Ed Gerck writes:
> Thus, "why they block" (the reason, item b above) alone cannot be
> defamation either, IMO, because they do not report who they block.
> Otherwise, we would support the funny idea that someone could suffer
> defamation without ever being reported by any means. A very
> contradiction with the word "fame" (report) in defamation.
They report who they block on a site by site basis every time someone
clicks on a site, and access is denied by the software. The fact that
they do not publish this report in all-encompassing list form is
immaterial.
Given that the program is being referred to in news reports as "porn
software," a reasonable person may infer that the authors are labeling
those sites the software denies access to as "porn sites."
BTW - a judge has now issued an injunction against the two people who
disclosed the list, and any mirror sites.
-----
Porn Software Injunction Issued
By The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) -- A federal judge Friday ordered a halt to the distribution
of a computer program that allows children to bypass software designed to
keep them away from Internet pornography.
Microsystems Software Inc. of Framingham, which sells the widely used
``Cyber Patrol'' filtering software, sued two computer experts who
distributed the bypassing software via the Internet. The software, called
``cphack,'' also discloses a list of sites that are blocked by the Cyber
Patrol program.
U.S. District Judge Edward F. Harrington ordered Matthew Skala, a
self-described cryptography buff who attends the University of Victoria in
British Columbia, and Eddy L.O. Jansson, believed to be living in Sweden,
to stop spreading the ``cphack'' program.
The judge also blocked distribution of the ``cphack'' software by anyone
working with them.
Microsystems attorney Irwin Schwartz said the judge's order extended to
any ``mirror'' Web sites, where the program may have been copied and made
available. Another hearing is set for March 27 on the case.
Skala and Jansson were not represented at Friday's hearing, and they did
not immediately return e-mails seeking comment.
Microsystems has said in its legal filings it would suffer ``irreparable
harm'' from the publication of the bypassing software, which it said
sought to destroy the market for its product by rendering it ineffective.
``The practical effect is that ... children may bypass their parents'
efforts to screen out inappropriate materials on the Internet,'' according
to the filing made this week.
Free speech advocates criticized the company's move to block distribution
of the software.
Peter Junger, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland and an advocate of free speech on the Internet, said it ``looks
like a rather horrifying challenge to people's right to write software''
and to ``reverse-engineer'' software, which means figure out how it works.
``The idea that one can prevent reverse-engineering of software and
publishing the results of that reverse-engineering strikes me as a very
dangerous restriction on free speech,'' he said before the judge's ruling.
Chris Hansen, a senior lawyer with the national office of the American
Civil Liberties Union, said there might be debate about whether
distributing the bypass software was legal, but that the ACLU agreed with
at least one role of the software -- publicizing the list of blocked
sites.
``Parents who want to install these products ought to be able to do so,''
he said, adding, ``How can you, as a parent, make an intelligent decision
(on filtering software)if the product won't tell you what they're
blocking?''
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
