|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
lilmo
|
|
response 275 of 316:
| 
Jul 31 15:11 UTC 1999 |
No, no, the hobson's choice is whether to continue with a site, or to take
it down. The ref to an on/off switch refers to parents being able to turn
off their computer to prevent children from viewing "bad" sites.
|
other
|
|
response 276 of 316:
|
Aug 1 02:49 UTC 1999 |
you've supported my point.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 277 of 316:
|
Aug 4 22:27 UTC 1999 |
The judge's ruling etc. appeared in an article in Sunday's (August 1) edition
of the Plymouth Observer (perhaps other Observer flavors too, dunno). Some
law enforcement agencies, including the Wayne County Sherrif via Ficano,
expressed disappointment with the ruling, and hope that the state will
appeal. Ficano also mentioned that this ruling does not affect and so will
not slow up law enforcement from seeking out and twarting internet predators.
|
dpc
|
|
response 278 of 316:
|
Aug 5 14:29 UTC 1999 |
"Twarting" predators, eh? Sounds painful--even obscene! 8-)
|
jshafer
|
|
response 279 of 316:
|
Aug 5 23:20 UTC 1999 |
I had the same response...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 280 of 316:
|
Aug 6 02:15 UTC 1999 |
Tw... + wart, maybe? Make that *thwart*, *don't* get the h out! :-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 281 of 316:
|
Aug 12 22:55 UTC 1999 |
um, why is or should a net predator be treated any differently than any other
predator? =P
|
jep
|
|
response 282 of 316:
|
Aug 13 01:26 UTC 1999 |
It's to buy votes, like "targeted tax cuts". But surely you knew that.
|
brighn
|
|
response 283 of 316:
|
Aug 13 16:07 UTC 1999 |
Yep. Sensationalist. There are laws about predating minors (which is also
pre-dating minors... heh) already. Use the existing ones.
Of course, the same's been said for on-line porn. We have porn laws already.
|
mary
|
|
response 284 of 316:
|
Sep 2 08:45 UTC 1999 |
It looks like there will be an appeal. I received mail this morning,
from Mr. Steinberg, in which he shares the following:
"We recently learned that the state will be appealing the preliminary
injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
Cincinnati. The Court of Appeals will eventually set a briefing schedule
after the transcripts are prepared. I anticipate that the final reply
brief will be due in about 4 months or so and that oral argument will be
held in about 6 months. Then the Court will issue a written opinion --
usually 2 to 3 months after oral argument."
Bummer.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 285 of 316:
|
Sep 2 12:45 UTC 1999 |
The state is likely to appeal this all the way to the US Supreme Court. It
would be pretty stupid if they _didn't_.
|
steve
|
|
response 286 of 316:
|
Sep 2 16:32 UTC 1999 |
It's only a little bummer, as I see it. There is *clear* precenence for
Tarnow's decision, and the 6th Circuit court isn't known for making foolish
decisions.
If Tarnow's decision was a thwack with the fingers, the circuit court will
be a slap on the face. ...And a supreme court decision will be a smash from
a large hammer.
As I think about it, going to the Supreme Court might be 1) fun, 2) kill
this law like an oak stake in a vampire's heart.
|
other
|
|
response 287 of 316:
|
Sep 2 22:30 UTC 1999 |
Has the 6th Circuit even agreed to hear the appeal? They could refuse...
|
janc
|
|
response 288 of 316:
|
Sep 4 01:05 UTC 1999 |
I'm no expert, but I'd expect that the 6th court will hear it, but the
Supreme Court would not if the state tried to appeal it further. The
Supreme Court already ruled on two similar laws, and they aren't that
big on endlessly repeating themselves. They didn't hear any of these
laws from other states (though I don't know if the others were ever
appealed that far).
The Court of Appeals hearing will be different than the District Court
hearing we had in July. There will be a panel of three judges instead
of just one. There will be no witnesses called (because the debate here
is over a "point of law" rather than a "point of fact"). The attorneys
will have months instead of weeks to prepare their cases.
|
dpc
|
|
response 289 of 316:
|
Sep 4 16:34 UTC 1999 |
The Sixth Circuit must hear this appeal from Judge Tarnow's preliminary
injunction. An appeal from the Sixth Circuit will only be heard if
the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.
Now that we have *plenty* of time, I'd be interested in hearing
about the Board's plans on possible policy changes if the decision
doesn't go our way.
I would hope that the Board would post proposed policies in
this conference for discussion, and then decide what to do at a Board
meeting at which the policies are on the agenda.
|
mary
|
|
response 290 of 316:
|
Sep 4 17:55 UTC 1999 |
Anyone can enter the item, David. I don't understand why
you'd rather talk about it being entered rather than enter
it directly. Shy?
|
other
|
|
response 291 of 316:
|
Sep 4 23:50 UTC 1999 |
given the the appellate consideration will be of law, not fact, and given the
previous rulings by the supreme court and the predominance of precedent in
establishing current interpretation, would it not be reasonable to assume that
the chances of the appeal succeeding would be minimal?
|
scott
|
|
response 292 of 316:
|
Sep 5 01:38 UTC 1999 |
(Scott nominates other for board)
|
other
|
|
response 293 of 316:
|
Sep 5 05:41 UTC 1999 |
why? so i can share in the criminal liability if the appeal succeeds? :)
|
scott
|
|
response 294 of 316:
|
Sep 5 11:53 UTC 1999 |
Exactly. :)
|
janc
|
|
response 295 of 316:
|
Sep 5 19:46 UTC 1999 |
I think Eric's assessment of the likelihood of the appeal succeeding is
right. I think if the appeal did somehow succeed, then the ACLU would
definately appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would
definately hear it - when a lower court ignores their previous rulings,
they are very likely to take an interest. My guess is that this law
would come into force only if (1) the Appeals court does unprecidented
amazing and (2) the Supreme Court agrees.
|
dpc
|
|
response 296 of 316:
|
Sep 8 15:34 UTC 1999 |
Mary, since the BoD governs Grex, I would prefer if the BoD took the
lead here. After all, only 42% of Grexers agreed with me. 8-)
|
mary
|
|
response 297 of 316:
|
Sep 8 16:01 UTC 1999 |
David, since this is a membership organization I'd prefer to see
members as involved as they'd wish to be in all the discussions
and decision making.
Did 58% disagree with you? ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 298 of 316:
|
Sep 8 18:25 UTC 1999 |
As a Board member, I'm perfectly happy to see a mere member "taking the lead"
on this (or any) topic.
|
mary
|
|
response 299 of 316:
|
Sep 8 23:16 UTC 1999 |
Besides, I'm sure any decision on this matter, where we have
time to discuss the matter and bring it to a vote, will be
made by the members, not the Board.
|