|
Grex > Coop11 > #114: Motion to Rescind Board Resolution on Suspending Grex Public Access | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 50 of 203:
| 
Aug 1 03:23 UTC 1999 |
I've said this before, but I don't think that where Grex is incorporated
makes much difference. This law theoretically has equal impact
everywhere on the internet. There are only two reasons that Grex need
be a bit more concerned then other systems:
- We have lots of minors who are Michigan residents as users, so the
chances of Michigan minors seeing sexually explicit material on
our system are a bit higher than for systems elsewhere.
- The board members and assets of Cyberspace Communications are all
located in Michigan, making it easier to prosecute us under Michigan
law.
Moving the system would only help if we also moved the board members and
the users.
|
janc
|
|
response 51 of 203:
|
Aug 1 04:19 UTC 1999 |
I have to disagree with Dave's motion. If the law comes into effect I
see one of two things happening under the current policy:
(1) In the intervening months, we've substantially worked out a
plan for what the system will do. The policy says the system
will shut down until new policies are made, but if we already
have new policies, then that is moot - there would be no shut
down.
(2) In the intervening months, we've found other ways to entertain
ourselves, and so we have no idea what to do. I still think
a temporary shut down is appropriate in that case.
Dave's saying that the wheels of justice grind slow. Well the internet
and the media don't. Here's an imaginary scenario:
The legal system gets suddenly stupid and the law goes into effect.
Naturally there is nationwide shock, and the lawsuit gets lots more
publicity than it has to date. Lots of reporters contact the lead
plaintiff, Cyberspace Communications. John Remmers is invited to
appear on the Today Show. We tell them that we haven't decided what
exactly to do, but will continue running as before while we make up
our minds. (The reporters find someone else to say that the lack of
response by Cyberspace proves that the law isn't as restrictive as we
claimed it was.)
Some geek somewhere sees John on TV and feels majorly pissed off. He
wants to tweek the government and prove how cleverly he can break this
stupid law with perfect impunity. The same news reports that told
him about the law told him about Grex, a place where he can send
Email anonymously. So on the very day the law comes into effect he
finds the nastiest piece of pornography he can find, dials into Grex,
takes out an anonymous account, and mails off his filth to the minor
children of many public officials and newspaper people around
Michigan, attaching a manifesto condeming the law.
The local paper in Boondock County, Michigan prints a story about the
open defiance by people on the Internet of this Michigan law whose
constitutionality was just upheld. The local prosecutor declares that
he personally will bring the rule of law to the Internet and will
find and prosecute the people responsible.
The prosecutor contacts Cyberspace Communications asking for
information about this evil person. We tell them that we have no
idea at all whom it might be, and explain to him that it is our
deliberate policy to allow anonymous people to send Email from our
system. So what does he do? Go back to his constitutents and say,
"Whoops, I guess I can't find anyone to prosecute?" No, he notes
that by our participation in this lawsuit we admitted knowledge that
our system could be used in this way, and yet we recklessly continued
to run without taking any precautions. He also notes that with the
all the recent media coverage that this law and Grex have been
getting, prosecuting Grex would get *him* lots of media coverage.
He prosecutes.
The ACLU leaps to defend us, and brilliantly manages the convince the
state to let us keep running without restriction until the trial. But
meanwhile, Grex is getting even more worldwide publicity as a porn
site. We are flooded by waves of new people, half interested in
seeing all our porn and posting more when they don't find enough, half
interested in bringing the Wrath of God down on us, by doing
everything from lecturing us on our sinfulness to crashing the system.
The system become effectively unusuable. We are forced to put some
restrictions in place just to keep our head above water.
Many people around the world donate large amounts of money to help us.
After months or years, the ACLU finally wins the case. We slip back
into obscurity, and try to put our system back together again.
It's just an imaginary scenario, but I think the only improbable link
in the chain is the first sentance - the one where the law gets upheld.
All the other consequences are pretty much inevitable if you assume
that and if we keep the system open. I think some people would consider
the scenario just fine - rather fun even. This version even has a happy
ending in that the law gets overturned (I just can't get away from
believing that that is inevitable, though if we are starting from the
assumption that it somehow gets upheld, maybe expecting that to be
reversed isn't appropriate). But I don't see anyway that our community
doesn't get tromped, and protecting that is certainly the board's first
duty.
