internet watch foundation
 

I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
pornography.

To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.

I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
doesn't conform to British laws?
WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?

Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
anymore.

Re: internet watch foundation
 

concerned adult USA citizen wrote:

>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>pornography.
>
>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>
>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
>time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
>you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>doesn't conform to British laws?
>WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?
>
>Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
>trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
>anymore.


The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else newsguy.com
wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download that stuff find another
provider, scumbag.

--

I kill all Google Group posts, you can too.
Take back Usenet <--> http://improve-usenet.org

Re: internet watch foundation
 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:59 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
<your@pinion.is.invalid> wrote:

>concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>
>>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>>various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>>as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>>pornography.
>>
>>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>>UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>>subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>>age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>>
>>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>>from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
>>time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
>>you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>>doesn't conform to British laws?
>>WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?
>>
>>Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
>>trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
>>anymore.
>
>
>The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else newsguy.com
>wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download that stuff find another
>provider, scumbag.

Either way, I think it should OUR choice. A few years ago, giganews,
among others, were dropping certain so called KP groups. All that did
was to force the damn fools into using other groups. So giganews quit
coddling to the various watch dog groups and reinstated the groups.
It's kind of like the few watch dog groups of the trucking industry
who are demanding they get what they want. While none of them know a
damn thing about trucking.
Let's say you haunt an MP3 group. Somebody comes along and posts a
thousand images of nude little kids. Legality aside for the moment.
Does IWF have the legal right to tell anyone to shut the group down?
What's wrong with enforcing the laws upon the people that post the
****?

I agree, the IWF oughta keep their damn mits out of enforcing the
laws.

Next thing ya know, your website gets shut down because they don't
like your content.

Just like with the RIAA crap.


--

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain(attributed)

Re: internet watch foundation
 

concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
> I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
> various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
> as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
> pornography.
>
> To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
> UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
> subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
> age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>
> I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
> from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
> time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
> you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
> doesn't conform to British laws?
> WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?
>
> Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
> trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
> anymore.
>


The IWF is a solution looking for a problem. You don't know if you're
dealing with a bunch of do-gooders or a group of people trying to
justify their existence. And with each of their baby with bathwater
"solutions" they help choke off another one of our freedoms.

Re: internet watch foundation
 

On 25 Feb 2008 19:30:05 -0800, concerned adult USA citizen
<concerned_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>pornography.
>
>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>
>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to.

If you want to watch kiddie porn, do it from the Greybar Hotel. Tip: The "Brits"
won't put you there. *WE* will.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...2---A000-.html

Surely this is a troll. No human could be that stupid.

--
Q. Does Usenet help stamp out ignorance?
A. That depends on whether by `stamp out' you mean `eliminate'
or `reproduce rapidly in great quantity.'
-- Dr. Roger M. Firestone

Re: internet watch foundation
 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:04:42 -0500, richard <I.dont.care@do.you> wrote:

<snip>
>Either way, I think it should OUR choice. A few years ago, giganews,
>among others, were dropping certain so called KP groups. All that did
>was to force the damn fools into using other groups. So giganews quit
>coddling to the various watch dog groups and reinstated the groups.
>It's kind of like the few watch dog groups of the trucking industry
>who are demanding they get what they want. While none of them know a
>damn thing about trucking.

What does trucking have to do with your penchant for pedophilia, RtS?

Hint: Don't bother to reply. I've known about you for years.

--
Q. Does Usenet help stamp out ignorance?
A. That depends on whether by `stamp out' you mean `eliminate'
or `reproduce rapidly in great quantity.'
-- Dr. Roger M. Firestone

Re: internet watch foundation
 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:21:21 -0600, Mara
<go@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:

>On 25 Feb 2008 19:30:05 -0800, concerned adult USA citizen
><concerned_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>>various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>>as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>>pornography.
>>
>>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>>UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>>subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>>age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>>
>>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>>from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to.
>
>If you want to watch kiddie porn, do it from the Greybar Hotel. Tip: The "Brits"
>won't put you there. *WE* will.
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...2---A000-.html
>
>Surely this is a troll. No human could be that stupid.

