|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 25 of 316:
| 
Jun 12 22:56 UTC 1999 |
re resp:23 ,paragraph 2
i would suggest that the latter reasoning in this paragraph would not
only not help, but would antagonize our case. whether or not it is
known and established that these sentiments exist and prominently so, it
would be very bad form to flout defiance of the law to the face of the
court.
|
aruba
|
|
response 26 of 316:
|
Jun 13 00:15 UTC 1999 |
Looks great, Jan. I will have some comments in a bit.
Re 23,25: I think Eric is right, Kevin, that we shouldn't threaten to
possibly break the law. That sort of thing doesn't tend to go over well with
people of authority (like judges). I agree that we should mention that we
might lose a lot of our volunteers if we attempt to comply, though.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 27 of 316:
|
Jun 13 03:52 UTC 1999 |
(aruba, I'm assuming you're commenting on lilmo's response, not mine)
|
janc
|
|
response 28 of 316:
|
Jun 13 13:32 UTC 1999 |
The current document says "Many of our volunteers would sever their
relationships with Grex rather than be associated with an organization
that operated in clear defiance of the law." That's an indirect way of
saying that (1) we have thought of doing so, and (2) some of our
volunteers would be willing to do so. I'm not sure that point needs to
be pressed any hard than that. Judges and attorneys can read between
the lines at least as well as anyone else.
Also Mark, if in addition to the 1998 income, you could get our 1998
expenditures for operating expenses (rent+electricity+phone+
connectivity) that would help. I'd like to be a bit more specific about
our finances, saying something like "Our annual revenue in 1997 was
under $XX,000, giving us about 50 cents per user per year to spend. Of
this about $YY,000 were spent on rent, electricity, phone bills, and
connectivity, leaving only $Z,000 for system improvements. All of the
work done to maintain and administer Grex is done by unpaid volunteers."
We don't want to drown them with figures, but it is always better to be
more specific and quote exact numbers when possible.
|
aruba
|
|
response 29 of 316:
|
Jun 13 14:23 UTC 1999 |
Re #27: Sorry Kevin, you are correct - I have the response numbers right but
I said "Kevin" instead of "Mark".
Re #28: Jan, you made the point that we would lose volunteers if we act in
defiance of the law, but I think you should also make the point that we'll
lose volunteers if we *conform* to the law, because a lot of our staff believe
strongly in free speech and won't be associated with a system that censors or
validates. In other words, the law puts us in a very difficult position.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 316:
|
Jun 14 04:15 UTC 1999 |
Here's a new draft. No big changes, many small ones:
===========================================================================
DECLARATION OF [WHOMEVER]
I, [Whomever], of Ann Arbor, Michigan, do declare:
I am [president] of Cyberspace Communications, a Michigan non-profit
corporation, whose primary function is to maintain a free, public-access
Internet service called "Grex." The name "Grex" (which means "group"
in Latin) is also registered as a d/b/a for Cyberspace Communications, Inc.
On behalf of Cyberspace Communications and our members and users, I submit
this declaration in support of plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief
against enforcement of [such and such] (hereinafter, the "Act").
[I have such and such credentials. Blah blah blah. I've been involved with
computer conferencing since such and such, helped found this and that, and
even my dog is exceptionally bright.]
BACKGROUND
Cyberspace Communications is a recognized 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization,
which pursues charitable and educational missions on the Internet. We provide
basic access to Internet services free of charge, and we provide a wide range
of on-line discussion forums allowing free exchange of information on any
topic.
The Grex system is accessible to the public via the Internet as
"cyberspace.org". It is also accessible via a bank of dial-in modems
located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. A simple registration process allows users
to create accounts for themselves. This process is designed to be as
barrier-free as possible, encouraging the widest possible range of people
to use the system. Users are not required to pay any fees, nor are they
required to give any information about themselves. All accounts are
created immediately upon request. This open access policy helps ensure
that the widest possible range of people can make use of our services
and bring their viewpoints to our discussion forums.
We typically see about 200 new accounts created daily, and currently have
about 29,000 active accounts. Users come from all over the world, including
a substantial number from India, but the majority of those most active in
our public forums are Michigan residents. Many are minors. Because we do
not require our users to supply such information, we do not have complete
information about the ages or locations of our users.