Let's face it. If this law gets upheld, there is going to be *HUGE*
amounts of attention in the world media and on the Internet, and Grex is
going to be right at the middle of it. To image, as Dave does, that in
the middle of that we will be able to continue business as usual while
we calmly discuss what action we should take is absurd.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 203:
|
Aug 1 04:25 UTC 1999 |
That was my one reservation about Grex being involved in this suit. We're
making ourselves a nice, easy target if the law gets upheld. We've even
given away most of the evidence they'd need as a freebie! It's practically
*asking* to get prosecuted, should the challege to the law fail.
|
steve
|
|
response 53 of 203:
|
Aug 1 18:26 UTC 1999 |
Grex is a nice fat target no matter what. There simply aren't many
system like Grex, anywhere.
Our participation in this lawsuit doesn't make any difference.
|
mdw
|
|
response 54 of 203:
|
Aug 1 20:20 UTC 1999 |
If Canada has more restrictive laws on stuff, then it may not be such a
surprise there are so few systems around like grex. Perhaps freedom is
a more rare and precious commodity than we think.
|
polygon
|
|
response 55 of 203:
|
Aug 1 22:28 UTC 1999 |
Re 17. I'm flattered, but not interested in being made Lord Conqueror.
Re 38. What view of mine are you saying is unrealistic? I never
suggested that Grex be shut down over this. Indeed, I only just now
heard about this discussion.
I am well aware (and frequently point out) that someone currently involved
in practicing law has insights not readily available to me.
|
dpc
|
|
response 56 of 203:
|
Aug 2 15:50 UTC 1999 |
I'm glad to see that we're getting the kind of discussion we
should have had *before* the Board adopted its resolution. 8-)
As to the nature of the threat - My opinion has always been
that while Grex and M-Net face *some* threat of prosecution, it
is a minor one. More than 0% chance, less than 5% chance, assuming
that the law is finally upheld. I think this is so because a
prosecutor will want to go after *pictorial* porn, not text-oriented
porn. That's where the porn action is, not the verbal stuff.
While I enjoyed janc's scenario, let's remember that there
was not a "huge" amount of publicity, either when we filed our
suit or when the judge struck the law down. If the law is ever
upheld, there will just be another series of small stories.
There is an earlier Michigan law with which I was closely
involved while I was a staff lawyer for the Michigan House of Reps.
What happened with this law is the best example of what will probably
happen with the new law.
The earlier Michigan law is Public Act 343 of 1984, Michigan
Compiled Laws 752.361-752.374. This is the "adult" obscenity law.
The bill creating it was sponsored by right-wing Senator Alan
Cropsey. I inserted a couple of unusual features in it before it
became law. The purpose of the law was to outlaw the sale of adult
videotapes in Michigan. A second or subsequent conviction of
"obscenity" is a felony with a fine of not less than $50,000
or more than $5,000,000.
Cropsey and the right-wing Christians were absolutely convinced
that the penalties would be so high that no video store would ever
sell adult videos again. Shortly before the law was to take effect,
a lawsuit was filed to stop it from going into effect. A preliminary
injunction was granted. There was a small story about that.
Then, several months later, the judge let the law go into effect.
There was a smaller story about that. So much for the media.
What happened "in the field" after the law went into effect?
A right-wing prosecutor brought a case against a video store dealer
in a Republican county.
The jury acquitted the video store dealer.
End of "crusade against feelthy videos." End of the use of
the law. Adult videos are widely available in Michigan.
Laws are written people for certain purposes. They are
enforced, if at all, because other people want them enforced in
certain ways. This is a "human-driven activity," not one driven
by the abstract language of yet another weirdo porn law written
by some folks in Lansing.
As to Arbornet's "declaration", which I wrote and the Arbornet
Board approved, it says "Arbornet fears that it may be liable to
prosecution under Public Act 33 of 1999....[W]e may have to severely
limit our services or stop our operations altogether if the Act is
not enjoined." These are true statements. We did not say that
we *would* stop our operations, though. No one on the M-Net Board
seriously considered that as our best alternative, either then or now.
Did the Grex Board consult with the ACLU lawyer before it passed
the shutdown resolution? I would think the ACLU might have some serious
concerns about the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit ceasing its operations
without a prosecution having even begun.
|
scott
|
|
response 57 of 203:
|
Aug 2 21:15 UTC 1999 |
I'd personally rather avoid getting into a situation where acquittal is a good
outcome.
|
aruba
|
|
response 58 of 203:
|
Aug 2 21:37 UTC 1999 |
Oh for Christ's sake, Dave, we did not pass a motion to "cease
operations". I would never have voted for such a thing. All we voted to
do was to close public access temporarily while we decided on a plan to
allow everyone to participate in deciding what to do next.
