[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
> Your over-broad reading of this law would effectively gut that other
> law which states that a "host" company is not responsible for what
> people are hosting.
> 
> Wouldn't it?  Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
> unsupportable platform that "child porn" (or whatever you want to
> call it) is somehow different from any other type of content such as
> snuff films or instructions on how to build a fertilizer bomb or
> detailed plans for the assassination a leading figure.
> 

The question is whether the courts take a narrow reading of the 
safe-harbor exemptions, which is what they are increasing tending to do 
in other areas, such as copyright.

The main issue is whether the courts decide that the Foundation is 
equivalent to godaddy and wordpress, or whether it is more like 
Huffington Post.