Grex hosts electronic conferences on more than 100 topics, all of which are
open to all users except for one administrative conference. These conferences
lie at the heart of our educational mission. Typical conferences include
music, the arts, writing, consumer information, housing, finance, small
business, philosophy, living with disabilities, men's and women's issues,
parenting, pets, computer hardware and software, nature, and role-playing
games. There are also non-topical "creative" conferences and a general
discussion area. All Cyberspace Communications policies are discussed and
developed in a public conference called "coop". Any posting to these
conferences typically remains publicly readable for months or years. Postings
are censored only in rare cases (for example, if someone posts a dozen copies
of the same message we might hide all but one). All conferences can be read
over the web even by people who do not have Grex accounts - they are easily
readable by anyone in the world who has access to the Internet. The
conferences currently contain about 42 million words of text, roughly five
times as much text as a typical 20 volume encyclopedia. Roughly 200 new
messages are posted to the conferences every day.
Grex also hosts a live-chat area, called "party." Messages posted here are
seen instantly by other participants. Discussions there are typically more
dynamic and less serious. It is especially popular with our younger users.
On average over 5000 messages a day are posted in the chat area.
All Grex users can freely send and receive private E-mail. They can also
access the world wide web via a non-graphical browser, and about 1000 users
have use Grex to post their own text-only web pages. (Images are not allowed
because our Internet connection is too slow and overburdened to support them.)
Users can also open private conversation channels to other users currently
using Grex. There are also a number of ways that users can transfer files
of any type to and from Grex, possibly exchanging files with other users.
We allow full access to software development tools on our system for those
interested in learning programming.
Cyberspace Communications is funded almost entirely by voluntary donations
from our users. Our current assets consist of $4,500 in the bank and various
old computer equipment. We have about 100 members who donate $60 a year or
$6 a month and receive a minor increase in Internet access as a perk. Our
total revenue in 1998 was about $8,200, giving us about 30 cents per user
per year to spend. About $7,500 of this was spent simply to keep the system
running - rent, electricity, phones, Internet connectivity, and such - leaving
us about $700 to spend on upgrades to our service. All of the work done to
maintain and administer Grex is done by unpaid volunteers - we can not afford
any paid employees. Except for an unstaffed machine room, we maintain no
offices. Although our funding is extremely limited, we value that fact that
drawing our income primarily from our users means we are primarily
responsible to our users. There are no paid advertisements on Grex.
For many of our users, Grex is simply a place to get free E-mail or web
access. Serving such people is an important part of our mission, but for
some 500 people of all ages, Grex is much more than that. It is a dynamic
community where they meet and make friends, exchange ideas, and learn new
things. Essentially all of our funding comes from donations from this group.
Grex is only able to survive because of the dedication of the users who
participate in our open forums, and believe in the value of our mission.
CYBERSPACE COMMUNICATIONS AND ITS USERS FEAR PROSECUTION UNDER THE ACT
We are concerned that Cyberspace Communications and its users may be at
risk of prosecution under the Act.
Our computer is located in Michigan, and many of our users are Michigan
residents.
We know that some of the users of our system are minors. About 75% of our
users volunteer information about their age when they register on Grex. Of
these, about 20% say they are under 18. However, except for a few people
personally known to our staff, we have no way of knowing if these declared
ages are accurate. It should also be noted that more than half of our users
ask that the information they give be kept private from other users, so
our users are even more likely than our staff to have difficulty recognizing
minors.
Cyberspace Communications itself authors very little material, and none of
it could be construed to be "sexually explicit." (It is primarily publicity
information, help pages, and technical documentation for our system.)
However, there are materials posted on Grex by our users which we believe
might be construed as being "sexually explicit matter" under the terms of
the Act. These materials are accessible by all users. Since our forums
are primarily text-based, most of this is verbal material rather than
images. However, users are allowed to import files to their personal
areas on Grex, and some use this facility to place publicly readable images
on the system.
Two examples of conference items from Grex which might be impacted by the
Act are attached. Exhibit one is discussion of pornography from the women's
conference on Grex. Though most of the discussion is not very "sexually
explicit" at various points examples are used that might be considered in
violation of the Act. Though a discussion like this would probably not be
banned under the act, users would likely feel much less free to speak on the
subject. Exhibit two is a graphic description of a rape from the poetry
conference on Grex. It was apparently entered for artistic and cathartic
reasons. The responses show concern, sympathy and support. Many other
possible examples could be found.
Although it is not, in general, clear to us exactly what material would or
would not be considered sexually explicit, we know for a fact that textual
material of any conceivable description could be posted on Grex at any time,
by any person. Even if all questionable material were removed from Grex, any
person wishing to cause problems for us could post new material at any time.
It is unclear to us to what extent, if any, the Act's exemption for
computer network service providers would protect Cyberspace Communications,
or what would constitute a good faith effort to inform ourselves of ages
of our users or the nature of the material being exchanged among them.
Clearly what kinds of monitoring would be expected from us must be
different for different types of communications - for example, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act prevents us from monitoring E-mail.
