|
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
CDA Discussion item
| 
Feb 27 12:03 UTC 1996 |
At last night's Board meeting we had a nice long discussion about the
Communications Decency Act, and we couldn't agree on a policy since the CDA
is not yet being enforced, and it is likely that pieces of it (or the whole
thing altogether) may be removed as a result of current (and future) court
action.
So this is the item to discuss the CDA and how Grex should deal with it.
|
| 103 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 1 of 103:
|
Feb 27 12:10 UTC 1996 |
My opinion on the CDA is that if it is enforced, Grex will have to comply.
My own personal projection of policy is that Grex may have one or more
verified (with good verification criteria) adult conferences, and censoring
of (under the CDA) illegal (obscene, indecent) content elsewhere. Resources
like mail and party are probably not subject to enforcement, except perhaps
that party logs will not be available for reading the way they are now.
Conferencing, Web Pages, .plans, and accessible user files will be dealt with
on a complaint basis, since there is no way staff could find time to actively
browse for material.
I'm not especially happy about this. I do think cyberspace doesn't *need*
to be part of an anonymous culture where anything goes, but I don't like it
that a draconian law would force it to be a cleaned-up kiddie park. And most
users are *not* a problem anyway.
|
brighn
|
|
response 2 of 103:
|
Feb 27 14:54 UTC 1996 |
Modifications would also have to be made so that FWs could delete
single entries, I should think... an entire conf could be sullied
by someone wandering in and entering "f***" in every item.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 103:
|
Feb 27 15:35 UTC 1996 |
What's wrong with "f***"? An f followed by four asterisks surely does
not fall under CDA restrictions.
My opinion is that nothing needs to be done until the act is enforced -
including talking about it, other than to decide that nothing needs to
be done until the act is enforced. It will all be pretty clear, or at
least simply to decide, when the time comes.
|
scott
|
|
response 4 of 103:
|
Feb 27 17:08 UTC 1996 |
I would rather have a conditional policy, such as "Grex will comply with
whatever parts of the law survive to be enforced", which we could have now
and use as soon as needed. Others at the board meeting wanted an emergency
meeting to get a policy when it does go into full effect.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 5 of 103:
|
Feb 28 01:23 UTC 1996 |
I think grex should refuse to comply and take the consequences. If
something is wrong, it is wrong. Suppose a law was passed legalizing
apartheid, and requiring that boards like Grex screen for race and only
allow white new users on? Would any of you suggest grex complying
with that even if that was the law?
Of course not, so the only dignified thing to do would be to fight it.
Grex should stand its ground and if the government comes after us, which
they probably wont, refuse to comply and refuse to pay any fines and go
to court if necessary.
If there is an emergency meeting and policy is enacted, I think a number
of people might drop their memberships and some might leave grex altogether.
The board MUST think of the consequences!
Do the right thing. Dont comply in any way, shape or manner.
|
carson
|
|
response 6 of 103:
|
Feb 28 02:21 UTC 1996 |
and kerouac is willing to pay all of your court costs and bring you
muffins if you are tossed in the klink. 8^)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 103:
|
Feb 28 02:33 UTC 1996 |
The ACLU and other legal types would probably represent Grex pro
bono in the extreme unlikelihood that it ever came to a legal
challenge. Nobody is going to jail. The only possible reason for
even token compliance is paranoia, and it would represent a selling
out of the principles upon which grex was founded.
At the very least, the question of CDA compliance should be brought
and decided in a vote of the membership. At least that way, it wouldnt
be a few paranoid people trying to strongarm the board into doing
something totally unneccesary and damaging to Grex's reputation.
Besides, no token effort at compliance is going to insulate grex in
from CDA in any way, and I think most people know that.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 8 of 103:
|
Feb 28 02:43 UTC 1996 |
And Carson, before you go with your sarcastic responses, answer
the question I posed in the previous response.
If the CDA were the communications decency apartheid act, and required
Grex to make all attempts to screen out non-white users, would you
comply?
