|
Grex > Coop11 > #100: Motion: Grex to be a plaintiff against "Internet Censorship Act" | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 95 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 40 of 95:
| 
May 31 23:03 UTC 1999 |
I'll make myself available whatever day. This is extremely important.
|
janc
|
|
response 41 of 95:
|
Jun 1 01:17 UTC 1999 |
I'm available any evening this week.
|
dang
|
|
response 42 of 95:
|
Jun 1 15:35 UTC 1999 |
Me too.
|
mta
|
|
response 43 of 95:
|
Jun 1 20:20 UTC 1999 |
I've cleared the deck for every evening through Friday to be available for
this critical meeting.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 95:
|
Jun 1 21:01 UTC 1999 |
Looks like the meeting will be either Thursday the 3rd or Monday the 7th.
I am waiting to here back from Michael Steinberg.
|
gutchess
|
|
response 45 of 95:
|
Jun 2 05:01 UTC 1999 |
Avoid this lawsuit Grex, you have nothing to fear. I used to like the ACLU
about 20 years ago, but they changed quite a bit since then. Now, the ACLU
considers hard-core pornography to be "free speech".
Saying parents should oversee their children's web surfing, not the government
is a cowardly cop-out from people who mistake "freedom" for "licentiousness".
Yeah, if Grex allows, passively allows, sexually explicit material to be
transmitted to or solicited from minors, Grex should be busted and fined.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 95:
|
Jun 2 05:17 UTC 1999 |
Why? What's wrong with sexually explicit material being transmitted to or
from minors? In all of this discussion, no one has explained the
rationale. What harm does it do? Please be specific. Many minors certainly
engage in sexually explicit speech on their own. Frequent indulgence in
such speech strikes me as rather mindless and stupid, but so is most of
television.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 47 of 95:
|
Jun 2 12:05 UTC 1999 |
Good point. Many years ago, when I was in high school, the parents of a
friend of mine got him a subscription to Playboy. Without re-reading the
entire text of the proposed act, it occurs to me that there are no
provisions for parents who may wish to permit their minor child access to
pornography (although I guess they could claim "educational purpose"). So
jep and gutchess, what about those all-important parental rights?
|
scott
|
|
response 48 of 95:
|
Jun 2 14:01 UTC 1999 |
I think the text of the bill did let the parent or guardian legally provide
such material for educational purposes.
|
aruba
|
|
response 49 of 95:
|
Jun 2 14:06 UTC 1999 |
The board meeting to discuss joining the suit will be Monday the 7th at
7:30 PM. Location TBA.
|
jep
|
|
response 50 of 95:
|
Jun 2 18:15 UTC 1999 |
re #47: I think it's best to let parents have control over what their
kids can access, since no one else in all the world can or wants to take
responsibility for bringing up kids. However, that has been no part of
my argument against participating in this issue. It hasn't been a
factor for anyone in this discussion, as far as I know.
If Grex engaged in a campaign of ensuring kids get unrestricted access
to materials their parents don't want them to see, I'd fight very hard
against Grex. I don't think Grex is so inclined. I don't think I'm
fighting against Grex; I am arguing for Grex's best interests.
|
aaron
|
|
response 51 of 95:
|
Jun 3 16:13 UTC 1999 |
By arguing that it should ignore a statute which would dramatically
change the way it does business, and perhaps put it out of business?
With friends like you, does Grex need enemies?
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 95:
|
Jun 3 16:34 UTC 1999 |
I think it's possible to distinguish between someone who hates Grex, and
me, Aaron. I'll make you a deal, though: if you can get a Board member
or root to say that it is not, I'll leave and never come back to plague
Grex again. If you can't, then clearly you were baselessly attacking
because of your inability to make a point. Okay?
|
aruba
|
|
response 53 of 95:
|
Jun 3 23:38 UTC 1999 |
The board meeting will be in the Kids Room at Zingerman's Next Door on Monday
the 7th at 7:30 PM.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 54 of 95:
|
Jun 4 05:17 UTC 1999 |
Just as long as the board (at least in *that* room) doesn't discuss
anything considered harmful to children! :-)
|
aaron
|
|
response 55 of 95:
|
Jun 4 13:52 UTC 1999 |
re #52: John, I think you need to spend a bit more time thinking, and a bit
less time reacting instinctively to your jerking knee. I did not
state that you didn't mean well -- just that your advice is
misguided and destructive. If you think through the consequences of
the act, you may be able to understand why your suggestions are
being so uniformly rejected.