What are our different responsibilities with all the different media we
offer? Since we allow users to install custom software on their accounts
on our system, are we responsible for monitoring new communications
systems created by our users?
Our uncertainty about our liability under this law is aggravated by the
fact that, as a matter of policy, we allow anonymous users on our system.
Would we be directly responsible for everything an anonymous user of our
system transmits to a minor, including private E-mail? This seems contrary
to the precedent set by the United States Postal Service, which allows
mail to be sent anonymously, but at the same time it doesn't seem sensible
that someone could evade the Act's prohibition on sending sexually explicit
material to minors by simply using anonymous E-mail.
AGE VERIFICATION IS NOT FEASIBLE
To comply with the Act, Cyberspace Communications would have to find a way
ensure that no forum which might contain sexually explicit material can be
accessed by a minor. Unless all postings of sexually explicit material
were completely eliminated from Grex, this would require verifying the ages
of our users.
We have not, as an organization, extensively studied any verification
technique. Those based on credit or debit cards would be inappropriate for
a free system. Given that we average over 200 new users every day, it is
difficult to imagine any verification technique that would not require
a full time person and/or a substantial expense, neither of which is within
reach of our limited resources.
AGE VERIFICATION WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION
Even if a method were found by which verification could be done reliably
within the limitations of our resources, doing so would substantially
undermine our ability to pursue our mission of providing forums for
free speech and of providing free access to Internet services.
Our current policy of not requiring new users to give us any information
is designed to make joining the system as easy and un-intimidating as
possible. Many people are nervous about getting on the Internet or getting
involved in a public forum. Almost any method of proving their age would
require users to reveal some significant amount of personal information.
Being confronted by such questions would scare off some of the users who
could most benefit from our service.
Such a verification procedure would also limit the ability of users
to speak anonymously in our forums. We believe that having the option of
speaking anonymously is an important part of free speech, and having to
identify yourself to the people operating the system would for many people,
including people ranging from elected officials to battered women, limit what
they were willing to say in public forums like ours.
Segregating minors from other users of our system would also undermine
Grex's ability to help young people develop maturity and communications
skills. On-line forums are one of the few places where young people
can interact with adults on an equal basis. Their ages are not obvious
to other users, so they are judged by the content and quality of what they
have to say. For young people, it can be wonderful to discover a world
where they can be respected and treated as equals by adults simply by
sharing their thoughts and behaving maturely themselves. While it is true
that there are some risks when young people are mistaken for adults on-line,
it would be a gross oversight to ignore the fact that it can also be an
extremely positive experience for them. For young people to be confined
to a "kid's room" on Grex would turn Grex into much less of a unique
educational experience for them.
RESTRICTING CONTENT IS NOT FEASIBLE
Unless all minors were completely banned from Grex, compliance with the
Act would force Cyberspace Communications to monitor all forums accessible
to minors, identify "sexually explicit" material, and eliminate it from
those forums.
Doing this would require substantial labor, especially for the live chat
channels which are continuously active 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
which would presumably require continuous monitoring. It would be difficult
to finding volunteers who would be willing to make that level of effort and
who could be trusted to make the difficult legal distinctions between material
which is and is not acceptable under the Act. We would not have the resources
to pay anyone to do such a job.
RESTRICTING CONTENT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION
Even if a method were found by which verification could be done within the
limits of our resources, doing so would substantially undermine our ability
to pursue our mission of providing forums for free speech.
First, because of the difficulty of reliably determining which users are
minors, it is certain that any censorship of sexually explicit material
would have to interfere with the ability of adults to discuss such topics
on our system, even though such speech is not directly prohibited by the
Act.
Second, because of the difficulty of determining exactly what content is
"sexually explicit" it is to be expected that any censorship by Cyberspace
Communications, or self-censorship by our users, would be done more broadly
than might be strictly necessary under the Act. Again this would result
in a broader inhibition of on-line free speech than a literal reading of
the Act suggests.
This chilling effect could impact many useful discussions which touch on
sexual topics, and have significant social value.
Certainly there is material posted on Grex which is meant only to titillate
or shock. But in our conferences no posting stands alone for long. One
user's pornographic posting is likely to be followed by another user's
objection to its portrayal of women. When such material appears in a open
public forum, community standards are readily applied to it, not because the
material is suppressed, but because upstanding members of the community are
there to respond. When young people are allowed to participate in such
forums, it is an excellent opportunity to them to learn to understand and
respect community's standards on sexuality and other issues. If young
people encounter sexual material only in "outlaw" forums occupied only
by other people seeking titillation, this kind of perspective be gained.
