In initial statements, CompuServe claimed that a German government official walked into its German offices with a list of Usenet newsgroups and demanded that CompuServe either remove the listed groups from its system or face possible prosecution of its local agents for violating German law.

Later accounts state that a Bavarian prosecutor brought to CompuServe a list of "suspect" groups targeted in an investigation of child pornography on the Internet. According to the AP news, Manfred Wick, the Munich prosecutor, denies that any threats were made, and a CompuServe representative admitted that CompuServe's actions were voluntary.

But what did CompuServe do when visited by the prosecutor? Whether voluntarily or under threat, it discontinued access to some 200 Usenet newsgroups. Not only did it block access to the German forums, it blocked access to its entire multinational system of four million subscribers. (CompuServe claims that it is currently incapable of filtering its news service to provide different newsgroups to different countries.)

Immediately, some groups applauded CompuServe's response. A representative for the Christian Coalition, a group that has been fighting against online pornography, called the move a "healthy thing" that will not result in damage to the Internet. Other groups responded by calling for a boycott of CompuServe and German beer.

Commenting on the Christian Coalition's response, U.S. House member Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the Telecommunications Reform Conference Committee, submitted a guest editorial to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Newsletter, in which she stated:

Among the items that CompuServe is being forced to hide from its four million users are serious discussions about Internet censorship legislation pending in Congress, thoughtful postings about human rights and marriage, and a support group for gay and lesbian youth. Banning this material doesn't protect minors and adults -- but it does have a chilling effect on political and social discussion in a free society.

The list also included, however, "clari.news.crime.sex," part of the ClariNet News wire service. This particular group carries news items involving sex crimes (coincidentally, it is a group that CompuServe does not, and never has, carried on its service).

The list also included "alt.sexy.bald.captains," a group devoted largely to discussing Capt. Picard, from the television show "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Because the group name starts with "alt.sex," it was removed with the rest.

First, the Internet and other channels of electronic communication are inherently international. Online service providers may subject themselves to regulation in many different countries. Not all countries have a First Amendment.

CompuServe should have known better in this case -- it has had similar trouble before, specifically with the German government (regarding laws against Nazi materials and one of CompuServe's online games). Moreover, the over-arching international legal question might have been avoided through better technical design, allowing for country-specific content limitations.

Second, if CompuServe was merely presented with a list of groups under investigation, then cutting off worldwide access to political discussion groups and Star Trek forums was a not "healthy thing." CompuServe has lost many subscribers as a result of its actions.

Still -- and third -- the outrage among certain users reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of CompuServe's free-speech obligations. CompuServe is a private company, not a government agent. It has the right to take actions it deems in its best interests without regard to the First Amendment.

Users, unless it is in their service contract, have no "right" to read certain Usenet newsgroups. They remain free to take their business to a service that will provide the forums and editorial policies they seek. One company has already taken advantage of this incident by advertising its own uncensored Usenet news service and one month free service to anyone making the switch.

Which brings us to the fourth point: some content, no matter what its source, is just plain illegal. Pro-Nazi discussions are illegal in Germany. Trafficking in child-pornographic pictures or obscenity is illegal in the United States. Certain discussions of Judaism and Christianity are illegal in some Arab countries. Users may claim censorship if they want, but that will not keep their system operators out of jail for violating relevant content restrictions.

Fifth, no matter what your views, they may be illegal somewhere. If every service removes all objectionable content worldwide, there may be very little content left. Just as the Christian Coalition objects to child pornography and seeks its eradication, there are others who object to Christianity.

Finally, on networks like the Internet, it is virtually impossible to block any particular content. Within hours of CompuServe's removal of the 200 newsgroups, users posted instructions on how to gain access to the newsgroups from other sources.

Illegal or not, preventing access to content on the Internet is a gesture likely to fail. Any country that does not acknowledge this may find itself without any companies that are willing to do business in that country for fear of liability. This does not mean that system operators should not be required to make some efforts to restrict access to illegal content, but they should not be held liable for the inevitable circumvention of restrictions. This inability to prevent access completely should especially be kept in mind by Congress as it works on reforming the U.S.'s telecommunications legislation.