|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 206 of 316:
| 
Jul 1 21:31 UTC 1999 |
The grex staff aren't interested in operating glandestinely. At least 4
have families, and all are much too well known to have any serious hopes
of hiding, even if any were interested in doing so. In order for this
to work at all, grex would have to somehow recruit and train a whole new
set of staff who were willing to take the risks, and it would be awfully
hard to preserve any sort of meaningful continuity in the face of doing
so.
|
richard
|
|
response 207 of 316:
|
Jul 1 21:49 UTC 1999 |
grex should at least limit its options to either continuing to
operate illegally or move out of state. I think there should
be a followup member vote to commit the membership to a resolution that
grex will not ever willingly censor its users or the materials in its
conferences; that if grex is ever found to be in nomcompliance with this
new law in a manner which would require censorship, it will either shut
down, move out of state, or continue non-compliance. Resolve definitively
that grex will not, under any circumstances, comply with this new law if
compliance in any way requires censorship.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 208 of 316:
|
Jul 1 21:54 UTC 1999 |
"Scottie, I need manual override *now*, richard is up to it again!"
|
aruba
|
|
response 209 of 316:
|
Jul 1 22:11 UTC 1999 |
Richard, let's just wait and see how the suit turns out, and not decide
anything we don't have to.
|
mdw
|
|
response 210 of 316:
|
Jul 2 02:56 UTC 1999 |
You can always become a member, Richard, if you seriously want to
propose this. If you become a member now, you could then run for the
board when a bunch of open seats open up, if the law is upheld. Better
not pledge to do anything illegal before then; I'm not sure if the board
could in good conscience turn over any resources to a board member who
has pledged to commit illegal acts. Better bone up on your Unix skills
too - how are you are doing backups?
|
janc
|
|
response 211 of 316:
|
Jul 2 03:58 UTC 1999 |
If this law gets upheld, moving out of state, or out of the country
would not necessarily help. Even if we moved Grex to India, if a minor
in Michigan saw something sexually explicit posted on Grex, then
Cyberspace Communications could theoretically be prosecuted under
Michigan law. I kind of doubt that Michigan has any extradition
treaties with India, but they could always arrest any board members who
happened to visit Michigan.
I'm not sure, but I think I'd resign from staff and board if Grex
decided to run outlaw. I'm not that big a hero.
|
scg
|
|
response 212 of 316:
|
Jul 2 05:30 UTC 1999 |
Michigan doesn't have extradition treaties with anywhere -- that's a Federal
thing. I would imagine the US probably has an extradition treaty with India,
but they probably have to first convince India that such an extradition is
a good idea. They also have to be motivated to pursue the issue.
I get the impression that Richard's suggestion to put Grex in somebody's house
is that that would make it hard to find out where Grex is. It wouldn't. Grex
has phone lines, which have to terminate somewhere. Even if we went Internet
only, the Internet connection is a phone line. If Ameritech were served with
a subpoena from the police, wanting to know where those phone lines terminate,
they would comply.
|
mdw
|
|
response 213 of 316:
|
Jul 2 08:59 UTC 1999 |
Moving out of state or out of the country would certainly help. It
imposes more expenses, more nuisance, and more chances for somebody to
say "no, this is silly." Whether it's sufficient depends on the law.
I'd have to reread this law to be sure, but I *think* it was worded to
only apply to sites in michigan. I also don't think michigan can do
much to sites operating elsewhere. This is a good thing. Places like
Tennessee and Saudia Arabia have some pretty scary laws and "local
community standards".
|
jep
|
|
response 214 of 316:
|
Jul 2 14:34 UTC 1999 |
I agree with #202.
|
aruba
|
|
response 215 of 316:
|
Jul 2 16:58 UTC 1999 |
Re #213: The law is not restricted to sites in Michigan, that's why a number
of the plaintiffs are outside Michigan. Part of the basis for the suit is
that it regulates interstate commerce, which is unconstitutional.
|
richard
|
|
response 216 of 316:
|
Jul 2 17:26 UTC 1999 |
The idea is that if this becomes law, grex could refuse to comply and
invite prosecution. This way, if the government comes after Grex and
tries to shut it down, Grex can challenge in court the interpretation of
the law that they think makes it apply to grex. Grex can then file
suit, get a restraining order and continue to operate pending the trial.