CONCLUSION
As various laws of this type have been proposed over recent years, our users
have discussed strategies for how we could cope with such a law. We have not
been able to find any viable plan.
We have a long history of being good, law-abiding citizens of the Internet.
Many of our volunteers would sever their relationships with Grex rather than
be associated with an organization that operated in clear defiance of the law.
The loss of many of our most upstanding people would irretrievably harm our
community, even if we were never actually prosecuted.
But at the same time, compliance with the law would appear to require that
we validate our users and/or censor our discussion forums. For the reasons
stated above, we are reluctant to do these things because we believe they
would limit our ability to act as a forum for free speech in ways that go
far beyond just restricting minors from gaining access to sexual materials.
Many of our current volunteers and donors would be uninterested in supporting
such a restrictive forum.
But beyond that, doing these things in any meaningful manner, if it is
possible at all, would require resources substantially beyond what we now
have. Over our eight-year history we have demonstrated that it is possible
to provide an excellent service to a very large set of people on a miniscule
budget. This Act would make that impossible. It would raise the financial
bar so that only organizations large and wealthy enough to pay full-time staff
people would be able to run public conferencing systems. For us to raise that
much money we would probably need some combination of corporate sponsorship,
advertising revenue, and user fees. Any of these options could significantly
undermine our ability to function as an open forum for free speech on the
Internet.
For all of our history, we have been proud to consider ourselves to be the
freest forum for speech that can be sustained under the law. If this Act is
upheld, we believe that we would either have to shut down completely, or
become substantially more restrictive. We do not believe that the benefits
of this Act can justify so great an encroachment on the constitutional right
to free speech for all Americans.
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 316:
|
Jun 14 04:16 UTC 1999 |
I wrote short prefaces for the two exhibits:
EXHIBIT 1
Femme Conference, Item 34
This is a long discussion of pornography that started in March 1995, and
continued through May 1997. It is available on the Internet at
http://www.cyberspace.org/cgi-bin/bt/peek:femme:34.
Most of the discussion is not very sexually explicit, but at several points
(possibly including responses 10, 29, 94, 121, 129, and 137) things are said
in the course of the discussion that might be considered to be illegal under
the Act.
Cyberspace Communications allows users to censor their own responses (the
text of censored responses is still publically available, but is moved out
of the conferences). One user had used this mechanism to retract some of her
postings to this item. With that user's permission we have restored them
to this copy, marking them "[RESTORED]".
EXHIBIT 2
Poetry Conference, Item 22
This is an item entered in the Poetry conference in February 1999. It is
available on the Internet at
http://www.cyberspace.org/cgi-bin/bt/peek:poetry3:22.
|
janc
|
|
response 32 of 316:
|
Jun 14 04:20 UTC 1999 |
I still need to address one suggestion Mark had - possibly referencing a study
showing that the development of young people is strongly effected by the
amount of "positive adult contacts" that they experience.
I still think John should be declarant. If so, he should make a editing pass
through here, making sure that he is comfortable with the content. Mark went
through and marked up a copy already. If anyone else is willing to do that,
I'd welcome it. But we only have another day or so to work on this.
|
aruba
|
|
response 33 of 316:
|
Jun 14 05:05 UTC 1999 |
Here's a couple typos I caught, Jan:
"have use Grex" should be "have used Grex"
I suggest changing the sentence "Users can also open private conversation
channels to other users currently using Grex" to "Pairs of users can also open
private conversation channels".
One line ends with "find a way" and the next begins with "ensure"; there
should be a "to" in between.
"it is an excellent opportunity to them" should be "it is an excellent
opportunity for them"
"respect community's standards" should be either "respect the community's
standards" or "respect community standards".
The sentence that begins "If young people encounter" is mixed up. I
suggest leaving it out, and possibly adding this paragraph in its place:
Young people will always seek out and find sexually explicit material.
Our choice is between allowing it to happen in an open forum, where they
can hear the perspective of adults, and consigning it to "outlaw" and
back-alley fora consisting entirely of people interested only in
titillation.
|
aruba
|
|
response 34 of 316:
|
Jun 14 05:18 UTC 1999 |
Also, the last few responses in the pornography item are drift, so I suggest
we cut them from the exhibit. That means the end date on the conversation
is October, 1996.
|
aruba
|
|
response 35 of 316:
|
Jun 14 05:48 UTC 1999 |
BTW Jan, comparing the amount of text on Grex with the amount in an
encyclopedia is a great way to give an idea how large the total amount of data
is. Great job!
|
janc
|
|
response 36 of 316:
|
Jun 14 14:27 UTC 1999 |
I don't remember the last two responses in that item, but in general
anything that could be viewed as tampering with evidence should be kept
to a minimum. If we delete those responses, we should include an
explanation of where they went. It seems simpler to leave them in.
|
janc
|
|
response 37 of 316:
|
Jun 14 14:28 UTC 1999 |
By the way, if anyone happens to have a reasonable estimate of how many
words there are in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, that would make a better
basis for comparison than my generic encyclopedia.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 316:
|
Jun 14 16:50 UTC 1999 |
Wow! Jan has clearly been doing a lot on this. Being pressed for
time at the moment, I've just skimmed it, but in general it looks
terrific. I'll give it a thorough look later today.
