untanglingtheweb:

Bilstad, B. T. (1996). Obscenity and Indecency on the Usenet: The Legal And Political Future of Alt.Sex.Stories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol 2(2).

full text.

Here’s the abstract:

This paper discusses the emerging prevalence of erotica and pornography on the Internet (in particular on the Usenet) and addresses legal and political questions raised in light of news events such as: University of Michigan cyber-stalker Jake Baker; convicted BBS-porn operators Robert and Carleen Thomas; and the passage of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the “CDA”) . In particular, one of the most popular Usenet discussion groups, “alt.sex.stories,” has come under recent fire. However, the Usenet is not an easily regulatable zone and evades many contemporary legal notions of jurisdiction and agency. In turn, this paper discusses: (1) legal standards under the First Amendment, (2) the regulation of BBSs, (3) the regulation of the Usenet, (4) specific activities on alt.sex.stories, (5) the CDA, and (6) market-based alternatives to legislation. Ultimately, the author concludes that software products such as “SurfWatch” present better alternatives to federal legislation that infringe upon the First Amendment.

This article approaches the topic of sex on the internet from a legal standpoint rather than from a purely social one, detailing earlier attempts at regulating obscene content on the web and the (then new) US Communications Decency Act of 1996 (which, according to Wikipedia, “was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet.”)

I’m curious about one aspect of the 1994 case described in this article - United States vs Thomas - in which a couple were convicted of distributing porn online. The case found that they transmitted “obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy” material.

Regarding the use of the word “filthy”: it’s a marvellous word. But isn’t it a (pardon the pun) messy, subjective and/or social descriptor, and word that has a - potentially - changeable definition? How on EARTH did it manage to get into legislation?