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

[Imran Ghory]

On 17 Feb 2001, at 7:17, Bob Dodd wrote:

> 
> --- Imran Ghory <address@hidden> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > (2) If we do offer up external links to sources of illegal
> > material,
> > > then we could ourselves be acting illegally. Especially since we
> > know
> > > why we are offering the link.
> > 
> > Linking to illegal content could just mean that that the linking
> > article 
> > has to be on a third party server itself. 
> 
> It's the "knowingly" bit that worries me. Presumably we know/have seen
> the content, that's why we're choosing the server carefully,

No, you misunderstand what I'm suggesting, the GNEP won't 
decide which material goes on which server, it'll only decide which 
material it will accept.

 If an article is rejected by GNEP the author is able to submit it to 
one of the alternative servers, which are willing to carry 
controversial material.

That way at the worst only the server which accepts it can be held 
responsible.

> > > (3) If the external server _is_ a GNE server (but not a GNU one)
> > then
> > > we could still stand accused of hosting extremist propoganda.
> > Whilst it
> > > wouldn't be on GNU hardware, it is still a GNU project, and RMS may
> > be
> > > seriously unhappy for the FSF to become involved in such hosting.
> > 
> > Do the Apache group get blamed for such material, do ISC get 
> > blamed for such material ?
> 
> 
> As far as I'm aware, Apache doesn't provide content. 
> We do. 
> GNE provides content.
> It's the content providers who get into trouble over illegal material.

No we don't, we (GNE) provide the software which allows people to 
access that content.

The GNEP servers will provide content, but it will provide non-
controversial content.

The other servers which use GNE software will be responsible for 
their own filtering criterion.

> > The software would be GNU controled by but the individual servers 
> > won't be, after all as RMS said on the annoucement, we need a 
> > distributed system to stop one group gaining overall control of the 
> > project. No one should be able to have singular control in the long 
> > term and that includes the FSF.
> 
> Currently this _is_ a GNU project, and will be using GNU servers to
> provide content. This is even more clear when you look at how decisions
> are made on the project. From a legal point of view, it's difficult to
> see who else, other than GNU, is responsible for storage, policing, and
> distribution of content.

That's why at the beginning we should stay away from having 
controversial content. In the long term third party servers can 
provide for legally dubious material.

Imran