response 4 of 111:

May 25 15:25 UTC 1999

What scg, marry and aruba say.

response 6 of 111:

May 25 15:49 UTC 1999

s/marry/mary  (which John did).

response 8 of 111:

May 25 16:22 UTC 1999

I'm going to copy part of the house legislative analysis here.  The bulk of
that analysis describes the content of the bill, and the history of federal
legislation.  The sections I'm including here are arguments for and against
the bill.

ARGUMENTS:

For:

  A number of studies have found a correlation between the use of
  "hard-core" pornography and a number of societal ills - from rape to
  child molestation. For example, in a study of convicted child molesters,
  77 percent of those who molested boys said they were regular users of
  hard-core pornography. And 87 percent of those who molested girls said
  they were regular users of hard-core pornography (W. Marshall, Report
  on the Use of Pornography by Sexual Offenders, Report to the Federal
  Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada, 1983.)

  The LAPD Sexually Exploited Child (SEC) Unit examined the relationship
  between child sexual abuse by non-family members and pornography in
  their cases over a ten year period from 1980-1989. Pornography was
  directly involved in 62 percent of the cases and actually recovered in
  55 percent of the total cases.  (Ralph W. Bennett, "The Relationship
  Between Pornography and Extrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse," The Police
  Chief, February 1991).

  It is also believed that pornography contributes to rape and sexual
  violence in America. Another study by Dr. Marshall of adult sex offenders
  found that 86 percent of convicted rapists said they were regular users
  of pornography, with 57 percent admitting direct imitation of pornographic
  scenes they enjoyed in the commission of their rapes (W. Marshall, Use of
  Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters and Non-Offenders,
  25 Journal of Sex Research 267, 1988.)

  Further, in Oklahoma City, as officials eliminated over 150 sexually
  oriented businesses, the rape rate declined over 27 percent in the
  five-year period. During that same time, rape in the rest of the state
  continued to rise over 19 percent. (Uniform Crime Report, 1990) A 1979
  study in Phoenix, Arizona, found that neighborhoods with a pornography
  business experienced 40 percent more property crime and 500 percent more
  sexual offenses than similar neighborhoods without a pornography outlet
  (U.S. Department of Justice, "Child Pornography, Obscenity and Organized
  Crime," February 1988.)

For:

  The Internet offers a wide variety of educational and learning
  opportunities for both young and old; however, although it opens doors to
  an almost endless array of learning opportunities, it also offers a number
  of doors that many parents would just as soon their children not open.
  It is not unreasonable for parents to hope that their children might be
  allowed to avail themselves of all of the good things that access to the
  Internet offers without the parents being required to constantly look
  over the child's shoulder to prevent the child from receiving sexually
  explicit materials over the Internet. Parents have every right to hope
  to limit their children's access to sexually explicit materials, and
  in particular they have the right to expect that other adults will
  not direct sexually explicit materials to them. The bill will help
  to alleviate some of the fears that all good parents have about their
  children's use of the Internet by making it a crime to offer a minor
  sexually explicit material over the Internet, just as it is a crime to
  offer them sexually explicit material on a playground or anywhere else.

Against:

  The bill is almost certainly unconstitutional and will likely be struck
  down if enacted into law. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in American
  Civil Liberties Union v Reno, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997) specifically
  addressed the government's assertion (similar to the one offered by
  proponents of this bill) that the CDA's provisions only prohibited
  dissemination of indecent messages to persons "known" to be under 18,
  and therefore it did not unconstitutionally prevent communication
  between adults. The court noted that "given the size of the potential
  audience for most messages, in the absence of a viable age verification
  process, the sender must be charged with knowing that one or more
  minors will likely view it." The court also noted that such an argument
  "ignores the fact that most Internet fora -- including chat rooms,
  news groups, mail exploders, and the Web -- are open to all comers. The
  Government's assertion that the knowledge requirement somehow protects
  the communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even the strongest
  reading of the 'specific person' requirement of [section] 223(d) cannot
  save the statute. It would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form
  of a 'heckler's veto,' upon any opponent of indecent speech who might
  simply log on and inform the would be discoursers that his 17 year old
  child -- a specific person . . . under 18 years of age," [citation
  omitted] would be present." [Note: 47 U.S.C.A. sec. 223 (d) would have
  prohibited a person from knowingly using an interactive computer service
  to send an indecent message to a specific person or persons under 18
  years of age, or from knowingly using any interactive computer service
  to display indecent material in a manner available to a person under 18
  years of age.]
  