If people arent willing to put their asses on the line in support of what is
right, then this world is in lousy shape.
|
scg
|
|
response 9 of 103:
|
Feb 28 03:56 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Richard, the board must think of the consequences. It's very easy for
somebody who is not on the board or staff to say that we shouldn't obey it
at all because users wouldn't like it. Those users who are not on the board
or staff are not the ones who could go to jail over this. Those of us who
are going to be held accountable for what Grex does have other consequences
to think about instead.
I'm not comfortable at all with this law, either with the consequences of
obeying it or with the consequences of not obeying it. If it went into full
force, even including the abortion provision, there's no way I feel that we
could keep running Grex and obey the law. Even with the full force of the
indecency provisions, I have trouble seeing how we could obey it. I don't
think the abortion provision or the indecency provision are going to be in
there when all is said and done. I'm not even sure the Exon Ammendment will
still be law, since there's a bill now to repeal it. However, on the chance
that it does not get repealed, there are provisions of it that will probably
hold up. The bans on obscenity, for example, are probably constitutional.
After all, bans on obscenity in other media have already held up in court.
This is a new law, with a very vocal and politically active group behind it.
If it starts being enforced I have no idea whether or not they'd come after
Grex, if we ignored it, but I'm fairly sure they'll go after somebody, and
we have no way of knowing it won't be us.
I'm sure we all have limits of how far we will go in terms of what kinds of
laws we will obey. Most of us also have limits to what we are willing to go
to jail for two years for.
I was one of the people last night who insisted on not passing anything last
night, because we don't know what's going to be enforced, if any of it is.
It's too early to figure out exactly what we are going to do.
|
steve
|
|
response 10 of 103:
|
Feb 28 04:11 UTC 1996 |
Speaking just for myself, there are limits to the extent that I
am willing to comply with the CDA. I think things will work out,
or perhaps I should say I *hope* they do. The abortion section
apparently will not be enforced at all, according to the letter
Janet Reno sent the Vice President the other day.
The "obscene" restrictions aren't that different from what is
already on the books.
The rest of it, and how it might be enforced is what gives
me nightmares (litterally).
As it stands right now the only way I could see Grex truely
complying with the CDA is to ban children from Grex. Given
that I have two of those beings on this system myself, I can't
quite bring myself to see that as something I'm willing to do.
But, not banning children from Grex seems even worse--we're
opening ourselves up to real problems if we don't.
So, I don't know what the proper solution is.
I am however, not far away from telling the entire United
States government to engauge in automonic copulation over this
issue. There comes a time to make a stand against the horrors
of the day, and I'm not sure that we aren't there now.
The good news is that with the absolutely incredible mass
of legal resistance out there against this, *with luck* we
might not have to deal with it at all. The bad is that we
may have to comply to stay legal. I'm simply not sure I will
do that. That I could do it.
|
srw
|
|
response 11 of 103:
|
Feb 28 04:51 UTC 1996 |
I feel almost exactly the same as Scott Helmke on this.
If some of these provisions begin to be enforced, Grex will either comply,
or I will be forced to disassociate myself with it. That means I will be
resigning from the board and staff of grex should it decide to operate
against the law. I don't expect that to happen. If it does it will force Grex
to choose between losing me or losing some other people, I suspect.
I have respect for STeve Andre's position, for example, but we are quite at
odds over how to proceed. If enough of this law is enforced, either STeve
or I will not be working for Grex any more.
Kerouac, your opinions are welcome here. I know what it means to stand up for
what is right. I have been working all my life to make a good life for my
family. I am not going to drop that in the toilet over a BBS. Others will have
to decide for themselves, if it actually comes up. This is the "chilling
effect" in action. I will also cease to send out my humor mailing list if the
indecency portion is upheld. This will disappoint many people, but why should
I risk jail over that. This is also the "chilling effect".
I would welcome a vote of the membership of Grex when the time comes. While
I am a director, I will vote for Grex to proceed in a direction that I can
remain involved with it. If the membership feels grex should go a different
way, I will leave. If that happens, I will be cheering for Grex on the
sidelines, as long as I believe that you are standing up for what is right.
When you ask me to stay on and fight the law by violating it, you ask too much.
I am just not the civil disobedient/martyr type.
