Legality/ToS question

[Galen]

A user posted an article on my site's forum entitled "How to bulid an H-bomb." The article was mostly satire, intended to show that, contrary to popular belief, it is not "easy" to build a nuclear bomb. However, the article, satire or not, DID give what appeared to be accurate instructions for building a nuclear device.

My question is, is it illegal to post such information on the Internet? It's supposedly "easy to find" such information online, but I'm not actually sure if it's *legal* to put up such information. I'm wondering if this could be one of those situations where Uncle Sam would "rather you didn't do that" but it's protected as Free Speech so they don't actually have a law against it.

For now, the post is soft-deleted and if anyone can point out a legal precedant, it'll stay that way. Or if anyone can point out that it would violate the JagPC ToS or AuP.

[the_ancient]

A user posted an article on my site's forum entitled "How to bulid an H-bomb." The article was mostly satire, intended to show that, contrary to popular belief, it is not "easy" to build a nuclear bomb. However, the article, satire or not, DID give what appeared to be accurate instructions for building a nuclear device.

My question is, is it illegal to post such information on the Internet? It's supposedly "easy to find" such information online, but I'm not actually sure if it's *legal* to put up such information. I'm wondering if this could be one of those situations where Uncle Sam would "rather you didn't do that" but it's protected as Free Speech so they don't actually have a law against it.

For now, the post is soft-deleted and if anyone can point out a legal precedant, it'll stay that way. Or if anyone can point out that it would violate the JagPC ToS or AuP.

the Actual legality of it is of little importance.

Ask yourself these questions, if you awnser no to ANY of them, Delete it perminatly

1> Do I have more money than the feds to fight this in the court of law?
2> I am willing to be labled as a possible terrorist and have my site, home, persons searched and/or seized over this persons post?

With todays legal system, I would not chance anything, nor would I hide behind the constitution, it does not seem to matter to anyone anymore.

[Ron]

Very odd, the_ancient. When I suggested to you that it would be better to accede to a wal-mart guards' requests rather than physically fight them, purely based on the exact same logic you use above (ie it could cost you everything to defend yourself or to pay off a lawsuit) you took the opposite position. I think you asked me why I wanted to give away all of my freedoms or some such. I'd have to go look up the correspondence to be 100% accurate.

Do you just enjoy being antagonistic and cynical, or do you have any consistent positions?

[Galen]

The legality is of great importance. I wouldn't fight the government on this issue. If they ordered me to delete the post, I would. For the reasons you pointed out, I wouldn't try to fight something that's so ambiguous to begin with. Bomb making instructions are hardly where I would want to spend my time fighting a free speech cause. If the user wanted to protest it, HE could go fight the government since it's HIS free speech being infringed upon.

But yes, the legality is very important. The Bill of Rights is my Bible and I'd need a solid reason (such as "this is not allowed...") to go against it. Jag saying "you can't host that on our servers" or someone showing me that it's illegal, those are solid reasons. Me saying "OMG, the government might come after me" is not a solid reason.

[Ron]

Here is a solid reason for you:

"I don't feel like publishing bomb making directions, accurate or not, on my website, and I don't want to deal with the possible ramifications thereof, legal, moral or otherwise."

If the Bill of Rights is your Bible, why wouldn't you fight the government trying to take your rights away? Because it would be "inconvenient" to do so. Or because it would be something with which you WANTED to comply.

Since the issue is already troubling you, apply the same logic now and just delete the stupid post, or edit it until you're comfortable with it's contents.

[Vin DSL]

I think it's more of a matter of personal morality, than institutional integrity.

What's your conscience say about all this, Galen?

[Vin DSL]

OMG! You're getting more like me everyday, Ronny...

Or was that a quote from Adolph Hitler?

[the_ancient]

Very odd, the_ancient. When I suggested to you that it would be better to accede to a wal-mart guards' requests rather than physically fight them, purely based on the exact same logic you use above (ie it could cost you everything to defend yourself or to pay off a lawsuit) you took the opposite position. I think you asked me why I wanted to give away all of my freedoms or some such. I'd have to go look up the correspondence to be 100% accurate.

Do you just enjoy being antagonistic and cynical, or do you have any consistent positions?

LOL, Walmart is now more or just as powerful as the federal government now?

Walmart has been empowered by congress to violate the constitution for your safty?

When did that Happen?

I know the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA and others of the alphabet soup have been allowed to ignor the constitution when they see fit, I was not aware walmart was allowed to do so as well...

Besides it is completly differant aurgument, Walmart and there rent a cops in almost all cases have ZERO legal power, or no more than the average person, and in some limited screwed up areas where they give rentacop more power,they do have slightly more power than the average person, However this power does not extend as far as the alphabet soup where they can pretty much do what every they want, upto and including holding you indefinatly with out charges.

So lets compare apples to apples here.

But since you hate personal freedom, and the constitution, I dont expect much from you anyway

[the_ancient]

But yes, the legality is very important. The Bill of Rights is my Bible and I'd need a solid reason (such as "this is not allowed...") to go against it. Jag saying "you can't host that on our servers" or someone showing me that it's illegal, those are solid reasons. Me saying "OMG, the government might come after me" is not a solid reason.

Under the constitution it is perfectly legal, IMO, however with the courts ruling the way they are today, they would probally rule it not protected, after all they ruled that you dont own your property recently

[Galen]

I think it's more of a matter of personal morality, than institutional integrity.

What's your conscience say about all this, Galen?

Which part? My conscience conflicts here. On one hand, my conscience would rather not have bomb making instructions on my forum. On the other hand, my conscience would rather I not sacrifice the principles I believe in simply because my conscience bothers me. The true test of one's belief in free speech is whether you will defend speech that you personally object to. I always have and I always will. The whole "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thing.