I regret that my in-and-out-of-town scheduled the last couple of
weeks has prevented me from being more involved in this effort. But
I'm back for a few weeks now.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 39 of 316:
|
Jun 14 17:44 UTC 1999 |
View hidden response.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 40 of 316:
|
Jun 14 17:54 UTC 1999 |
I put my own typo into resp:39. Let's try this again.
I asked Chanur to put on her English Teaher's hat and look at resp:30.
Here's what she wrote:
-----------
Here are my suggested corrections. Most of the problems I found were
typos, but there was one instance of what seemed awkward phrasing to me.
Under BACKGROUND
Paragraph 6
"About 1000 users have use Grex ..."
should be "have *used* Grex"
Paragraph 7
"we value that fact that"
s/b "we value *the* fact that"
Under AGE VERIFICATION WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION
Paragraph 4
"much less of a unique educational experience"
This is where the phrasing bothers me. How about " a much less unique
educational experience"? Or, since "unique" literally means "one of a
kind" and its usage is therefore questionable here, how about "a much
less *rewarding* or *enriching* educational experience"?
Under RESTRICTING CONTENT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION
Paragraph 5
"learn to respect community's standards ..."
s/b "learn to respect *the* community's standards"
Same paragraph
"this kind of perspective be gained"
s/b "this kind of perspective *will not be* gained"
Oh yeah -- and don't forget to fill in those brackets ... :-)
Hope that helps,
Chris
|
dpc
|
|
response 41 of 316:
|
Jun 14 20:54 UTC 1999 |
I'm finishing up M-Net's "declaration" and I think I'm going to
delete the identities of *everyone* who entered the item/responses
to the item when I send the example in. I've picked the "Sex Haiku"
item out of the M-Net Sex Conference. I decided to just use *one*
example, and a really funny one at that. Remember - what we file
with the court could easily wind up on the front page of the Ann
Arbor News. We want the News reporter to concentrate on our *argument*,
not on the attached sexual materials. Ergo - we should submit as
little of the sexual materials as we can.
|
aruba
|
|
response 42 of 316:
|
Jun 14 21:00 UTC 1999 |
I think we've taken care of that problem by choosing examples that are
sexually explicit but not particularly titillating.
|
remmers
|
|
response 43 of 316:
|
Jun 15 02:04 UTC 1999 |
Jan, Mark, and myself met this evening to finalize plans for submitting
the declaration and supporting exhibits. I will be writing up a final
version of the declaration, merging in various suggestions that came up
at the meeting and that people have made in this item. There won't be
major changes. Look for the new version to appear in this item early
tomorrow morning (Tuesday). We'll be submitting everything to the
attorneys tomorrow.
The declarant will either be Jan or myself. Which of us it is hinges on
whether, if I am the declarant, the suit could disrupt certain
un-reschedulable travel that I'm committed to during the summer. I'll be
seeking clarification from the attorney tomorrow on that issue.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 316:
|
Jun 15 13:23 UTC 1999 |
Jan, John and I decided to use only the first 32 responses of the pornography
item (with a link to the full item) after we printed it out and saw how long
it was. The two exhibits we'll be submitting are in ~aruba/exhibit1.txt and
~aruba/exhibit2.txt .
|
remmers
|
|
response 45 of 316:
|
Jun 15 14:19 UTC 1999 |
Okay, here's my draft. No substantive changes. I've incorporated
suggestion from Mark, Chanur, and others made in this item, as well as
rephrased some things on my own, added a few sentences, and re-arranged
some paragraphs -- with the aim of (hopefully) making some points
clearer or stronger.
The declarant issue isn't yet resolved. Marshall Widick will be
consulting with the senior partner on that and get back to me later
today. Once the declarant is determined, the unspecified portions of the
preamble will be merged in.
----------
DECLARATION OF [WHOMEVER]
I, [Whomever], of Ann Arbor, Michigan, do declare:
I am [list office here] of Cyberspace Communications, a Michigan
non-profit corporation, whose primary function is to maintain a free,
public-access Internet service called "Grex." The name "Grex" (which
means "group" in Latin) is also registered as a d/b/a for Cyberspace
Communications, Inc. On behalf of Cyberspace Communications and our
members and users, I submit this declaration in support of plaintiffs'
motion for injunctive relief against enforcement of [such and such]
(hereinafter, the "Act").