No, we didn't consult with the ACLU lawyers because we didn't have time -
that was why we had the vote in the first place: there wasn't time for the
usual lengthy Grex decision making process.
But now there is. I agree with Jan, that this motion would be better
replaced by one describing a course of action. As it is, if this motion
passed, but no further plans were made, the board would be in a very
awkward position if the law ever did come into effect. So I wish you would
table this motion, Dave, and instead propose a substantive one.
I am the contact person for CCI with the ACLU, so I'll take responsibility
for finding out what their answer is to "would you defend us if we ever
got sued under this law".
|
richard
|
|
response 59 of 203:
|
Aug 2 22:23 UTC 1999 |
It is silly to think that the Michigan State government is going to think
that a little, non-commercial, text-only place like Grex is worth the time
and money to go after. The government no doubt would have limited
resources to enforce this new law, and would concentrate on web sites
offering graphic porno content or pointers to sites that do. The board
seems to have an exaggerated sense of self-importance about Grex. Surely
the possibility of them coming after grex are remote at best, so why go
extremely paranoid and make drastic changes or shut down?
Just keep operating Grex as usual, and if they come knocking, either
follow their suggestions for changes, or fight it. The ACLU or some other
legal advocacy group would probably represent grex pro-bono. Grex could
also start a legal defense fund and raise contributions for that
eventuality. Grex need not go into crisis mode over being in theoretical
violation of a stupid law that may *not* even apply to it anyway.
So why overreact??
|
steve
|
|
response 60 of 203:
|
Aug 2 22:36 UTC 1999 |
You know Dave, you really Don't Get It.
As Mark has said, we didn't vote to cease operations. I don't know
what other language to use. I suppose we could have a meeting and I could
jump up on the table and proclaim this right in front of where you are
sitting, but short of that, I don't know what to do.
To be fair to you, there seems to be an entire boxcar load of similar
individuals on M-Net who didn't get this, either.
It was a fall back position, one that *I* think is only reasonable. If
Grex were to have continued under this law, there might have been changes
in either personell or policies. Why there seems to be a set of people
that doesn't understand that this is *vastly* different from a motion to
cease operations I can't understand. I *can* understand why some don't
like what the board did, but that is (hopefully) a seperate issue from
this misunderstanding you (and others) have.
|
keesan
|
|
response 61 of 203:
|
Aug 3 18:24 UTC 1999 |
I think more non board members should attend board meetings. There was a lot
of well-reasoned discussion about this topic at the last meeting.
|
dpc
|
|
response 62 of 203:
|
Aug 3 19:10 UTC 1999 |
Suspending public access until new policies are made has the same
effect as ceasing operations to the members of Grex' "public".
I'm comfortable with #0 as it is. If is passes, the Board
is free to come up with other ways to address the hypothetical
situation.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 203:
|
Aug 3 22:05 UTC 1999 |
It seems obvious that the point of temporarily closing should that law
have been enacted was to give board members time to resign if they so
chose. thus the motion was in the personal interests of the board
members more than anything else.
Grex should decide ahead of time whether to keep operating, as opposed
to shutting down temporarily and then deciding. If the consensus is to
keep operating even if it might be illegal, any board member can submit
a "sealed" resignation only to take effect the day the law is enacted.
|
steve
|
|
response 64 of 203:
|
Aug 3 22:18 UTC 1999 |
No, the motion was in the interests of the best way to handle a crisis.
Giving board or staff members the option to resign seems the only logical
and graceful way to do that.
I don't think a conditional resignation is sane, personally.
|
mwg
|
|
response 65 of 203:
|
Aug 4 18:38 UTC 1999 |
Actually, an organization with nearly no chance of defending itself would
seem a prime target for a government that wanted to send a scare into
everybody. ("We won!, You're next!")
|
dpc
|
|
response 66 of 203:
|
Aug 4 19:54 UTC 1999 |
Ah! But we have an *excellent* chance of defending ourselves! In fact,
we've given "his grimness" John Engler and his right-wing allies
a small black eye already.
|
scg
|
|
response 67 of 203:
|
Aug 5 06:15 UTC 1999 |
Because of that excellent job of defending ourselves, this issue has become
moot for the time being. That's a good thing. If we were to lose this case,
our chances of defending ourselves would be much less. I don't see that
happening, though.