Be that as it may, I consider Jag or the government to be a fairly reliable source on what is or is not legal to have on my site. Whether I agree with it is not the issue. Those who disagree with the law should lobby to change it, not actively break it (unless lobbying is impossible, which it rarely is these days).

Ron, I didn't make the post and wouldn't have personally chosen to put such content on my site. So, it's not my right to free speech that is in question. The poster can fight it if he chooses and I would support him in doing so, but not by breaking the law or Jag's ToS. And your "reason" is not good enough, in that it is not "reason" at all, but a purely emotional response. "I don't feel like ..." You may do things based on your feelings, but I do not. I make decisions based on logical criteria, not based on whether or not something "feels" right.

I didn't start this thread to get a morality debate. It's not about morality at all. The whole point of my forum is that absolutely anything is allowed so long as it's legal and within Jag's ToS. Morality is irrelevant and bears no weight on my decision making process at all.

[the_ancient]

I consider .... the government to be a fairly reliable source on what is or is not legal .......
Those who disagree with the law should lobby to change it, not actively break it (unless lobbying is impossible, which it rarely is these days).
.

WOW, I can safly say your a lost sheep being lead to the slaughter

[Vin DSL]

Which part? My conscience conflicts here.

I see.. Well, that's an easy one to figure out!

On one hand, my conscience would rather not have bomb making instructions on my forum.

That's your conscience speaking! Listen to it. Your conscience is your friend, not your enemy...

On the other hand, my conscience would rather I not sacrifice the principles I believe in simply because my conscience bothers me.

That's NOT your conscience speaking. That's your ego. Be very careful about listening to it...

So, there you have it!

I am sooooooooooooo glad to hear someone else say this. Ppl are so flippant when I talk about the 'three of us' -- me, myself, and I. Yet, this is exactly what you're talking about -- the 'three of you'.

Everyone is born with a conscience and an ego, but somewhere down the line, their conscience is programmed out of them, and their ego is bent n' twisted, first by your mother, then your father, and later by society. What you need up with is conflicted thoughts.

The 'trick' is to step back and watch your thoughts, that is, sit quietly and get ABOVE your thoughts. Don't get excited. Just watch. Don't be a part of your thoughts. Don't ignore them. Just observe... The answer will come to you!

[Spathiphyllum]

Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)

Jaguar Technologies LLC, provides web hosting to a large number of clients. We have a responsibility to protect each client and provide the best services available. The following guidelines have been established to insure this intent is met.

[...snippage...]

Content: You are responsible for any and all content in and under your site or account at all times. All services provided by Jaguar Technologies LLC may be used for lawful purposes only. Transmission, storage, or presentation of any information, data or material in violation of any United States Federal, State or City law is prohibited.
- Jaguar Technologies LLC is not responsible for any claims resulting from the use of our service. This is also true for sites that promote any illegal activity or content that may be damaging to our servers or any other server on the internet. Links to such materials are prohibited. This also includes, but not limited to Adult sites, pirated software, hacker programs/archives, MP3, Warez, copyrighted material or material protected by trade secrets and other statutes. Jaguar Technologies LLC does permit legal adult content on dedicated servers, colocation services, and vps accounts. All other services not listed here are forbidden to store, serve, or contain any adult materials.

The following constitute violations:

Threats and unlawful conduct: Use of our service to transmit any material (by e-mail, uploading, posting or otherwise) that threatens or encourages bodily harm or destruction of property. Use of our services to transmit any material (by e-mail, uploading, posting or otherwise) that harasses another...

So, Jaguar's ToS incorporate and are based upon the laws of the land appended with some specific conditions to buttress its own "morality".

I don't know what "national or public security" laws would be broken to disclose your poster's "satire", but it seems to me that one could interpret Jaguar's "morality clause" (my term) as limiting such content. It's a bit loose and I don't know the context of the specific post, but the instructions could constitute an issue that encourages bodily harm or destruction of property.

On a personal note, I'd not have any problems stifling content in my charge on the web I find personally questionable/objectionable. On the whole, I would have a problem with the government doing so, but I don't have to carry, promote, or advertise that which I find "offensive". That's a principle, too, and I'll make judgements upon others as to what they will or won't promote based on context and numerous other criteria. I am not a slave to free speech (even if non-legally binding conditions exist), and I'll gladly impose my own judgements as to what I'll incorporate in my life's domains. We all do that every day. It's really only a matter of degree. Responsibility mandates that we not wave the free speech hammer in all of life's china shops... even if doing so might make a nice spectacle.

[Frank Broughton]

Ya right, a poster on your forum made a post on how to make a nuke! What is the post fifty lines or so? I do not think it can be done in a post on a forum and there is no one in the world who could make it with that post. If they needed that post to attempt it - they could not do it. What's the problem?

[Ron]

the_ancient,
Your answer to him spoke nothing about fighting the good fight, or who was empowered, or not, with what powers, real or imagined, granted or not limited by the constitution.

You told him not to fight the government because he would lose a court case, or not have enough money to fight them, or have his home searched and/or seized, or get a label affixed to him.

All of these are the same possible outcomes for punching out a wal-mart (or any) "security guard". You can't win. You have everything to lose; your car, house, employment cash, they have an $8 an hour job to lose, and maybe a 1982 Chevy. All it takes is for them or their scummy lawyer to look at you and think you have any money worth going after.

My god, they are setting up fake accidents, getting innocent people drivers-by into accidents to collect a few thousand in insurance money. They won't think twice about suing you for punching them in the snout while they are performing their "job" and the local ADA might decide to prosecute you criminally.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose the cases. You lose.