(remember, this is all hypothetical, but if it becomes real, the internet will
be a very different and much poorer place.)
|
carson
|
|
response 12 of 103:
|
Feb 28 05:10 UTC 1996 |
did I mention that kerouac would spot you bail money along with the muffins?
since I'm continuing my sarcastic responses, I might as well point out that
during the 50's and 60's, many people went to jail and accumulated large
debts over the issues of segregation and civil rights. some did not, even
though they agreed with the movement. It took a long time and the outcry
of many a peoples to change what you and I tend to percieve as abominable
behavior now. In many ways, I am thankful for the people who fought the
good fight, however they did. I'm not interested in playing the armchair
board member, though, and expecting anyone to go through the great personal
expense that could possibly arise from this legislation, precisely because
I'm aware of what's involved. While I may do it myself, I have no right
to demand such an ante from anyone else.
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 103:
|
Feb 28 05:29 UTC 1996 |
(Rane, you actually made me laugh there... thanks. =} )
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 103:
|
Feb 28 07:38 UTC 1996 |
Ah..one of my life's goals accomplished... ;->
Now everyone, calm down. There is no need for a "conditional policy"
because it would be developed in a semi-vacuum. The easiest thing in the
world to change is a policy, but there is no need to waste time on a
conditional one, since good policy can only be made with all the facts (?)
in hand. There is also no need to panic when the regulations are issued -
no need for an "emergency meeting". Calm down. Lie back. Breath deep. Just
discuss alternative responses and, at a regular board meeting, if
necessary, propose policy to meet the regulations. No one is going to be
carted off the jail, or even threatened with it, in the first few months
of implementation.
All these words, time and emotional energy devoted to discussing now how
Grex should respond would be better spent on writing to your
congresspeople, and forming coalitions to support ACLU's actions.
|
robh
|
|
response 15 of 103:
|
Feb 28 09:52 UTC 1996 |
I had a wonderfully indecent response all worked out for this
item, and now rcurl's gone and written a nice version of the
same thing. Darn. >8)
The EFF's open letter to the Internet a while ago specifically
asked systems NOT to take any action for the time being, as there
are far better things we can be doing with that time and effort.
I agree with the EFF, and I agree with Rane. If (gods forbid)
the law is upheld and goes into effect, we can decide what to do then.
(Anyone who wants to see the indecent response, write or send me
mail now, while we know it's still legal.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 16 of 103:
|
Feb 28 10:06 UTC 1996 |
So .... what does MIT do with its rtfm machine? Call it FireTruck?
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 103:
|
Feb 28 15:48 UTC 1996 |
(and after making me laugh here, you managed to piss me off in another
item, rane... as well... back to the norm. =( )
er ah well
|
steve
|
|
response 18 of 103:
|
Feb 28 16:50 UTC 1996 |
(ReadTheFabulousMachine)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 103:
|
Feb 28 16:51 UTC 1996 |
Give-and-take...give-and-take :)
|
drew
|
|
response 20 of 103:
|
Feb 28 17:11 UTC 1996 |
The dynamics of the Tennesee standards vs. California BBS, as well as
the CDA in general, bear some elaboration.
Things like the CDA are largely driven by several variants of Christianity
,
of which I have several comments which are likely beyond the scope of this
item. However, it will suffice to mention a couple of characteristics of the
attitude of believers: they tend to dislike certain communication, particularl
y
of matters having to do with sex, sexual organs, and other bodily functions,
and the uttering of certain words; and they often try to exert more control
over their children, particularly in attempting to coerce them into behaviors
supposedly appropriate to a believer. This means, among other things, that
parents of the faith often prohibit access to "pornographic" material (picture
s
of naked women, the seven dirty words) to their children.
Now by the time the hormones hit, and the kid develops an interest in
this sort of thing, he usually knows his parents' policies on the matter, and
will hide his contact with pornography to the best of his ability, for his
own safety if nothing else. If there is an internet path to a site, he will
prefer this, since using it can go undetected indefinitely.