But 2256 actually defines what is child pornography.
Viewing of nudity, regardless of age, is not an illegal act in the
USA.
In other countries, like Australia, it is. A couple in Venezuela found
out that tricking little girls to pose naked got them a stay in the
country club for a few years.
In Japan, the kids can be naked, but the genitals have to be masked.

--

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain(attributed)

Re: internet watch foundation
 

richard wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:59 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
><your@pinion.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>>
>>>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>>>various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>>>as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>>>pornography.
>>>
>>>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>>>UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>>>subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>>>age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>>>
>>>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>>>from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
>>>time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
>>>you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>>>doesn't conform to British laws?
>>>WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?
>>>
>>>Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
>>>trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
>>>anymore.
>>
>>
>>The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else newsguy.com
>>wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download that stuff find another
>>provider, scumbag.
>
>Either way, I think it should OUR choice. A few years ago, giganews,
>among others, were dropping certain so called KP groups. All that did
>was to force the damn fools into using other groups. So giganews quit
>coddling to the various watch dog groups and reinstated the groups.
>It's kind of like the few watch dog groups of the trucking industry
>who are demanding they get what they want. While none of them know a
>damn thing about trucking.
>Let's say you haunt an MP3 group. Somebody comes along and posts a
>thousand images of nude little kids. Legality aside for the moment.
>Does IWF have the legal right to tell anyone to shut the group down?
>What's wrong with enforcing the laws upon the people that post the
>****?

Alright Richard, I'll bite. Let's say somebody comes to any group and posts
illegal pics. Yes, they <the authorities, police, FBI, ETC..> should go after
the person who posted the stuff. But here's one to wrap your mind around -
those illegal files are now residing on the news servers disks, which would make
the owner of the news server(s) guilty of possession. I would argue that it the
responsibility of the provider to make reasonable efforts to ensure that such
material is not available. Such reasonable efforts would include not carrying
groups that are known to contain that material, immediately destroying any that
gets through, and report the posters information to the authorities. It is a
matter of liability and legal exposure for an NSP to carry illegal material, one
headache that a good businessman would want to avoid.


>I agree, the IWF oughta keep their damn mits out of enforcing the
>laws.

Yeah right. It's a terrible thing they do. Of course you've been an advocate
of kiddy pics yourself, shall I post the Google links?

>Next thing ya know, your website gets shut down because they don't
>like your content.
>
>Just like with the RIAA crap.

Yup.

--

I kill all Google Group posts, you can too.
Take back Usenet <--> http://improve-usenet.org

Re: internet watch foundation
 

G. Morgan <your@pinion.is.invalid> wrote in
news:2a8d6a63dddd1753b044c8b9ac2a42a7np@goofysplac e.com:

> concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>
>>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been
>>dropping various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog
>>organization known as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them
>>the group contains child pornography.
>>
>>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom,
>>is using UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA
>>laws differ on this subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal.
>>Even if the person is under the age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>>
>>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some
>>bloody bloke from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if
>>I want to. The last time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and
>>a new country was formed. Are you going to let them tell you you can't
>>watch your favorite tv show because it doesn't conform to British
>>laws? WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate
>>the world again?
>>
>>Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just
>>sit there, trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....."
>>mean jack **** anymore.
>
>
> The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else
> newsguy.com wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download that
> stuff find another provider, scumbag.
>

Any Sucessful facist/repressive state has always started by repressing
things that everyone agreed with censoring. Some time after that the
wierd stuff happens, usually without people complaining or noticing.
This "variety" of porn has been around usenet since the beginning of
the alt.binaries hiarchy, so is removing it an improvement to the world,
or just a precursor to more rigid censorship? Neither you nor I know,
but I know that this can be a path to darkness, never enlightenment.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

Re: internet watch foundation
 

concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>
> I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
> from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last

Last time in France, there was an info commercial on re:

"the Vagina Designer"

Each govt. can make their own rules. Live with them or move...






--
http://www.bootdisk.com/