might be useful, somewhere, to make an appraisal of how the internet -- the combination of underlying behaviours with the technical possibilities -- leads people to interact. For example, it's well known that without the cues of the other person's presence or voice it is much easier to get angry to extremes. The culture of system operators is that they are doing a well-paid technically different and autonomous sort of work which allies a "blue-jeans" appear-ance with respect for ability not authority. Ill conceived regulations from bureaucrats who are often less intelligent than them, and deliberate vandalism by morons, are pretty much equal in their eyes and equally received with disdain or clever and determined opposition. Equally the system is home to many free spirits of similar attitude though not actual-ly controlling parts of the network, through to a few outright vandals; none like being pushed around when they are in a position to push back. While the system does not literally "treat censorship as damage and route round it", the culture does something very much along the lines: there are a great many means to intensify communication and association, which peop-le will use to the maximum to counter any disruption. This should be born in mind when considering the actual likely outcome of an attempted ban.

(38)Possible side-effects. Given the rebellious nature of the Internet and occasional warring factions, it is very likely that "some officious bunch of censors playing silly-soldiers" [as it would be seen abroad] would be exploited in one or other conflict. For example, someone might begin dumping child porn into alt.politics.white-power to get it banned, and presumably they would; and alt.israel would get the revenge attack. This would spread all over the place and drag on endlessly, as such conflicts usually do. The scientology cult is a commercial corporation selling unorthodox self-improvement courses at $2200 per level, with a few religious bits about reincarnation stuck on top to evade taxes and prosecutions. They, or someone working in their interest, have had numerous goes at flooding alt.religion.scientology with hundreds of gibberish or cut-and-paste articles; I expect it wouldn't take long for the cult to have another go, with child porn this time.

(39)Difficulties of measurement. There are certain practical difficulties if such measures were put in place. They would presumably say that "a newsgroup must not be carried if IWF has determined, over a 3 month period, that it contains more than X% of material illegal to own"; X set around 10% to catch 3/4, or 40% to catch 1/2, the material. I am fairly certain that any court considering the ECHR implications would not accept "10% after we have removed other material as spam", see para[32], as more or less putting your thumb on the scale. They might well accept "having taken a representative sample from the usual news-feeds", which might include those feeds pre-deleting some spam beyond your direct control.

(40) Reasons of principle. There may be a misconception, or it may be put about deliberately by newspapers fond of lying, that a civil liberties analysis is some sort of "airy fairy theoretical consideration" set against "the abuse of real children that this measure would stop" [and the proof that it would stop the abuse of any real children is.....?]. On the contrary, the main part consists of simply weighing up and putting numbers on what the effect would be: how much good result, if any, does careful reasoning lead us to forecast, weighed against how much disruption to innocent people it will cause, to see if the one outweighs the other.

(41)They'd have to show this much benefit justifies that much restriction. I leave it to the proponents to say, and support in argument, how much of the few hundred articles per week forming a few ten-thousandths of news would be effectively stopped by this measure. That benefit would have to be weighed against the restriction put on innocent others.

(42) The Internet is probably more important than public postal services, or the various forms of one-to-one telephony/telegraphy, introduced in the 19th Century: because it is not only open to all but also an interactive medium with large elements of remote selling and political discussion. It is inevitable that large amounts of data that for every person large amounts of data will flow across it, if not to and from them, then about them from persons or organisations they deal with. Postal and wire services were typically owned by nations or national monopolies. It is often a strength that Internet facilities are dispersed among many owners. But it is also a weakness that they can act or be coerced as a cartel, see para[33], and severe attacks on everyone's free speech hidden away as "purely commercial decisions for individual suppliers"; this needs to be particularly guarded against in Human Rights law.

(43) In this context it is proposed to close particular channels which probably have a name suggesting illegal content --- but mainly on the observation that they do often contain a 10 or 15% minority of illegal content --- where content is de fact in the hands of each individual author and not centrally controllable, in the full knowledge that illegal content will divert into other channels & get them closed too: sometimes as a simple evasive method but sometimes as a political attack on other channels. This in the context that Britain has chosen to make a small proportion of extreme material illegal to possess, intending to catch those who make or use it, and there is some question [certainly if an unfair UK decision has to be appealed by the old route to Strasbourg] whether the ISP's meaningfully "possess" the material they have no intention to sell or use, and whether it is proper or proportionate "in the most plural and Liberal society" that such penalties should be inflicted upon them.