[List credentials here.]
BACKGROUND
Cyberspace Communications is a recognized 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
organization that pursues charitable and educational missions on the
Internet. We provide limited access to Internet services free of
charge, but our primary purpose is to provide a wide range of on-line
discussion forums allowing free exchange of information on any
topic. Grex has been in operation since 1991.
Consistent with our charitable and educational mission, a person goes
through a simple one-time registration process that is designed to be
as barrier-free as possible, in order to encourage the widest possible
range of people to use the system. The Grex system is accessible to
the public via the Internet as "cyberspace.org". It is also
accessible via a bank of dial-in modems located in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Users are not required to pay any fees, nor are they
required to give any information about themselves. All accounts are
created immediately upon request. This open access policy helps
ensure that a wide range of people can make use of our services and
bring their viewpoints to our discussion forums.
Grex is active, popular, and has a large number of users. An average
of about 200 new accounts are created daily; there are currently about
29,000 active accounts. Users come from all over the world, but the
majority of those most active in our public forums are Michigan
residents. Many are minors. Because we do not require our users to
supply personal information, we do not have complete information about
the ages or locations of our users.
Grex is primarily a computer conferencing system, allowing users to
post messages in any of over 100 public electronic forums. These
conferences are at the heart of our educational mission. Among our
conferences are music, the arts, writing, consumer information,
housing, finance, small business, philosophy, living with
disabilities, men's and women's issues, parenting, pets, computer
hardware and software, nature, and role-playing games. There are also
non-topical "creative" conferences and a general discussion area. All
Cyberspace Communications policies are discussed and developed in a
public conference called "coop". Any posting to these conferences
typically remains publicly readable for months or years. Postings are
censored only in rare cases (for example, if someone posts a dozen
copies of the same message we might hide all but one). All
conferences can be read over the web even by people who do not have
Grex accounts - they are easily readable by anyone in the world who
has access to the Internet. The conferences currently contain about
42 million words of text, roughly five times as much text as a typical
20 volume encyclopedia. Roughly 200 new messages are posted to the
conferences every day.
Grex also hosts a live chat area, called "party." Messages posted
here are short -- generally one line of text -- and are seen instantly
by other participants, permitting real-time online conversations.
Discussions are typically more spontaneous and informal than they are
in the conferences. "Party" is especially popular with our younger
users. On average over 5000 messages a day are posted in the chat
area.
Grex provides a few services in addition to conferences and live chat.
All Grex users can freely send and receive private E-mail. They can
also access the world wide web via a non-graphical browser, and about
1000 users have used Grex to post their own text-only web pages.
(Images are not allowed because our Internet connection is too slow
and overburdened to support them.) Pairs of users can also open
private conversation channels. Users can transfer files
of any type to and from Grex, possibly exchanging files with other
users. We allow full access to software development tools on our
system for those interested in learning programming.
For an operation of its size and scope, Grex's budget is extremely
small. All the work of maintaining and enhancing the system is done
by unpaid volunteers; we have no paid employees. Cyberspace
Communications is funded almost entirely by donations from our users.
Our current assets consist of $4,500 in the bank and various old
computer equipment. We have about 100 members who donate $60 a year
or $6 a month, making them eligible to vote in board of directors
elections and for which they also receive a minor increase in Internet
access. Our total revenue in 1998 was about $8,200, giving us about
30 cents per user per year to spend. About $7,500 of this was spent
simply to keep the system running - rent, electricity, phones,
Internet connectivity, and such - leaving us about $700 to spend on
upgrades to our service. Except for an unstaffed machine room, we
maintain no offices. Although our funding is extremely limited, we
value the fact that drawing our income primarily from our users means
we are primarily responsible to our users. There are no paid
advertisements on Grex.
Grex is an online community. Although for many of our users, Grex is
simply a place to get free E-mail or web access, for some 500 people
of all ages, Grex is much more than that. It is a dynamic community
where they meet and make friends, exchange ideas, and learn new
things. Essentially all of our funding comes from donations from this
group. Grex is only able to survive because of the dedication of the
users who participate in our open forums and believe in the value of
our mission.
CYBERSPACE COMMUNICATIONS AND ITS USERS FEAR PROSECUTION UNDER THE ACT
We are concerned that Cyberspace Communications and its users may be
at risk of prosecution under the Act.
Our computer is located in Michigan, and many of our users are
Michigan residents.