The kid may not be familiar with the cost of long connect times over
long distance phone lines, however. Or else the hormones may simply be too
powerful to resist; who knows? However, this is how the infamous 1-900 sex
chat lines incurred so much wrath: huge phone bills attributed mostly to
spending hours on the porn line. It was noted that the kid in the Tennesee
case was dialing direct. It must really have pissed off his parents to find
that they were being charged hundreds of dollars a month for their kid's
prohibited access to sex stimuation!
Had he gone in through the Internet, and applied a little internal
security, he could have gotten away with it, and so could the BBS. So closing
the internet link may actually increase the danger if kids in the South are
determined to use Grex as a hotchat line.
My impression of the CDA is that the above mentioned parents, failing in
their attempts to impose their tastes on their kids, are calling on the
government for help. They want not only the government, but the operators of
BBSes as well, who would not have known that these families even existed, let
alone have any interest in taking sides, to do some of their dirty work for
them. If people seek to oppress other sentient beings, the least they could
do is to do the work themselves.
As to what to do about it, should enforcement occur, each of the people(s)
of Grex, and m-net, will have to make their own choices. If the consensus is
to comply, there is already a policy against the distribution of pirated
software on both systems, which could be expanded to cover "indecent" material
.
A notice to this effect, along with a request to *anyone* who finds such
material in an open conference (presumably including prosecutors) to report it
immediately, might offer a great deal of protection.
Some would suggest banning underage people from Grex, or from large parts
of it. Distasteful as this is, there may be a bit of light in this, as I
would hope that it inspires some of them to set up their own dirty-words and
naked pictures BBS systems. The government would look silly for prosecuting
a minor for contributing to his own delinquency. We cannot help them, though,
lest we be accused of being interested in someone's feet.
The most applaudable approach, IMO, is to continue with business as usual.
At least one Grex board member expressed this desire. I would hope that someon
e
with ample resources could mount some sort of defense, legal or otherwise.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 21 of 103:
|
Feb 28 20:04 UTC 1996 |
The fact is that even if you close confs to verified users, contents
from those confs would *probably* appear in open confs, through linking
or other means. Or discussions of sexual or other objectional material
will simply originate in an open conf. So even token attempts at
censorship open up a hornet's nest. Are fw's to be instructed then to
censor their own confs, and does staff take the ultimate responsibility
of reviewing EVERY response in EVERY item in EVERY conf for content?
What you will have if Helmke's suggestions are made policy, is a
situation of staff (and fw's if they must act as censors) ending up in
a war of attrition against those users (mostly minors and others who
object to the censorship policies enough to take action) who refuse to
accept censorship where possible. A couple of people I talked to
in party mentioned they might keep a footer of brief indecent words
that they'd put on the end up every response and item they enter, as a
way of showing their own conscentious objection to the policy.
As long as grex is open-access, censoring content and closing confs
just wont work. Staff cant remove pestering users because they'll just
use other logins. And its unreasonable to ask staff to be censor
police, wasting valuable staff time reading every conf for dirty words and
sexually explicit words, phrases and depictions.
Sooner or later, with that type of policing, the relationship between staff
and the user population and the general environment in the confs will
erode and get very bad. People will leave rather than put up with it. And
what would be the point of complying with a policy if it kills off
the heart and soul of Grex?
The only solution is then, as steve said, is to verify all users and
disallow anyone under 18 from using grex. That is the only way to ensure
anything resembling compliance. And I'd say its better off to fight
this than to let it come to that.
|
brighn
|
|
response 22 of 103:
|
Feb 28 20:10 UTC 1996 |
Rane> Yep, definitely... you made me smile again.
Us emotional people are fun to play with, ain't we? =}
|
robh
|
|
response 23 of 103:
|
Feb 28 20:45 UTC 1996 |
Believe it or not, I agree with just about everything kerouac said
in #21. Throwing minors off the system is not an acceptable solution,
and I will not support such a policy.
|
scott
|
|
response 24 of 103:
|
Feb 29 00:21 UTC 1996 |
Er. we don't have to absolutely censor, we just have to censor what we find.
That is what the CDA says.
And it is unreasonable to ask staff to do this, which is why I hate the CDA.
Grex isn't an obscenity board. I said earlier that aside from some incidents,
Grex is a very clean system, thanks to our users.
|
