Usenet is composed of many thousands of newsgroups, with more being added every day. To deliver quality access to Usenet, LavaNet subscribes to an outsourced Usenet service called "SuperNews". A limited number of ports are available for the news service, which is included with LavaNet access accounts. Please note that there may be times where all ports are in use and may require re-attempts to connect. LavaNet may increase or decrease the number of available ports from time to time, change news providers or discontinue Usenet news service at our sole discretion and without notice.

Responsibilities come with providing newsgroups to our subscribers. Certain newsgroups carry content which is unethical or illegal. To resolve this, we came up with a policy which defines the basis on which we might choose to have our provider block a newsgroup. It is a synthesis of two principles LavaNet holds dear: freedom of speech, and a sense of ethics about what information we make available.

Our policy:
We will instruct our provider to block the content of Usenet groups where it is clear and unmistakable (for instance from the title of the group) that the content for which the group was created is in itself illegal to possess or distribute. Since there aren't too many forms of information which are illegal in the US, that boils down to:

1. Child pornography - this is material that it is simply illegal to create or possess. Examples of groups that fit this description:
   
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.female
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.male
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita.fucking
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita.misc
   alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen
   alt.sex.pre-teens
   ...and so on.

2. Copyrighted material - e.g. software which is posted on the "warez" groups in violation of copyright. It's a federal crime to pirate software, and LavaNet feels that in an information society it is important to respect intellectual property rights. Examples of groups that fit this description:
   
   alt.binaries.warez.amiga
   alt.binaries.warez.atari-st
   alt.binaries.warez.cbm alt.binaries.warez.consoles
   alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc alt.binaries.warez.mac alt.binaries.warez.sega-genesis
   alt.binaries.warez.snes alt.cracks alt.warez.amiga alt.warez.atari
   alt.warez.atari-st
   alt.warez.consoles
   alt.warez.ibm-pc
   ...and so on.

Note that our policy doesn't affect many other controversial groups, for instance:

• alt.binaries.pictures.erotica - while some of the articles here may be scans of copyrighted material, there are also many articles that are not. Therefore the group stays.
• alt.drugs - while possession of some drugs is illegal in the USA, talking about them is protected free speech.
• alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.d - this is a discussion group regarding illegally copied software. Once again, discussing illegal things is not itself illegal.

We don't police the newsfeed very systematically, for one thing because we don't have time, but these are the principles we go by. If we notice a group, or if someone tells us of a group which clearly violates our standard by having either inherently illegal content or routine and purposeful copyright violations, we'll instruct our feed provider to block the group.

The law is pretty unclear about standards and precedents for these questions at present. Does dropping any newsgroup for any reason constitute censorship, and set us up in the position of being editor or publisher and having responsibility for everything else? It might be construed that way, based on court cases involving Compuserve and Prodigy. On the other hand, we don't think we could argue that we are thereby freed of responsibility if we did nothing to block access to groups devoted to illegal content.

We suggest the "newsstand" analogy: We are not going to stock "kiddie porn" magazines in our display, but that does not mean we create or have responsibility for all the contents of the other magazines we sell. With Usenet being the way it is, and new groups being created constantly, we have to admit we don't always know what's there. (Rather as if we're constantly being shipped new boxes of magazines by distributors, and haven't always gotten around to seeing what's in those boxes.) If we know a group offers something actually illegal to possess, we'll instruct our provider to block it. That seems like the level of responsibility we must take. The decision on the Netcom case by a federal judge in California seems to support our viewpoint: he held that Netcom could be liable for contributing to copyright infringement by a subscriber, because it was informed of the infringement and failed to take action to prevent it.

As with everything at LavaNet, we are open about our policies so that there will be no misunderstandings. We are also eager to hear the reactions of our users and the Usenet community in general. You may want to discuss this in the lava.general newsgroup, or you can email us at usenet-policy@lava.net.