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

[Hook]

Tom Chance wrote:
> > (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.
> > Imagine the scene at a FSF conference with the
> > parents of abused
> > children demonstrating out front. Or jewish groups.
> > Or... Well you see
> > my point.
>
> It would be a pity to not hold this "extremist
> propoganda". And what is "extremist propoganda"
> anyway? I suggested yesterday to Jimmy that to many,
> writing an article on how well the US Government
> handled El Salvador and Nicuragua in the 1980s would
> be revisionism to the same extent as denying the
> holocaust. So we can't ever draw a fair line on
> propoganda, lies and similar ideas. We can only draw
> the line on informative or useless, and even that is a
> tricky distinction to make.

Deciding what actually *is* extremist is a difficult problem, I agree.
However, courts in pretty much every country in the world manage, sometimes
with difficulty, but they always get a decision. Ultimately, that's the
issue that the project needs to be aware of. It doesn't matter what the
views of the individuals on the project may be, the problem is determined by
the legal sysytem in the ocuntry hosting the complaint, and by the "peer
links" that country has to enforcement services in other countries.

A good UK example is the list of MI6 personnel which appeared a year or so
ago.  I'm sure that would have made an interesting GNE article (for some
values of interesting anyway), but if hosted in the US, it would have been
subject to a take down notice (as copies were). Eventually if may have found
a home elsewhere, but it wouldn't necessarily have been easy. The Finnish
remailer issue a few years back is another example of a powerful
organisation extending it's reach successfully, although by questionable
means.

I agree with the view that in the early years, extremist articles won't be
hosted, it's a safe solution. But GNE has to understand that at some point
in the future, if/when that view changes, there will undoubtedly be a series
of legal challenges which GNE probably won't be able to afford to fight.

Paul