We know that some of the users of our system are minors. About 75% of
our users volunteer information about their age when they register on
Grex. Of these, about 20% say they are under 18. However, except for
a few people personally known to our staff, we have no way of knowing
if these declared ages are accurate. It should also be noted that
more than half of our users ask that the information they give be kept
private from other users, so our users are even less likely than our
staff to be able to istinguish minors from adults on-line.
Cyberspace Communications itself authors very little material, and
none of it could be construed to be "sexually explicit." It is
primarily publicity information, help pages, and technical
documentation for our system. However, there are materials posted on
Grex by our users which we believe might be construed as being
"sexually explicit matter" under the terms of the Act. These
materials are accessible by all users. Since our forums are primarily
text-based, most of this is verbal material rather than images.
However, users are allowed to import files to their personal areas on
Grex, and some use this facility to place publicly viewable images on
the system.
Two examples of conference items from Grex which might be impacted by
the Act are attached. Exhibit one is discussion of pornography from
the women's conference on Grex. Though most of the discussion is not
very "sexually explicit" at various points examples are used that
might be considered in violation of the Act. Though a discussion like
this would probably not be banned under the act, users would likely
feel much less free to speak on the subject. Exhibit two is a graphic
description of a rape from the poetry conference on Grex. It was
apparently posted for artistic and cathartic reasons. The responses
show concern, sympathy and support. Many other possible examples
could be found.
Although it is not, in general, clear to us exactly what material
would or would not be considered sexually explicit, we know for a fact
that textual material of any conceivable description could be posted
on Grex at any time, by any person. Even if all questionable material
were removed from Grex, any person wishing to cause problems for us
could post new material at any time.
It is unclear to us to what extent, if any, the Act's exemption for
computer network service providers would protect Cyberspace
Communications, or what would constitute a good faith effort to inform
ourselves of ages of our users or the nature of the material being
exchanged among them. Clearly what kinds of monitoring would be
expected from us must be different for different types of
communications - for example, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act prevents us from monitoring E-mail. What are our different
responsibilities with all the different media we offer? Since we
allow users to install custom software on their accounts on our
system, are we responsible for monitoring new communications systems
created by our users?
Our uncertainty about our liability under this law is aggravated by
the fact that, as a matter of policy, we allow anonymous users on our
system. Would we be directly responsible for everything an anonymous
user of our system transmits to a minor, including private E-mail?
This seems contrary to the precedent set by the United States Postal
Service, which has always allowed mail to be sent anonymously. At the
same time, it doesn't seem sensible that someone could evade the Act's
prohibition on sending sexually explicit material to minors by simply
using anonymous E-mail.
AGE VERIFICATION IS NOT FEASIBLE
To comply with the Act, Cyberspace Communications would have to find a
way to ensure that no forum which might contain sexually explicit
material can be accessed by a minor. Unless all postings of sexually
explicit material were completely eliminated from Grex, this would
require verifying the ages of our users.
We have not, as an organization, extensively studied any verification
technique. Those based on credit or debit cards would be
inappropriate for a free system. Given that we average over 200 new
users every day, it is difficult to imagine any verification technique
that would not require a full time person and/or a substantial
expense, neither of which is within reach of our limited resources.
AGE VERIFICATION WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION
Even if a method were found by which verification could be done
reliably within the limitations of our resources, doing so would
substantially undermine our ability to pursue our mission of providing
forums for free speech and of providing free access to Internet
services.
Our current policy of not requiring new users to give us any
information is designed to make joining the system as easy and
unintimidating as possible. Many people are nervous about getting on
the Internet or getting involved in a public forum. Almost any method
of proving their age would require users to reveal some significant
amount of personal information. Being confronted by such questions
would scare off some of the users who could most benefit from our
service.
Such a verification procedure would also limit the ability of users to
speak anonymously in our forums. We believe that having the option of
speaking anonymously is an important part of free speech, and having
to identify yourself to the people operating the system would for
many, including people such as elected officials or battered women,
limit what they were willing to say in public forums like ours.
Segregating minors from other users of our system would also undermine
Grex's ability to help young people develop maturity and
communications skills. On-line forums are one of the few places where
young people can interact with adults on an equal basis. Their ages
are not obvious to other users, so they are judged by the content and
quality of what they have to say. For young people, it can be
wonderful to discover a world where they can be respected and treated
as equals by adults simply by sharing their thoughts and behaving
maturely themselves. While it is true that there are some risks when
young people are mistaken for adults on-line, it would be a gross
oversight to ignore the fact that it can also be an extremely
enriching experience for them. Grex provides young people positive
interaction with adults, interaction that is of educational value and
that could not be obtained from a "kids' room."
