response 28 of 111:

May 27 22:09 UTC 1999

I'm a board member, staff member, current secretary, former president.
I'm reasonably good at composing answers to questions from the
government (I did Grex's 501(c)3 paperwork).  I'm willing to commit a
significant amount of time to this process.

response 30 of 111:

May 27 22:35 UTC 1999

   Speaking as a founder of Grex, staff and board person, I think Grex
should join in on this.

   In most circumstanes I would agree with jep that Grex should stay
out of political things, but this inane law directly challanges the
existence of Grex as it has always been.

response 32 of 111:

May 27 22:49 UTC 1999

The board met in closed session once when I was on the board, to discuss a
dispute with our landlord.  I believe there may have been one earlier closed
session, but it certainly isn't routine.

I think I'm in support of this, as long as the risks to us aren't too great.
Do Larry, or any of the other lawyers here, have any reasons we should not
be a part of this?

response 34 of 111:

May 28 00:40 UTC 1999

So far as the "pornography causes crime" thing goes, I think that's more
than a bit misleading.  The first thing is certainly obvious; showing a
connection is not the same as showing a cause and effect relationship.
It may be that people who happen to be violent are also fond of
pornography, and it may be that they happen to move out of communities
that place restrictions on pornography - but of course, if everyone
restricts pornography, these people aren't just going to vanish because
they have no place to go.  Of course, this may also not be the case; the
above data just isn't enough to draw any broad conclusions about any
causal relationships that may exist.  A more serious problem with this
whole cause-and-effect problem is simply in defining what pornography
is.  There are actually many different types of pornography, and they
have different effects on people.  I read of one study in which the
researchers went through and classified and separated a bunch of
pornographic movies according to type.  One type was basically the sort
that showed people in various sorts of not necessarily standard, but
still very loving situations, in very graphic detail.  The second type
basically portrayed various sorts of acts of violence and non-consensual
relationships, again in graphic detail.  The two forms of pornography
had opposite effects on the subjects; the former tended to inspire the
subjects to feel closer and move loving, the latter made subjects feel
more paranoid and separated from humanity, and less loving.  There are,
of course, also many media subjects which we don't currently restrict,
and which do have a measurable negative impact on their viewers.  TV is
the most obvious example: there are plenty of studies that show that
exposure to all of the various forms of violence and
people-not-being-nice-to-each-other that commonly exist on commercial TV
results in people feeling generally more isolated and paranoid.  I don't
think these people who are interested in eliminating pornography
actually have any interest in making society a better place to live.  If
they were, these people should have been interested in drawing a
distinction between different forms of pornography, and should have been
interested in other expressions of unfair aggression in society, not
just those that appear to be sexual in nature.  I think these people who
are interested in eliminating pornography are really just interested in
imposing their religions and cultural views on everyone else -- and are
really just cosmetically updated puritans.

It is certainly the case that this directly effects grex.  This law, and
the open newuser that is one of the fundemental parts of grex, are
pretty much in direct conflict; I don't see how we can continue to
operate anywhere near the way we do now, if this law were upheld.  In
this respect, grex is somewhat unique, there are very few places on the
internet that give people anywhere as much access with as little
validation.  Given how fundemental this is, I don't see how grex really
has any choice but to fight this law.  --If we were to agree this law
has any validity, then we might as well shut grex down now.  For those
who might still think otherwise, I should say that not only do we have
conferences such as "singles" (with "questionable" material), but we
also have at least one long-time user who has a substantial number of
sexually explicit stories on grex.  These we allow, but we don't allow
images, of any sort, or eggdrop & their ilk, but we still have at any
one time a substantial transient population of both of these.  If grex
staff & board were to be held liable for the behavior of these people,
there's just no way grex could continue to operate as it has, and I
don't see how grex would actually make sense in any meaningful form.

I also happen to think this effects a lot more than just grex, or, for
that matter, pornography & crime.  If a law, such as the above, were to
be held valid, I think this would have very negative consequences for
the US in the long run.  The US didn't just spring out of the ideals of
a bunch of perfect christians after kicking the evil British out.  In
fact, a lot of the founding fathers were, well, "pretty earthy", with
many of the usual sins.  And, the evils they were confronting were not
just those of the british, but were alive and well here in the colonies
as well, and in most cases, were merely the natural results of human
nature.

One of the most important factors leading up to revolutionary war and
constitution, was in fact a very lively discussion of what was proper
and just that was taking place in the coffee houses and newsletters of
colonial america.  I think it is fair to say that the founding fathers
believed these sorts of discussions to be essential to a free and open
society, and that that is why they explicitly put a guarantee of free
speach (and by extension, freedom of the press) in the constitution.
Something to keep in mind is that newspapers of the 1790's were not much
like today's monolithic mass media.  Newspapers of the 1790's were much
smaller affairs, with editors who generally felt far more free to
express even very radical opinions.  The sorts of public forums that can
be found on grex (and elsewhere on the internet) today are actually much
closer to the public coffee rooms and newspapers of 1790s, than to a
modern newspaper or TV network.

The above law introduces a new and very chilling idea into the legal
system, that some ideas are "dangerous", and may therefore be regulated
and controlled.  It is not much of a stretch to go from the idea that
pornography is bad, to the idea that drugs are bad, or that communism is
bad, and that public discussion of these dangerous ideas should also be
regulated.  After that, well, if we're willing to regulate these ideas,
why not regulate ideas such as the KKK, ecology, liberalism, feminism,
and, while we're about it, why not regulate all public speech, just in
case?

