|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 166 of 316:
| 
Jun 26 23:26 UTC 1999 |
I turned this into a Word Perfect document, and then generated a text
document from that. The disappearance of all the em-dashes and the odd
indenting were an artifact of that. They don't appear in the hard copy,
and I'll fix them in the plain text version.
Paragraph 20 and 21 were the lawyer's wording. In 21, there should be
a dash before "free speech". I find both a bit awkward, but OK.
I'll fix wealthy.
|
janc
|
|
response 167 of 316:
|
Jun 27 00:46 UTC 1999 |
OK, I posted an HTML version of the declaration at
http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/declaration.html
|
aruba
|
|
response 168 of 316:
|
Jun 27 05:28 UTC 1999 |
Looks good. You have a -- in paragraph 7 which should be a - to be
consistent, and you still need to fix wealthy in paragraph 30.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 169 of 316:
|
Jun 27 16:33 UTC 1999 |
We talked a bit about the lawsuit on the walk yesterday. We decided that
rather than hope to see much of our press release reprinted in the AA News,
we should edit it a bit and submit it for the Other Voices column or someplace
on the opinion page. What do you think?
|
aruba
|
|
response 170 of 316:
|
Jun 27 22:07 UTC 1999 |
I think that's a good idea. Would anyone like to write it? I'd suggest that
it include a mention of the fact that the legislature's own legislative
analysis said that the law was "almost certainly unconstitutional". (I wish
I had thought to put that in the press release - it's the kind of thing that
a reporter would want to print, I think. And it's a civic duty to point out
that our representatives are just wasting everyone's time.
Jan and Valerie and I met with Marshall Widick this afternoon, and Jan gave
him a signed copy of the declaration. They don't have a date for the hearing
yet, but they are happy about the judge they drew for the case.
(I'll write the Op-Ed piece if no one else volunteers, but someone else should
have a chance.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 171 of 316:
|
Jun 28 04:31 UTC 1999 |
BTW, in case anyone's wondering, I looked on the Michigan legislature's web
site for more info about the passage of the bill. The bill originated in the
Senate, where it passed 34-0. then it went to the house, where some
amendments were made. It passed 77-30. A number of those voting 'nay' stood
up to say that they were voting against it because it was unconstitutional,
and similar laws had been struck down elsewhere. One representative pointed
out that the legistature's own non-partisan legistative analysis team had said
that the law was "almost certainly unconstitutional". So there's absolutely
no excuse for the ones who did vote for it - they knew they were just wasting
everyone's time and money.
The Senate accepted the House's amendments and again passed the bill 34-0.
Here's how our Ann Arbor representatives voted:
In the House:
John Hansen of the 52nd district voted yea
Liz Brater of the 53rd district voted nay
In the Senate:
Alma Wheeler Smith of the 18th district voted yea
I'm thinking about writing to my representatives (Hansen and Smith) and
inviting them to join the discussion of the act in Agora item 42. Maybe if
enough constituents do that, they might actually do so.
John Hansen is jphansen@house.state.mi.us
Liz Brater is lbrater@house.state.mi.us
Alma Wheeler Smith is SenASmith@senate.state.mi.us
The roll call for the House is at
http://198.109.122.10/pdf/house.journal/1999-2000/hj041599.031.pdf
on pages 6-9 (roll call 234)
THe roll call for the Senate is at
http://198.109.122.10/pdf/senate.journal/1999-2000/sj051299.042.pdf
on page 5 (roll call 178).
|
scg
|
|
response 172 of 316:
|
Jun 28 06:32 UTC 1999 |
I'm more than a little disgusted to find out that my representative and
senator (Hansen and Smith) voted for this. I hadn't realized that.
|
keesan
|
|
response 173 of 316:
|
Jun 28 13:22 UTC 1999 |
They cannot possibly be well informed about everything they vote on. I will
try to contact Jim's niece, who is a rep. for Warren.
|
dpc
|
|
response 174 of 316:
|
Jun 28 13:27 UTC 1999 |
Did anyone else around the state pick up on our news release?