It's a bit like telling a choking person to follow the folk
remedy of "eating a piece of dry bread." You mean well, but your
advice is entirely misguided.
|
jep
|
|
response 56 of 95:
|
Jun 4 14:48 UTC 1999 |
Oh. I'm convinced now. Thanks for explaining it so well, Aaron!
(heh)
|
aaron
|
|
response 57 of 95:
|
Jun 6 03:14 UTC 1999 |
You will only understand, John, if you make an effort.
|
bruin
|
|
response 58 of 95:
|
Jun 6 20:20 UTC 1999 |
If I don't make it over to Zingerman's tomorrow evening, I would like to
indicate my unwavering support for Grex becoming a part of the ACLU legal
action.
|
janc
|
|
response 59 of 95:
|
Jun 8 03:05 UTC 1999 |
I think I'm going to revise the wording of the motion I originally
proposed as follows:
Cyberspace Communications should continue to act as a plaintiff in the
lawsuit aimed at overturning Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999.
First, since the board has already voted to join the lawsuit, the issue
is not whether to join but whether to continue. I also think this makes
it a bit clearer that a "NO" vote on this would force us to withdraw.
Also it more accurately names the law in question.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 95:
|
Jun 8 04:48 UTC 1999 |
A NO vote on that motion is not a positive action to discontinue. People
could vote NO because they don't like the wording of the motion, or want
some other action, such as a modification of our involvement in the suit.
A NO vote on the motion is only a denial of the motion, and not a YES vote
on a possible opposite to the motion. The motion simply fails if it does
not pass: the failure of a motion is never a positive vote for something
else.
The way to proceed is to change "continue" to "discontinue", and then
everyone will know what they are voting on and the consequence if the
motion is passed. If it (or any other motion) fails, it is the same as the
motion not having been made.
|
scg
|
|
response 61 of 95:
|
Jun 8 05:26 UTC 1999 |
This was discussed at the board meeting tonight. Jan said that he understood
the technical reasons for Rane's objections to the motion, but that he's not
willing to propose a motion to get out of the suit, since he's not willing
to be the sponsor of a motion he disagrees with. The board considered putting
into their motion to join the suit a clause saying that Grex would pull out
of the suit if the members didn't ratify the decision but decided not to,
instead verbally agreeing that if this motion didn't pass they would convene
another board meeting to vote on getting out of the suit. Since nobody
expects this motion to fail, having to deal with it failing was not seen as
very likely.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 62 of 95:
|
Jun 8 12:12 UTC 1999 |
This is a very clear motion; yes means "yes, continue", no means "no, don't
continue". Rane's suggestion fails the test of "Yes means support of the
action", which is a requirement in some ballot wording laws. It is usually
considered confusing and potentially misleading to voters to have to vote "no"
to make something they desire happen.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 63 of 95:
|
Jun 8 14:43 UTC 1999 |
I'm sorry - NO only means that the voters don't want *that* motion - it
does not mean they want something else, unless that something else is
spelled out. It is very bad procedure to put just one unspecified
interpretation on a NO vote on the motion.
I don't understand Jan's reluctance to word a motion that is offered in
order to give the membership an opportunity to countermand the board's
decision. It makes one think that all he wants are "yes members".
It is quite proper and often necessary for a person strongly in favor
of an action to offer a motion exactly opposite to that, especially when
this is the only way to provide an alternative. These are procedures
to faciliate democratic processes. The only reason that most motions
are made by people that favor some action is because that's what they
want.
So, what's the purpose of Jan's motion, which just repeats what the board
has already decided, and is therefore redundant? Is it to determine whether
or not that is what the members really want? If it is, the best procedure
is to give them a choice - a chance to vote against the action.
This is getting to be too wordy.... I will enter a motion to discontinue
particpation in the suit.
|
dpc
|
|
response 64 of 95:
|
Jun 8 15:31 UTC 1999 |
I think Jan's re-wording is fine and does the job. I expect it to
pass overwhelmingly.
|