I don't think the founding fathers would necessarily be susprised to see
laws like the above passed -- I think most of the founding fathers came
to realize that freedom and liberty was not something that had to be
fought for once and that would then survive on its own, but that instead
it would be a constant battle, something that would have to be fought
for anew, each generation.  We have every right to be disappointed in
our state government for passing such an ill-conceived piece of
legislation, but I guess we should feel proud for having this
interesting opportunity to defend the principles of this country, in
seeking to secure the continuation of what is, after all, a pretty nifty
corner of the internet.

response 36 of 111:

May 28 02:30 UTC 1999

Re #26:  Thank you, jcs, for that long response.  It contained a thorough
answer to my question of what Grex's responsibilities are.

Based on what I've seen, I think Grex should join the suit.  I'm Grex's
treasurer, and have been for the last 3.5 years, and like Jan I'm willing
to devote some time to working on the case.

response 38 of 111:

May 28 05:57 UTC 1999

Oh come on, just do extracts of any number of items in the sexuality 
conference, and you'd have a sampling.  The larger point about grex is
that even if the sexuality conference were closed down, there is 
nothing to stop any user from creating any item in any conference that 
would be subject to the same censorship.

response 42 of 111:

May 28 11:28 UTC 1999

(Hopefully Mr Steinberg and Mr Salyer will be checking back on this
discussion item. In case they aren't scanning the whole conference, I'll
note that Jan Wolter has posted a call for a member vote in support of
Grex becoming a plaintiff. The vote item is #100. From the web, click on
this link - item:100 - to reach it.)

response 44 of 111:

May 28 14:54 UTC 1999

Re #38: Grex has no basis or right to "just do extracts of any number of
items in the sexuality conference". For one thing, there is no definition
of "sexually explicit content" in law. Someone would have to apply their
own, personal, standards in order to select such material. Secondly, this
is an infringement upon the persons that posted material that someone else
might consider "sexually explicit content": it may be that they themselves
would not characterize it as such, and anyone else doing so is arbitrary
and capricious. 

My suggestion is to simply state that what some persons might consider as
"sexually explicit content" might appear anywhere in any of the
hundred-plus conferences on Grex, and anyone is welcome to explore Grex to
identify for themselves material that they would consider as sexually
explicit.

If we believe in free speech, what right do we have to put someone else's
labels on types of speech conducted here? 

response 46 of 111:

May 28 15:38 UTC 1999

I'm by no means in favor of the new law, from what I've seen of it.  I 
hope groups which are involved in politics, such as the ACLU, manage to 
do it in.  But Grex is not such a group.  Those who want to oppose this 
law should join other groups that do such things.

When we discussed the Blue Ribbon campaign, in response to CDA II, some 
said it would not be the opening of a floodgate of political advocacy 
using Grex.  I disagreed with them.  Now there's this law, not a very 
long time later, and the ACLU wants to use Grex to endorse and promote 
it's political agenda.  And Grex is going to go along with it (or so it 
appears to me).  I was right during the previous debate.  Once again, I 
urge everyone to consider whether this is really what we want Grex to 
become.  I hope enough people will say "no" to turn Grex back into being 
a user community open to everyone, including those who may not support 
this particular agenda.

response 50 of 111:

May 28 17:05 UTC 1999

(dang slipped in, I detect a trend here in responses.)

response 52 of 111:

May 28 18:06 UTC 1999

It might be someone's contention that nuclear weapons could lead to a 
nuclear war, which would destroy all life on the planet, and with it, 
Grex.  Therefore, Grex ought to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons.  
Any one of us here could think of 1000 such agendas for Grex to support, 
and could think of a similar argument by which Grex could support any 
such political agenda.  (Abortions could lead to 0 babies being born, 
therefore the end of Grex; telephone company mergers could drive up our 
costs, therefore the end of Grex; increased parking meter fees could 
lead to someone blocking Grex's driveway, so that no staffer could 
reboot the system for a month, therefore the end of Grex.)  They're all 
silly examples, intended only to lead to the phrase "end of Grex", and 
thus to an excuse for Grex to take political action.

The arguments in this item are about as silly.  We can and do live with 
censorship.  The commonest example is credit card numbers.  Users cannot 
post credit card numbers on Grex, and yet we've survived, and prospered 
pretty well.

The real reason for driving Grex into political action, and dragging 
every user of the system into supporting the ACLU's political agenda as 
a condition for using the system, is that some people here find the new 
law to be distasteful.  To use Grex is to support Grex.  Every user here 
is a part of the reason I am here.  I wouldn't be logging on to a system 
with 100 users -- just those who pay money -- for very long.  Thus, 
those who log in here are by that definition "supporters", and to some 
extent, they have to buy into Grex's endorsements for agendas.  Ask 
those who won't eat Domino's Pizza because of Tom Monahan's Catholic 
activities what I mean, if I haven't yet made myself clear.  Even one of 
the ACLU lawyers pointed out that some people will see opposition to 
this law as support for free access to pornography by children.

I do despise the ACLU.  No doubt about that, and I've said so many times 
over the last 13 years while I've been on-line, here and on M-Net.  They 
have a very politicized liberal agenda.  Where is the ACLU on defending 
people's right to own guns, or practice religion even in public places 
like schools by common, popular religions like Christianity?  They don't 
support such rights, they oppose them.  They oppose other rights, too; 
they pick whose rights to support and whose to oppose, and stomp some 
people pretty well into submission.  

Enough of that.  I'm not interested in debating the benefits of the 
ACLU.  I do not see the acronym "ACLU", though, and put on the blinders 
like a lot of people here do, and leap to support their agenda, 
whatever it is.  As much as I dislike the ACLU, from what I know in this 
case, I maybe hope they prevail on this one issue.  I just hope they do 
it without Grex, which shouldn't be involved in politics.