RESTRICTING CONTENT IS NOT FEASIBLE
Unless all minors were completely banned from Grex, compliance with
the Act would force Cyberspace Communications to monitor all forums
accessible to minors, identify "sexually explicit" material, and
eliminate it from those forums.
Doing this would require substantial labor, especially for the live
chat channels which are continuously active 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, and which would presumably require continuous monitoring. It
would be virtually possible to finding volunteers who would be willing
to expend that level of effort and who would be competent to make the
difficult legal distinctions between material which is and is not
acceptable under the Act. We would not have the resources to pay
anyone to do such a job.
RESTRICTING CONTENT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION
Even if a method were found by which verification could be done within
the limits of our resources, doing so would substantially undermine
our ability to pursue our mission of providing forums for free speech.
First, because of the difficulty of reliably determining which users
are minors, it is certain that any censorship of sexually explicit
material would have to interfere with the ability of adults to discuss
such topics on our system, even though such speech is not directly
prohibited by the Act.
Second, because of the difficulty of determining exactly what content
is "sexually explicit" it is to be expected that any censorship by
Cyberspace Communications, or self-censorship by our users, would be
done more broadly than might be strictly necessary under the Act.
Again this would result in a broader inhibition of on-line free speech
than a literal reading of the Act suggests.
This chilling effect would impact many useful discussions which touch
on sexual topics and have significant social value.
Certainly there is material posted on Grex which is meant only to
titillate or shock. But in our conferences no posting stands alone
for long. One user's pornographic posting is likely to be followed by
another user's objection to its portrayal of women. When such
material appears in a open public forum, community standards are
readily applied to it, not because the material is suppressed, but
because upstanding members of the community are there to respond.
When young people are allowed to participate in such forums, it is an
excellent opportunity for them to learn to understand and respect
community standards on sexuality and other issues.
Young people will always seek out and find sexually explicit material.
Our choice is between allowing it to happen in an open forum, where
they can hear the perspective of responsible adults, or consigning it
to clandestine "outlaw" forums consisting entirely of people
interested only in titillation.
CONCLUSION
As various laws of this type have been proposed over recent years, our
users have discussed strategies for how we could cope with such a law.
We have not been able to find any viable plan.
We have a long history of being good, law-abiding citizens of the
Internet. Many of our volunteers would sever their relationships with
Grex rather than be associated with an organization whose operation is
legally questionable. The loss of many of our most upstanding people
would irretrievably harm our community, even if we were never actually
prosecuted.
But at the same time, compliance with the law would appear to require
that we validate our users and/or censor our discussion forums. For
the reasons stated above, we are reluctant to do these things because
we believe they would limit our ability to act as a forum for free
speech in ways that go far beyond just restricting minors from gaining
access to sexual materials. Many of our current volunteers and donors
would be uninterested in supporting such a restrictive forum.
But beyond that, doing these things in any meaningful manner, if it is
possible at all, would require resources substantially beyond what we
now have. Over our eight-year history we have demonstrated that it is
possible to provide an excellent service to a very large set of people
on a miniscule budget. This Act would make that impossible. It would
raise the financial bar so that only organizations large and wealthy
enough to pay full-time staff people would be able to run public
conferencing systems. For us to raise that much money we would
probably need some combination of corporate sponsorship, advertising
revenue, and user fees. Any of these options could significantly
undermine our ability to function as an open forum for free speech on
the Internet.
For all of our history, we have been proud to consider ourselves to be
the freest forum for speech that can be sustained under the law. If
this Act is upheld, we believe that we would either have to shut down
completely, or become substantially more restrictive. We do not
believe that the benefits of this Act can justify so great an
encroachment on the constitutional right to free speech for all
Americans.
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 316:
|
Jun 15 15:21 UTC 1999 |
I found a couple of typos (istinguish instead of distinguish, and one place
where "act" was not capitalized and should have been), but otherwise I think
this looks great, and I've sent it on to Marshall Widick, along with the
exhibits.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 316:
|
Jun 15 18:06 UTC 1999 |
Many thanks to Jan, who did the lion's share of the work in writing
this up. My contribution was mainly fine-tuning and polishing.
I noticed another typo. In the 2nd paragraph under "RESTRICTING
CONTENT IS NOT FEASIBLE", I typed "virtually possible" when I meant
"virtually impossible". Gotta make sure that's fixed in the official
version.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 48 of 316:
|
Jun 15 18:19 UTC 1999 |
5th paragraph under "RESTRICTING CONTENT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION"
should be "an open" instead of "a open".
|
aruba
|
|
response 49 of 316:
|
Jun 15 19:11 UTC 1999 |
OK, I've integrated those changes into my copy of the declaration.
|