(44) Ways forward. The honest answer to this mess is that the ISPs, like the post office or the phone companies, should not be held to "possess" this material in a way equivalent to being the owner or supplier. An honest reading of Human Rights law and precedents -- which may involve going the old route to Strasbourg if British courts prove inadequate to the task of regulating the British state -- would show there is simply no need for any such power as regards ISP's transient material [not webpages] and the British government should lose it. As a majority of the IWF are censorship advocates without an industry or human rights background, I do not expect such a motion to pass. However, the correct course is for such a motion to be tabled, and minuted, and all those with industry and human rights background to vote for it in a name vote. They will of course be defeated. But they will have placed on record in the minutes that they feel the policy option is wrong, and what line they will pursue through their trade association in the courts if need be. The text might be:

"PROPOSED, THAT: We feel the unique restriction against child pornography among other banned literature, that it in this country it is illegal to possess as well as circulate, is nevertheless aimed at users and sellers of such material. The post office and the telecommunications companies are not held liable for having such material in transit, which would be a disabling imposition on them -- escaping mainly because they were state monopolies at the time the law was changed -- though clearly some small amount of extra child pornography gets through because of their exemption yet this is not held to be a disastrous mistake. The proposers believe that [while continuing status quo to comply with current law], this whole principle is wrong and not justified under the ECHR interpreted 'in the most liberal and plural context' as it would be if a case went all the way to Strasbourg. The proposers will continue to put forward this position to the government and E.U. bodies, and urge IWF to support us is doing so as the only rational way forward." This would be recorded and defeated.

(45) An alternative way forward is as follows. Rather than simply rejecting such a wonderful option out of hand, it might be better to ask for further clarification and justification as follows.

In the above "reasonably estimated" mean someone has given careful, numerical thought based on past examples as to the likely scenarios if the measure is put through. [You might ask Howett at Leicester Uni, for example, for realistic estimations of paedophile behaviour -- the Home Office cite him a lot on the subject].

(46) CONCLUSION: removal of entire newsgroups rather than single articles was first brought forward using covert threats, blackmail, and the worst kind of character association under the regime of the "French Letter". It is dismaying to see it even considered again. Nevertheless as an option it cannot be simply ignored, if there is a case that it might bring significant benefits outweighing the harm to civil liberties. But it only deserves further consideration if the proponents can meet the many practical objections that it simply would not work to reduce material flow, would not have any impact on reducing offending, and causes harm -- over a flew ten thousandths of the Usenet content -- entirely disprop-ortionate to any small gains it might bring. The most obvious way forward is that a ban on "possession", aimed at owners and sellers, is a burden which should simply be removed from mail carriers as regards transient material. But, as only a minority would put such a proposal on record and vote for it, an alternative is to ask the proponents to come up with a much more detailed case justified in calculation from real examples before it can proceed further. Unless they feel they have met every possible objection and would be quite happy to fight a long court-case on that basis.

DAVE BIRD, 2000/Dec/04.

=====================================================================

[01]The InterNet [02]Two common modes [03]Liability of a writer

[04]The police approach in Britain [05]UK law as minimally interpreted

[06]An arms-length organisation [07]The IWF reviews its effectiveness.

[08]The proposition is therefore obvious [09] The converse is obvious too.

[10]IWF is not advancing a proposal [11]Proponents must spell out the aims

[12]What if the ban produces no benefit?[14]Cd it do more harm than good?

[15]Is the ban in IWF's power to impose? [16]IWF has none of those powers

[17]IWF merely points out facts. [18] Considering the first two factors

[19]Minor reasons. [20] Saving Money. [21] This is not taxpayers' money

[22]Suppose they called a war and nobody came? [23] Considering last time

[24]Neither side is lusting for destructive conflict

[25]The story so far.............................................

[26]The relevant law is the European Convention on Human Rights,

[27]Article#10 [28]Interpretation:

[29]Child pornography, and child abuse. [30] Unlawful to possess.

[31]What is censorship? [32] Agreed removal of junk-mail.

[33]Misuse of monopoly power.

[34]The IWF must make a case, if it goes ahead with this option

[35]IWF might try to prove it gives rise to further benefits.

[36]IWF would have to show it was effective at all

[38]Possible side-effects. [39]Difficulties of measurement.

[40]Reasons of principle.

[41]They'd have to show this much benefit justifies that much restriction.

[42]The Internet is probably more important than public postal services,

[43]In this context it is proposed to close particular channels

[44]Ways forward. [45] An alternative way forward [46] CONCLUSION.

===============================================================================