|
keesan
|
|
response 175 of 316:
|
Jun 28 13:41 UTC 1999 |
I just emailed Alma. We sort of know her personally, having met her at the
next door neighbor's graduation from med school, and again at a local
antitobacco group meeting. I suggested she take a look at coop, homme, femme
and glb discussions and if she was too busy to join grex, I could email her
excerpts. (Now where did I put Jennifer's e-mail address - Jim's niece).
|
aruba
|
|
response 176 of 316:
|
Jun 28 15:37 UTC 1999 |
Re #174: I only know abou the 3 articles, Dave - in the AA News and the two
Detroit papers.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 177 of 316:
|
Jun 29 01:00 UTC 1999 |
Whew! LONG item, I didn't think I'd been gone that long. GOOD JOB ALL !!
Thanks, everyone.
(I'd be glad to help with the Op-Ed piece - aruba has my "home e-mail".)
|
aruba
|
|
response 178 of 316:
|
Jun 29 06:25 UTC 1999 |
scg volunteered to take a crack at an Op-Ed piece this week.
|
scg
|
|
response 179 of 316:
|
Jun 29 06:38 UTC 1999 |
If I have time, and get around to it, and all that. I don't want to preclude
anybody else from also writing something.
|
mary
|
|
response 180 of 316:
|
Jun 29 11:13 UTC 1999 |
The Michigan Daily had an editorial opinion on this suit in
yesterday's paper. It seemed to be based on the facts from the
New York Times article.
I've only been contacted by The Ann Arbor News and the Detroit
Free Press.
|
aruba
|
|
response 181 of 316:
|
Jun 29 15:44 UTC 1999 |
(You mean the Detroit News, don't you Mary?)
|
dpc
|
|
response 182 of 316:
|
Jun 29 15:45 UTC 1999 |
The Daily's articles are available on-line. Can someone retrieve
the editorial? Sorry I can't remember the URL.
|
other
|
|
response 183 of 316:
|
Jun 29 18:00 UTC 1999 |
http://www.michigandaily.com/daily/1999/jun/06-28-99/edit/edit3.html
|
mary
|
|
response 184 of 316:
|
Jun 29 18:08 UTC 1999 |
Opps, right. It was the Detroit News.
|
aruba
|
|
response 185 of 316:
|
Jun 29 19:41 UTC 1999 |
I sent letters to Hansen and Smith; the text is in ~aruba/aclu/invite.txt.
I encourage other constituents to write to them too, and to include
directions for getting on Grex. Feel free to plagarize from my letter if
yyou'd like.
|
richard
|
|
response 186 of 316:
|
Jun 29 21:39 UTC 1999 |
how did grex end up being the LEAD plaintiff in the case? surely there
must be larger, more well known/established organizations that would
fit the role of lead plaintiff better. oh well, I guess grex gets
more publicity- Grex v. State of Michigan
,
|
aruba
|
|
response 187 of 316:
|
Jun 30 00:18 UTC 1999 |
The ACLU attorney's liked the sound of "Cyberspace v. Engler", which is the
name of the suit.
|
remmers
|
|
response 188 of 316:
|
Jun 30 01:34 UTC 1999 |
They also feel we are very strong plaintiffs because of our non-profit
status and because we're simply providing a platform for people to
exercise their right of free speech.
|
jep
|
|
response 189 of 316:
|
Jun 30 01:58 UTC 1999 |
I imagine Grex's involvement doesn't hurt, either. The work on the
lawsuit WWW page in itself is very impressive (I linked it to M-Net's
policy WWW page -- should have asked permission first, though), and so
is the amount of discussion and participation here.
I still don't like it. I like it even less with Grex being so
prominent. I think Grex is being used inappropriately by it's Board and
by the ACLU in a political battle. I can admire the effort, though,
without admiring the damage being done to Grex.
|
mdw
|
|
response 190 of 316:
|
Jun 30 09:25 UTC 1999 |
Someone has to be in front. Guess we forgot to step backwards when the
time came to volunteer.
|