  Furthermore, a CDA-like state law has been rejected by a federal
  court. The New York case, American Library Association v George Pataki,
  969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) challenged the constitutionality of the
  a New York state online indecency regulation. The federal judge hearing
  the case ruled that the law was unconstitutional on the grounds that it
  violated the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, which forbids
  one state from regulating another state's commercial activity. The judge
  also noted that the state could already protect children through vigorous
  enforcement of existing criminal law. It is likely that a similar finding
  could be made regarding Senate Bill 117.

POSITIONS:

  The Department of State Police supports the bill. (3-17-99)

  The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the bill. (3-17-99)

response 10 of 111:

May 25 17:42 UTC 1999

Interesting.  I'd say this law is going to be struck down whether or not
Grex as an entity gets involved in it.  Very likely they're trying to put
together a big list of organizations as plaintiffs.  It's probably not
going to be "Grex v. State of Michigan" -- it will be "Michigan Library
Association et al" or something of the sort.  Don't look to this for much
publicity.

Note, by the way, that anything done now cannot be considered as legally
committing Grex to be involved.  At some point, lawsuit papers will be
prepared, and someone officially representing Grex will be asked to sign
them.  If no signature is given, then Grex is not a party.  So Grex has a
quick and absolute veto power over its own involvement up to the time the
lawsuit is filed with that signature.  Even after that, Grex could
withdraw from the suit at any time.  Therefore, I expect the ACLU
attorneys will take care to keep the Grex board informed in advance.

Note that most attorneys are not allowed to solicit business like this. 
However, advocacy groups like the ACLU, who never charge their clients
legal fees, are exempt from that rule, per court decisions.

I'm surprised I've never heard of Salyer.  I'll look into this.

Disclaimer: I'm an ACLU member, though I do little for the organization
beyond paying dues.

response 12 of 111:

May 25 17:53 UTC 1999

Allowing people the option of speaking anonymously is something we do knowingly and deliberately, in the interest of encouraging free speech. But I think we liable for any legal consequences of such speech.

response 14 of 111:

May 26 17:02 UTC 1999

I would rather Grex didn't take a position on this or any other 
political question.  If Grexers want to join the ACLU or other 
political advocacy groups and support this sort of agenda, then they 
should do so.  There's no reason to ask all Grex supporters to ally 
themselves with a political position as a condition of being a member of 
Grex.

response 16 of 111:

May 26 19:51 UTC 1999

A non-profit charitable organization can lend its *expertise* to
any issue or legislation. If there will be negative affects of
this litigation upon the otherwise legitimate uses of this communication
medium, even if that affect is indirect (such as stilling speech because
it might be construed to come under the law), then it could be considered
the duty of a responsible organization to point this out. 

For example, a number of charitable non-profit organizations are testifying
against development of the Humbug Marsh by pointing out what the consequeces
of development would be to the fishery, wildlife, endangered species, 
natural amenities, etc. Their tax exemption is not jeopardized by this.

response 18 of 111:

May 27 02:14 UTC 1999

I'm pretty sure that litigation is not advocacy.  Our tax exempt status
does not restrict us from filing lawsuits to avoid being fined $10,000
for pursuing our official purpose.  Grex can't lobby the governor to not
sign this bill, but it can sue.

We can do advocacy so long as it consumes a "non-substantive" portion of
our resources.  Showing the blue ribbon on our web page, counts as
non-substantive.

response 20 of 111:

May 27 17:19 UTC 1999

Hi

I am J.C. Salyer, the ACLU lawyer that sent you the initial e-mail 
about the Michigan Internet Censorship law.  I appreciate you taking 
the time to consider possibly joining in our challenge to this law.  I 
would be happy to answer any questions you have or that someone would 
like to e-mail to me (jsalyer@aclu.org).

From reading the discussion that you have already had about this law, I 
can tell that you understand the kinds of threats a censorship law such 
as S.117 poses to speakers rights to use the Internet.  Not only will 
those individual users who post matterial that is "harmful to minors" 
be liable under this law, but ISPs would be liable if they "have 
knowledge" that they are disseminating such matter.

One consequence of this law is that unpopular speech may be subject to 
a "heckler's veto."  That is to say, someone who disagreed with a web 
sites message (e.g. a gay and lesbian web site) could tell an ISP that 
their child accessed that web site using the ISP's services and that 
they wanted the web site blocked so that the child would not visit the 
site again.  At that point the ISP would have knowledge of a minor 
intending to access material and would be put in the position of being 
a censor or facing prosecution under the law.  Of course, individual 
web sites and chat group participants would also be subject to the same 
sort of "heckler's veto."

response 22 of 111:

May 27 18:30 UTC 1999

My name is Michael Steinberg and I am the legal director of the ACLU of 
Michigan.  Although our office is in Detroit, I am an Ann Arbor resident 
and have lived here for 13 years.  I joined this conference at the 
request of the President of your Board of Directors, John Remmers.  

