The "illegal activities" policy

[matt_mcl]

I have some doubts about the “illegal activities” policy. Mind you, this is not a flame (and if anyone starts flaming in this thread - bethides thith kind, thilly - I’ll beat your ass with a large trout). But since “This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”, I figured it ought to go here.

I need clarification as to the ins and outs of the illegal actions policies, because every permutation of it I can see leads to a reductio ad absurdum.

For example, threads detailing how to use marijuana are often closed because they describe how to undertake an illegal activity. Where does this leave people from jurisdictions where this is NOT illegal?

There have been court rulings in Canada that say the government has some finite number of months to come up with a new marijuana law or the existing one will be scrapped. Conceivably, this could result in a quite significant number of posters living in a jurisdiction where the possession and use of marijuana is not illegal. Would I then be able to post about pot brownies without fear of reprisal? Or not?

Conversely, 18 states in the US still have sodomy laws. However, threads about sodomy have been left open (much to my delight ) If the SD server were located in one of those states, would discussion of straight or gay sodomy be forbidden? Is it forbidden for people from jurisdictions where it is illegal to discuss sodomy? After all, they are discussing breaking the law.

In general, under what circumstances may we post about illegal things, and under whose definition of illegal does it fall?

[Captain_Amazing]

This is just a WAG, but since the server is located in Chicago, Illinois, in the U.S., and the Chicago Reader is too, “illegal activities” would refer to anything illegal under Chicago, Illinois, or U.S. law.

[SuaSponte]

Mad props to Dr Matrix and Cajun Man for predicting this thread last night!

matt, quite frankly, I think the dividing line is “what would a jury believe?” In this day and age, I think it is quite possible that a jury would believe that posts on an internet message board induced an innocent lad or lass to try pot, but I don’t think that a majority of a jury would believe that posts on an internet message board induced some innocent lad or lass to engage in “deviant sexual practices”. That’s what the movies are for.

Sua

[Enderw24]

According to http://www.dumblaws.com/states

It is illegal in Illinois to give a dog whiskey. So there will be NO threads on this. At all. Whatsoever.
Of course, it also states that all bachelors should be called master, not mister, when addressed by their female counterparts. Which I, for one, think would make a fine board policy.

Of course, in Missouri it is illegal to have oral sex so I’m really going to have to watch what computer I’m posting from.
Also, installation of bathtubs with four legs resembling animal paws is prohibited so you can guarantee I won’t be starting a thread on that subject.

[SisterCoyote]

Ender,

I will not be calling anyone Master.

You may, however, if you’re nice, call me Mistress. There are a couple of other Dommes who will be in shortly to discuss this with you…I’m sure.

:tapping cat o’ nine tails across palm:

I’ve never given a dog whiskey. My rat, however, is quite fond of red wine…

[SisterCoyote]

Okay, I followed Ender’s link, and would just like to say that I’m particularly moved by the following California city law:

Belvedere City Council order reads: “No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash.”

And what can you say about these two state laws:

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

I mean, I love California and can’t imagine living anywhere else, but how do you deal with this kind of silliness?
[/hijack]

[NothingMan]

That was a great OP matt_,

mayhap too great.

I think that this is a very rare occasion,

where a Pit thread belongs somewhere else.

[manhattan]

(This is really cool + This is good for our brand + This might make money) > (This is a pain in the ass + This is a potential legal liability + This is expensive)

Remember that equation. When that equation no longer holds, it no longer makes sense for the Reader to continue hosting this message board. Those of you who try to access the board during the day already know that the MB is not exactly the Reader’s highest priority, and old-timers will recall that Ed Zotti once got from the Reader brass a copy of an article about other newspapers shutting down their internet message boards because the above equation ceased to hold. Some of those shutting down their boards were companies making tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars per year in their primary businesses, so the “This is expensive” part of the equation didn’t really enter into it – it just became too big a pain in the ass. I assure you that “This is expensive” is indeed a bigger consideration for the Reader than for, say the Baltimore Sun.

Right now, the equation is balanced in favor of keeping the MB up, mostly because the “This is really cool” rating is so high – but sometimes it’s hard to tell by how much. Zotti is widely rumored to bring nylons and chocolate to the office each morning hoping to trade them for DRAM chips and SQL tweaks.

So, to answer the question as directly as possible, I’ve always moderated with an eye toward keeping “This is a pain in the ass” and “This is a potential legal liability” parts as low as possible while still keeping “This is really cool” and “This is good for our brand” as high as possible.

Generally, the laws of Illinois in the United States are relevant to the board, but it’s more complicated than that.

Drugs are a current obsession of the government – the Feds and the states spend billions of dollars a year of (your and my) money in a holy jihad against them. A lie in another thread notwithstanding, I personally believe drugs should be legal. But they’re not, and it would be wrong for me to put the Reader out in front of the anti-drug freight train in hopes of stopping it. As for paraphernalia, instructions on how to construct such things are really only useful in jurisdictions where they are otherwise unavailable. When the Reader gets a letter from the mother of a 16-year old who built her very first bong from a link on the SD, well, you see the idea.

