On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:56:25 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William and all,
>
> William, something you left out of your selection of Excerpts here
>is the amendment to the Australian bill regarding offensive content.
>I am providing it here for clarification purposes. It sort of puts this
>very good bill in it's proper perspective.
>
>"For instance, a last-minute amendment to the
> law called for "recognized alternative
> access-prevention arrangements." The
> association lobbied heavily for the amendment,
> which could give ISPs a way to satisfy their
> legal obligations by offering their subscribers
> filtering software, or by offering different levels
>of
> commercial service based on varying amounts of
> content filtering at the ISP level, Coroneos said.
> How this would work in practice has yet to be
> defined. "
>
> So as everyone can see clearly this law is not all that bad in
>reality, although a bit unecessary...
>
*sigh* you also leave out the part where they say that this may end
up not being acceptable to the board who will oversee this, and that
this is just a loose interpretation.
So why don't you try putting yourself into "proper perspective."
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