The ACLU of Michigan is extremely concerned about the free speech 
ramifications of Michigan's recently-enacted law restricting material on 
the Internet (we call it the "Internet Censorship Law").  The law 
applies to any "sexually explicit" material that might be deemed 
"harmful to minors."  Therefore, Internet organizations that engage in 
discussions addressing such topics as sex education or AIDS prevention, 
or art websites that post photos of classic nude painting or statues may 
be liable under the law.  As you know, it is impossible to verify the 
age of those who gain access to the Internet or who are engaged in 
conferences such as this one.  Accordingly, in order to avoid liability 
under the Michigan law, speakers on the Internet would have to reduce 
their level of dialogue to that which is appropriate for my 8-year-old. 
The Courts have struck down laws similar to the Michigan's law as 
unconstitutional because they severely burden access to speech protected 
by the First Amendment and because there are alternatives means to 
prevent minors from gaining access to pornography that are much less 
restrictive of  First Amendment rights (e.g., parental oversight or 
filters).  

For more information about the similar cases that the ACLU has litigated 
across the country, please see the Cyber Liberties page of the national 
ACLU website at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html.  The 
Michigan case will look very much like a New York case entitled, 
American Library Association v Pataki.  There are numerous documents 
from the Pataki case on the website including the complaint, brief in 
support of a preliminary injunction, affidavits or declarations from the 
plaintiff organizations, the court's opinion striking down the statute 
and even the transcripts from the evidentiary hearing.

Since the ACLU of Michigan does not have a large legal staff, we 
primarily rely on cooperating attorneys to handle our major cases.  We 
are fortunate to have Andrew Nickelhoff and Marshall Widick of the 
Detroit firm of Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Bogas & McIntosh 
serving as cooperating attorneys in this case.  They are excellent 
attorneys and have both won First Amendment cases for us in the past.

We are also fortunate to have the assistance of staff attorneys from the 
National ACLU.  J.C. Salyer, who first approached GREX, is on the 
national staff in New York.  He has worked on ACLU cases challenging 
laws similar to the Michigan law on the federal level and in New York 
and New Mexico.  He has been doing much of the leg work recruiting 
plaintiffs for the case thus far (which non-profit groups, as Larry 
Kastenbaum correctly notes, are permitted to do).  J.C. is also going to 
join this conference and explain what other plaintiffs have signed up 
for the Michigan case thus far.  Because of his expertise, he is also 
better able to answer some the questions posed above that I have not 
answered.

I truly hope that GREX will join our suit as a plaintiff.  As J.C. will 
explain, it is important that we have a wide range of plaintiffs to 
illustrate all the different ways that the Michigan law will impact the 
Internet.  I am aware of your organization from friends in Ann Arbor and 
it is clear that you are committed to free speech on the Internet.  If 
you wish to talk to me over the phone, I can be reached at (313) 
961-7728 (during business hours) or (734) 665-3737.  Thanks.

response 24 of 111:

May 27 18:47 UTC 1999

(Mr. Steinberg slipped in - welcome!)

response 26 of 111:

May 27 20:12 UTC 1999

Let me try and address Mark's question about what being a plaintiff 
entails.  Your primary commitment by participating as a plaintiff would 
be a commitment to lend your name to the lawsuit.  By lending your name 
as a respected organization that serves the community as both a access 
provider to the Internet and as a forum for the free flow of ideas, you 
will help us convince the Court that this kind of censorship is just as 
unconstitutional on the Internet as it has always been in the 
traditional context of print and that it stifles the unique 
democratizing aspects of the Internet.

TIME COMMITMENT:

The commitment to be a plaintiff is also a time commitment -- 
plaintiffs need to be available to provide information for the 
lawsuit.  You might want to designate a member or two of Grex serve as 
a contact for purposes of the suit.

The litigation may be quickly resolved, or may take years to complete.  
Regardless of the duration of the case, you will probably spend no more 
than a week or so providing information for the lawsuit.

Initially, before we file the lawsuit, we will need you to provide us 
with information that will establish your "standing" to sue.  In order 
to establish "standing" to challenge the Michigan law, a plaintiff must 
describe in detail why she, her organization, or her customers are 
personally in danger of injury from the statute.  Thus, a plaintiff 
must provide a few specific examples of content that she communicates 
online (or that her organization or customers communicate online) that 
could be deemed "sexually explicit."  After the lawsuit is filed, we 
may ask you for additional information as it becomes necessary for 
various phases of the case.  Most of this information can be provided 
to us by regular mail, e-mail, or phone, so in-person visits will not 
be necessary.

