|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
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.
|
janc
|
|
response 191 of 316:
|
Jun 30 15:30 UTC 1999 |
I got a call this morning from Marshall Widick. They're running a bit
behind schedule on submitting the "motion brief". They had planned to
get it in today, it currently looks like Friday.
On July 8, the attorney's will be meeting with the judge to set a date
for the hearing.
They are expecting that the hearing will last two days. They are
guessing that it is likely to fall somewhere around the 21-23 of July.
They have decided NOT to submit our declaration. Instead, they want to
call me as a witness, so I get to do the whole thing orally. With me
giving oral testimony about Grex, they don't need the written
declaration as well (presumably the defense could be annoying about any
minor differences between the two, etc).
If anyone had asked for volunteers to do this, I wouldn't have jumped up
shouting "me! me! me!", but I guess I'm OK with it. It should be an
adventure.
I still don't think Grex had any real choice about getting involved. I
don't know any way that we could function in compliance with this law.
The last two times such a law was passed, other organizations went to
court, and because they won, we didn't have to worry about it. Those
other organizations in those other lawsuits weren't in the business of
political action either. This time is the ball is in our court. If we
shouldn't do this, who should? Is "Art on the Net" somehow a more
appropriate organization to be doing this than we are?
|
dpc
|
|
response 192 of 316:
|
Jun 30 15:54 UTC 1999 |
Thanx for the Michigan Daily reference, Eric!
Hm. It is a bit odd for the lawyers to work so hard with us
on the Declaration and then decide they don't want it after all.
But that's the thing about a lawsuit--signals are always changing.
The only critique I could make about the Declaration is that
it says *too much*.
|
aruba
|
|
response 193 of 316:
|
Jun 30 16:27 UTC 1999 |
I think it was smashing. :) It is odd that they're not using it at all.
Jan, will the testimony be in open court (as opposed to in a deposition room)?
Will the other side get to interview you first, privately? I don't know much
about legal procedure beyond what I've seen on TV.
|
richard
|
|
response 194 of 316:
|
Jun 30 21:41 UTC 1999 |
If Grex is lead plaintiff, that will make grex a target. If this suit
fails, and the law passes, grex will be among the very first sites the
government will come after to enforce the law. Or if the lawsuit
succeeds, Grex could be targeted by the bill's supporters and government
officials for retaliation. If grex simply had its name at the bottom of
the list, it would not draw such attention, and even if the bill became
law, it might have been months or years before any officials even cared
about making grex compliant or knew grex existed. The possibility of
being lead plaintiff should have been raised prior to and as part of the
vote.
|
aruba
|
|
response 195 of 316:
|
Jun 30 21:56 UTC 1999 |
We considered those issues when we voted to join the suit.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 196 of 316:
|
Jun 30 22:29 UTC 1999 |
Color me possibly naive, but I consider grex too small fry for "the man" to
go after - it doesn't have any cool toys, such as multimedia support.
Note that grex *could* operate in some fashion were the law to come into
effect - it just doesn't *want* to. How? The simplest thing would be to
require validation of each (prospective new) user. That would scare off 99+%
of the current anonymous new users, and the necessarily slow response by the
appointed grex validator(s) (human) would turn off the impatient. A pretty
picture? No! But doable. It's hoped/assumed it will never come to that...
|
mdw
|
|
response 197 of 316:
|
Jul 1 03:01 UTC 1999 |
I don't think any of the staff or board of grex would have felt the
least bit comfortable operating this system in clear defiance of the
law. Many of the board & staff have family and other responsibilities
outside of grex, and would not in good conscience be able to continue to
serve. One of the things that makes this case interesting is that I
don't think the law makers had ever considered a system precisely like
grex. I think they were only thinking of large commercial online
providers, and small "outlaw" sites. This is a good opportunity for us
to put our needs forward, and to make the best possible case for
ourselves. We've been spending a lot of time trying to 2nd guess what
the law really means. It is certainly popular to think "grex is
text-only, grex is not in danger", but I certainly see nothing about
that in the law, and, so far as that goes, I would like to think we can
someday afford enough internet bandwidth that we could start allowing
more images. This is our chance to ask the courts what this all really
means for us, and to interpret it specifically in our context, in an
unprejudiced state (ie, nothing wrong has been done yet.)
Now, if this law *is* upheld, and interpreted in its worse sense towards
grex, then we'll clearly have to do something. I see at least 3
options, shut down, change what we do, or change where we do it. Of
these three options, I think the last might become the most attractive.
Canada, Illinois, and Ohio are all conveniently at hand, any of these
might make a good home for grex, and it could be a good exercise for
grex to become less geographically oriented. Still, I don't think any
of us really wants to do this, and there is every reason to expect that
it will never come to this.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 198 of 316:
|
Jul 1 05:47 UTC 1999 |
(Dunno if #197 was in reponse to my #196... If so, please note that I never
intended to suggest that grex would *not* comply with the law. Just that grex
doesn't want to have to operate in a way that would comply with the law. In
that case, your alternatives are the kinds of choices the grex powers would
have to decide upon.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 199 of 316:
|
Jul 1 07:16 UTC 1999 |
#197 is in response to #194, the suggestion that there was
any risk to grex by being involved in this suit, or that it would be a
good thing for grex to hope it wouldn't be noticed by the authorities in
due course.
|