[Air-l] The death of chat?

[Rik Lambers]

Hey!

In Holland the official reasons given for closing down MSN's chat are the 
proliferation of spam, porn and paedophilia. Microsoft's strategy to make 
their Internet division profitable is also mentioned as a reason for the 
closure, likely being the main one.
There's quite some news coverage, though in general the closing isn't seen 
as a very big deal. There are several other chat services, which are more 
popular, especially amongst the youth. To control the content on those 
services one often has to provide an ID, which puts an end to the anonymity 
of the user. This will also the case for the ("future") paid service in the 
US, Japan and Canada. Identidication of users, taking away their anonymity 
by technical or legal measures, is (becoming) one of the main tools of 
(speech)-control on the net. The US First Amendment, by the way, does 
protect pornography. Child pornograpy is excluded, on its own and as a form 
of obscenity, which is overall excluded from protection. The line between 
pornography and obscenity can be hard to make, as shown by past litigation. 
To draw a  line between the two has a cultural basis anyway, and to call 
pornographers a pest is a personal, and not a legal qualification.

Rik Lambers



At 23:05 24-9-2003 -0700, you wrote:

>>Steve Jones wrote :
>>
>> > Given the international membership on this list I'd be very
>> > interested in hearing reactions to MSN's announcement from outside
>> > the U.S. The news stories I heard about it on the radio in the U.S.
>> > emphasized spam and porn as being the reasons for the closing. Is
>> > that the reporting elsewhere?
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm in Singapore temporarily ( somewhat ironically, teaching New Media 
>>and International Communication) and the news I have heard/read/seen has 
>>emphasised  paedophile/spam as the reasons for the Microsoft decision.
>>
>>I agree with other posts that the decision is also likely to be connected 
>>to commercial reasons ( Hi, Microsoft lurkers - you can tick that box), I 
>>also wonder if there may be legal reasons, as laws in each country in 
>>relation to paedophilia and the internet seem to  vary - eg we saw 
>>recently how Pete Townsend was caught up in a paedophile inquiry as a 
>>result of downloading material for 'research', and then there was the 
>>famous German case where the CEO ( name??) was prosecuted for trading in 
>>pornography - perhaps there are also reasons that Microsoft has 
>>identified which are related to the potential for litigation by victims 
>>of paedophilia/spam. The US first amendment, after all, provides rare 
>>legal protection (?)  for  pornographers/paedophiles and other pests ( 
>>netmarketers).
>>
>>Do any legal experts have a view on this?
>>
>>Collette Snowden
>>
>>University of South Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>><http://shopping.yahoo.com/?__yltc=s%3A150000443%2Cd%3A22708228%2Cslk%3Ate 
>>xt%2Csec%3Amail>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>Rik Lambers
>Institute for Information Law (IViR)
>University of Amsterdam
>Rokin 84
>1012 KX Amsterdam
>Tel.: + 31 20 525 3321
>Fax.: + 31 20 525 3033
>http://www.ivir.nl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.aoir.org/pipermail/air-l-aoir.org/attachments/20030925/de1a4395/attachment-0001.htm>