Dave, so as an attorney, you're asking us to ignore the law? I don't see that
as responsible at all. I can see possibly advising us on some things that
would be good faith approaches to trying to comply, which might be
reasonable. However, that seems very different than telling us, oh, ignore
the law, they're not interested in text anyway. I'm thinking of a case in
Ann Arbor a few years ago, somebody who if I remember correctly was briefly
a client of yours. A UM student named Jake Baker posted a story on Usenet,
in which he detailed a fantasy of raping, torturing, and killing a fellow UM
student, who he identified by name, and of whom the story also contained what
was apparrently a fairly accurate physical description. There was a ton of
media attention, and if I'm remembering correctly, Baker also got thrown out
of the UM, and got in a fair bit of legal trouble with the Feds. Now,
granted, Baker's text based porn piece could have been very easily construed
as a death threat, but it still doesn't give much credence to the argument
that law enforcement isn't interested in text.
|
dpc
|
|
response 68 of 203:
|
Aug 5 14:42 UTC 1999 |
Sure, I represented Jake. Actually, although the Usenet posting got
folks upset, he was actually *prosecuted* for e-mail that he *voluntarily*
gave the cops (prior to my representing him, actually). The cases
are not parallel.
I'm not saying "ignore the law". I'm saying that it's a bad
response to the law to suspend public access, pending new policies,
if the law goes into effect. By this time the Board should have had
these priceless new policies ready to go, anyway. If the law had
taken effect, I expect we were looking at a l-o-n-g suspension.
There are legal issues which were not raised in our federal
lawsuit that could easily be raised in any prosecution of Grex.
For example, to show that stuff posted here is "harmful to minors",
the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
stuff appeals to the lustful interest in sexual stimulation or
gratification of the average 17-year-old minor in a particular
county. It is *extremely* doubtful if any of the text here
meets this test. The "lustful interest" requirement wasn't mentioned
by the ACLU in its brief because it relied (successfully) on the
mere fact of material being *about sex* to convince the federal court
to intervene.
But being *about sex* doesn't establish the *lustful interest*
requirement at all. Can you imagine what the Washtenaw County
prosecutor would have to go through to try to establish that, say,
Valerie's pregnancy diary appeals to lust?
No wonder there aren't any prosecutions of stores for renting
adult videos. The similar requirements in the "obscenity" statute
are just too complicated for prosecutors used to dealing with domestic
violence and drunk driving cases.
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 203:
|
Aug 5 16:12 UTC 1999 |
But even if they couldn't prove it, they could certainly bankrupt us in the
process.
|
aruba
|
|
response 70 of 203:
|
Aug 5 16:39 UTC 1999 |
Valerie's pregnancy diary was not one of the examples we submitted for the
lawsuit, becasue it didn't fit the definition of "sexually explicit material"
in the law. (Though when I told that to Mary, and read her the definition,
she said, "Oh, childbirth is definitely sadomasochistic abuse. Only a man
would suggest otherwise." :))
I am absolutely certain that closing all public access because of the motion
the board passed would not last more than a few days. By the end of that time
people would surely be able to access their e-mail, and at least a few
conference items to discuss what to do next.
Dave, if you want to propose that Grex go on with business as usual if the
law takes effect, why don't you make a motion to that effect, and drop this
one. As it is, if this one passes, it's really not clear what we would do.
|
steve
|
|
response 71 of 203:
|
Aug 5 17:42 UTC 1999 |
Agreed--the closing would have been for a minimal amount of time.
|
dpc
|
|
response 72 of 203:
|
Aug 5 17:46 UTC 1999 |
If my motion passes, the BoD will be perfectly free to do anything
it wishes *except* suspend public access pending new policies.
Since it will probably be months before anything else happens,
I suggest the BoD work *actively* on these new policies, whatever
they might be.
Governance is up to the BoD. I just don't want access
suspended, that's all.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 73 of 203:
|
Aug 5 18:33 UTC 1999 |
If this actually goes to a vote, I will vote against it. Although I'm more
in agreement with dpc about the actual effect on Grex, I think the BoD should
not be hobbled by a resolution that says it can _not_ shut down. While I
disagree with their conclusions, I will vigorously defend their right to draw
them. ;-)
|
steve
|
|
response 74 of 203:
|
Aug 5 20:35 UTC 1999 |
Thank you.
|