Im sure the ACLU would be willing to represent Grex if it decided to
make its own separate challenge to the law.
|
richard
|
|
response 217 of 316:
|
Jul 2 18:16 UTC 1999 |
but grex cant put itself ina positionto be able to sue if the issue
isnt forced by initial refusal to comply.
grex would have to let the government make the attempt to shut it down
and then fight it.
|
scg
|
|
response 218 of 316:
|
Jul 2 19:03 UTC 1999 |
Grex is in a position to attempt to sue. You can sue saying that you have
a right to do something and that the law would prevent you from doing so.
That's how we're able to sue right now.
|
richard
|
|
response 219 of 316:
|
Jul 2 19:21 UTC 1999 |
The current lawsuit is over the law itself-- a second lawsuit would be
over the specifics of the law as it is interpreted to apply to grex. That
lawsuit wouldnt be saying or arguing that the law is unconstutitonal as
this one is, but simply that it doesnt specifically apply to grex
(grex being text only being a logical argument).
|
mdw
|
|
response 220 of 316:
|
Jul 3 02:28 UTC 1999 |
You can't sue over "a law". You can only sue over "the specifics of a
law as it applies to you". This is because of a concept called
"standing" which lawyers are really keen on - it basically means you
have to have a specific interest in the matter to participate in a case.
That's also why the ACLU can't just sue over these things on its own.
|
dpc
|
|
response 221 of 316:
|
Jul 6 14:21 UTC 1999 |
Re #214 - "we are jep". 8-)
|
lilmo
|
|
response 222 of 316:
|
Jul 8 20:48 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:202 - Hear, hear!!
Re resp:208 - is there a twit filter for the conferences?
|
dpc
|
|
response 223 of 316:
|
Jul 9 20:08 UTC 1999 |
Mary and I got e-mail from Mike Steinberg this morning saying
that there will be hearings on our motion for a preliminary
injunction on Thursday and Friday, July 22 and 22 in Judge
Tarnow's courtroom. The ACLU is planning to call 2 lay witnesses
and 2 expert witnesses.
The brief in support of our motion for a preliminary
injunction is at http://www.aclumich.org/briefs/internet76.htm.
The file is over 100K!
|
jdeigert
|
|
response 224 of 316:
|
Jul 15 04:43 UTC 1999 |
g
?
|
dpc
|
|
response 225 of 316:
|
Jul 15 14:08 UTC 1999 |
Oop! That should be July 22 and *23* obviously.
I've heard nothing further from Steinberg. Has anyone else?
I'm a bit concerned that with only a week to go until the hearing
we don't know if they want to call anyone from Grex as a witness.
|
mary
|
|
response 226 of 316:
|
Jul 15 18:10 UTC 1999 |
I haven't heard more.
|
aruba
|
|
response 227 of 316:
|
Jul 15 18:50 UTC 1999 |
Neither have I.
|
jep
|
|
response 228 of 316:
|
Jul 15 20:47 UTC 1999 |
re #223: That link crashes Netscape Communicator for me.
It doesn't appear the ACLU wants to call anyone from Grex, or from
Arbornet, either. I assume they've gotten what they wanted from both
organizations: names to legitimize their lawsuit. We have nothing
further of value to offer, and so now they're done with us. No one here
should be surprised.
|
mary
|
|
response 229 of 316:
|
Jul 15 23:39 UTC 1999 |
Take a deep breath, Jep.
Now take another. ;-)
|
jep
|
|
response 230 of 316:
|
Jul 16 01:33 UTC 1999 |
<Guess she must not agree with my viewpoint of the ACLU.>
|