As to your other example of sodomy – yes, it is illegal in some states. For all I know, some of the other sexual practices mentioned on the board might even be illegal in Illinois. But there is not a multi-billion dollar infrastructure hunting down sodomists, and there is not a specific federal law prohibiting the dissemination of how to tie a proper knot for maximum restraint in bondage while still allowing good circulation. Indeed, In some of those states, you can’t get arrested for a non-prostitution consensual sex “crime” if you try, because local authorities don’t want the embarrassment of seeing the statute thrown out by the courts, or having their hypocrisy exposed, or whatever. In this case, “This is really cool” clearly exceeds “This is a pain in the ass” + “This is a potential legal liability.”

I hope that helps.

[wring]

matt I believe the factor is ‘what is legal where the CR is located’.

Now, as for “what about those posters who live where mj is legal, what, pray tell, oh, what, shall they do, where shall they turn” ( ) , well, no single message board (I believe) attempts to be all things to all people. Even this one. For a real life example, routinely questions about ‘these are my symptoms, what do you think I have’ are answered “I dunno, maybe this, maybe that, but see your doctor”

What I see happening on a regular basis, is that some one will come along, post a drug thread or link, it gets deleted and /or closed, then a bunch of folks decide it’ll be fun to post a whole lotta other ones, the mods get tired and ‘wackiness ensues’. Or maybe it’s ‘drama ensues’. I can never keep those straight…

[Fretful_Porpentine]

[even more massive hijack per Ender’s link]
Ooh, I’m moving to York for the summer … may I please ask for advice on how to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow? As long as I promise not to do it on Sunday?

[Miller]

Dogsbody: That first California law you sited is, I believe, a hold over from the days of whaling*. The second law also, obviously, refers to boats.

(Days of Whaling, staring Tom Cruise as a hotheaded young whaler who… ah, forget it)

[Guinastasia]

I’ll beat your ass with a large
trout).

I had no idea you were so kinky…

[Tazma]

The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Tazma *
**The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
**

I thought that was Utah . . .

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

I find the factoid repeated widely on the Web, always with Texas as the state, not Utah. It’s always in the context of “Dumb Laws” websites, and I can’t find anything that directly references it, either to confirm or debunk. It’s not in Snopes or in any other UL website. My guess would be that it’s a statute left over from the Prohibition era.

http://realbeer.com/spotlight/ask_ace/ask_ace199911.html

Dave,
I read recently in another e-mail periodical (okay, it was Bizarre News but that counts doesn’t it?) that in the state of Texas, the entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home. Could it be that this is an actual law ? Is it a throwback to the days of Prohibition ?

This is a Burpan Legend. If Proctor & Gamble can make 40+ varieties of tide to adhere to the worlds environmental laws regarding phosphates. The Encyclopedia Britannica publishers would surely print a series without this info so as not to miss out on a large market like Texas.

I’m with this guy. It surely isn’t really banned any more; I can’t find anything current that says you can’t buy the EB in Texas.

And you know, their online version still has the instructions in there on how to make beer–I doubt if the Texas legislature is taking steps to ban the Internet so people can’t find out how to make beer.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108449&tocid=66634

And yes, generally speaking, it is legal to make beer at home.

http://www.homebrew.com/how_to/faqs.shtml

The legality of homebrewing varies from State to State, however it is legal in almost all states. If you are 21 years or older, you can brew upto 100 gallons of beer per year in your home. If there is more than 1 adult (over 21) in your household, you may, as a household, brew upto 200 gallons per year. You may not sell your beer with out the proper licsenses. See you State office for the specifics within your own State.

And it’s legal in Texas.

http://www.beertown.org/AHA/Legal/texas.htm

Legal Status of Homebrewing in Texas
Updated: 9/95
State: Texas
Status: Permitted, subject to amount (gallonage).

Statute:
Texas statute Title 4, Chapter 109, Subchapter B, §109.21 provides that a license or permit is not required for the manufacture of not more than 200 gallons of wine, malt liquor, or beer.

However, in Texas, you can’t buy real laboratory flasks to make your yeast culture in.

http://www.foamrangers.com/foamimprov/fitt00005.html

by Louis K Bonham
Under Texas law, it is a Class A misdemeanor (read: up to one year in jail and/or up to $4,000 fine) to purchase, sell, or transfer certain types of laboratory equipment customarily used in illegal drug manufacturing without having the proper permit from the Texas Department of Public Safety. The relevant statute (Texas Health and Safety Code _ 481.080) sets forth several types of laboratory equipment (for example, distilling apparatus, vacuum dryers, encapsulating machines, tableting machines) that clearly could be put to untoward uses, but it also gives the DPS Director the authority to issue regulations that put additional types of laboratory equipment under the statute.

Under these regulations (found in Title 37, Texas Administrative Code, _ 13.131), erlenmeyer flasks, florence flasks, round bottom flasks, single neck flasks, separatory flasks, and filter flasks are all considered by the DPS director “to jeopardize public health and welfare by evidenced use in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances,” and so cannot be bought, sold, or purchased without the requisite permit. There are a number of exemptions (for instance, schools and corporations are generally exempt from purchase regulations), but none of them probably cover homebrewers.

The about.com Beer/Home Brewing web page had this linked with the comment, “When beakers are outlawed, only outlaws will have beakers.” Hee.

[Silver_Fire]

It’s illegal to sleep naked in MN??? Well, lock me up and throw away the key.

[matt_mcl]

BEAKERS??

Oh, god…

That’s it. I’m giving up hope for the human race.