As part of discovery in the case, the defendants may request answers to 
interrogatories (sets of written questions) or may request to depose 
your organization (reserve a time to ask questions orally).  If the 
defendants do request this sort of discovery, it is unlikely to take 
more than a day or two of your time.

Finally, if the case goes to trial, we may need you to testify in 
court.  This, too, is unlikely to require more than a day or two of 
your time.

COSTS AND FEES:

No financial contribution is required for participation in the 
lawsuit.  We will pay the costs and fees involved in bringing the suit.

If we win the suit, we may apply to the court for reimbursement of 
attorneys fees and costs.  If the court ultimately requires the 
defendants to pay fees and costs, the money will go to reimburse the 
legal organizations rather than to the plaintiffs.

RISKS:

There are very few foreseeable risks to participating in the lawsuit.  
You will receive some publicity from your participation in the lawsuit, 
and may receive calls from the press.  (This can be good or bad, 
depending upon your perspective.)  Supporters of CDA and other 
censorship laws have labeled them "anti-smut" laws and imply in the 
media that anyone who opposes these laws must be in favor of protecting 
smut.  We will, of course, fight an derogatory labeling of our 
plaintiffs with reference to the very legitimate content that they 
provide.  In addition, there is a slight chance that the publicity 
surrounding the lawsuit could potentially increase your exposure to 
criminal liability if the law is upheld as constitutional.  That is, 
your participation in the suit might bring your organization to the 
attention of law enforcement who might investigate your online 
communications.

Finally, there is always the possibility that a court will fine a 
plaintiff for failure to respond to discovery or for misrepresenting 
facts.

I mention these risks for the sake of thoroughness; it is highly 
unlikely that you would actually encounter such problems.

A BROAD ARRAY OF PLAINTIFFS:

In our previous challenges to Internet censorship laws we have been 
joined by a wide range of Internet speakers who have acted as 
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs have ranged from the American Booksellers 
Foundation for Free Expression and the Internet Content Coalition 
(whose members include CBS New Media, Time, Inc., and the New York 
Times Electronic Media Company) to art and literature web sites such as 
ArtNet and Salon Magazine as well as safe sex web sites.  In our 
challenge to the New York law, we were joined by an ISP called the 
Public Access Networks Corporation ("PANIX") that feared liability 
under the law from both the web sites it hosted and for statements made 
in PANIX chat areas and newsgroups.  In that case we were also joined 
by an ISP called ECHO that feared liability from both web pages it 
hosted and from statements made in the many "conferences" it provided.

In this case, we hope to have a similar broad array of plaintiffs as 
were present in our previous cases.  We have already spoken with 
several Internet content providers that have agreed to join our 
challenge.  For instance, we will be representing web sites that 
provide safer sex and sex education information such as AIDS 
Partnership Michigan and the SexEd.org web site.  We will also be 
representing web sites that provide art and literature over the 
Internet such as Art on the Net, Web Del Sol and Mark Amerika of the 
Alt-X web site.

Because Grex includes conferences on so many subjects and provides free 
access to all, it would be particularly valuable as a plaintiff in 
demonstrating to the court that the Internet truly is a "virtual 
soapbox" where anyone can have their say.  In part, it has been because 
Federal Courts have repeatedly found that the Internet really is a 
"market place of ideas" that they have held that it is entitled to full 
First Amendment protection.

I would also like to address the concern raised by Mark's discussion 
with his stepfather that their are things on the Internet that children 
should not see.  First, as Mark points out, the law makes "sexually 
explicit" matter illegal, but includes within that definition material 
that adults have a constitutional right to read and send to each 
other.  Speech that might be censored by this law includes art that 
includes nudity, literature and poetry, safer sex information as well 
as the speech that is often unpopular such as that of gay and lesbian 
organizations.  When the Supreme Court faced this issue in ACLU v. Reno 
they held that what adults are entitled to see and transmit to one 
another can not be limited to what is appropriate for a child; the 
Court said that such a result would be like "burning down the house to 
roast a pig."  Thus, this law simply sweeps to broadly.

In the lawsuit we will argue that the primary responsibility for 
preventing children from seeing inappropriate material must rest with 
parents and not with the government.  There are alternatives to 
censorship laws for parents who worry about their children accessing 
sexually explicit material on the Internet, such as filtering software 
and ISPs that have accounts just for children, that allow parents 
control what their children see without having the government decide 
what everyone is allowed to see.  Although filters are not perfect, at 
least they allow adults to make their own decisions about what both 
they and their children will see.