response 75 of 111:

May 30 06:58 UTC 1999

Definitions is a dangerous area to wander into.  As speakers of a human
language, we are all more than used to pretty vague non-rigorous
definitions of all sorts of things.  A simple example might be that of
"cat".  Most of us are introduced to this concept as young children, and
we are pretty much given "definition by example".  "See, there's a cat.
Look at the tail.  Cat.  No, don't pull on the tail.  Oooohh, did you
get a boo-boo from the cat?  No, don't hit the cat."  If asked to define
"cat" as an adult, most of us would probably try some sort of definition
like: "furry meat-eating mammal with 4 feet, pointed ears, sharp teeth,
reflective eyes that can see in the dark, and retractable claws".  We
are then left explaining such anonalies as the neighbor's 3 legged cat
which was genetically blind from birth, declawed, and then hit by a car
when chased by a dog.  Ok, so maybe it still has fur and pointed ears,
but then there's the mexican hairless cat breed, and of course the
various wild cat strains that have rounded ears.  We might then appeal
to science for a definition of "catness", and we might have better luck,
at least until we start looking at the fossil record to see what the
first cat looked like.  Even science could be in trouble if next week,
the very shy dwarf antartic sabertooth tiger is found, where it's been
peacefully eating penguins for the past 100 million years, and dodging
man for the past 10,000 thousand years.  Now, a cat is a relatively
simple concept -- imagine the difficulty of trying to define a more
complicated concept, such as "love" or "insanity".

In the legal system, of course, these vague non-rigorous definitions
quickly lead to trouble.  People are always trying to get skirt around
the edge of the law, so all the vague every-day problems of regular
language quickly lead to insoluable quagmires in the semantic jungle of
everyday life.  Lawyers make a lot of money off this whole mess, of
course, but despite all these difficulties, most people agree that law
ought to have a single unambigous meaning, and so considerable effort is
put forth to try to attach a consistent meaning to things.  One common
approach is to try to put an unambigous definition right into the law,
and so, for instance, we have this definition of a motorcycle in
Michigan law:
 "A motorcycle is a two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle which has:
 * A gasoline engine with more than 50 cubic centimeters (cc) piston
   displacement and two brake horsepower; and
 * A top speed over 30 miles per hour on level surfaces.
 A motorized two- or three-wheeled vehicle which meets or exceeds these
 specifications is classified as a "motorcycle" even if it has a working
 pedaling system."
Ok, seems pretty straight-forward, right?  We can look at a vehicle, see
if it matches the above, and if it is, it's a motorcycle.  Clearly, a
Ford Taurus is not, nor is a domestic cat.  On the other hand, a 1999
Yamaha Royal Star Tour Classic, or a 1997 Harley-Davidson FXD clearly do
qualify.  Then, there are stranger objects.  For instance in 1768, a
crazy frenchman built a 3 wheeled steam tractor.  Since it was powered
by wood, and not gasoline, it apparently wouldn't qualify as a
motorcycle, which seems fair enough.  On the other hand, the
three-wheeled Davis automobile, made in Van Nuys, CA 1947-1949,
apparently does count as a motorcycle, even though it has an enclosed
body and looks rather more like a car than a motorcycle.  (There are,
apparently, 4 of these strange vehicles in Michigan, more than in any
other state in the union.) On the other hand, you can purchase an
electric motorcycle from eCycle, which, since it doesn't have a gasoline
engine, apparently wouldn't qualify as a motorcycle in Michigan.  You
can also obtain a propane powered motorcycle from "ATV-USA", although
I'm not sure how street legal these would be.  Or, you could certainly
convert most any motorcycle to burn propane; the technology is not hard,
and in Calfornia, it seems there would even be a tax advantage.  In
michigan, the result would appear to be in a sort of legal limbo.  A
diesel engine might be more of a challenge on a motorcycle, since diesel
engines have a narrower RPM range and are usually heavier.  A truely
scary concept would be a gas turbine powered motorcycle; I heard they
make really small gas turbines for certain military drones.  A gas
turbine introduces the exciting prospect of roasting pedistrians who are
careless enough to cross the street behind your "motorcycle" at a
traffic light, or of suffering a flameout from sucking in a stray
McDonalds food package on the highway.  Rocket assist could also be
entertaining, especially for passing on narrow country highways.

Getting back to SEAHTC.  I agree, the phrase "harmful to children" is
wondrously ill-defined.  The legislators did make an effort in the bill
to define what they meant by "sexually explicit" in sec.3 of the bill.
There are several sources for definitions that would matter in this
context.  The first definition that matters is what an irate parent,
upset at what what their child has found on grex, might define as
SEAHTC.  This definition is most vague, because there are likely to be
individually as many different definitons are there are parents in
Michigan.  Nevertheless, this definition is important because it defines
the first increment of pain for grex.  The next definitions that matter
are whatever the state police (or other law enforcement agency) use, and
whatever the state prosecutors decide to use.  These agencies are likely
to pick a definition that is more consistent.  These agencies, being
political animals, are also likely to involve a certain amount of
"public policy" (or governmental agenda) in deciding what definition to
use, as well as in generally deciding which cases to pursue.  The agenda
is likely to include some mix of responding to complaints (oil the
squeaky wheel) and doing what will read well in the newspapers ("being
tough on crime").  The final arbitrator of what SEAHTC means is, of
course, the court system itself.  The courts are, however, not likely to
work very hard at redefining SEAHTC.  Instead, they are likely to rely
on what the legislators said when they composed the law, as well as
arguments of the prosecutor and defense, which may include references to
past decisions, or other random material, in deciding what the "fairest"
definition of SEAHTC is.  Historically, the courts have had a tough time
deciding what is actually obscene.  A good part of the problem here is
that this is very much a subjective impression -- what is obscene to one
person, may be a matter of everyday speech to another.  (For example;
much of the material on the Nixon tapes can't be broadcast on TV/radio
because it contains a very high percentage of "the 7 words you can't
say".) SEAHTC is likely to be even harder for the courts to decide.

I don't think exactly what SEAHTC gets defined as actually matters all
that much to grex.  Unless SEAHTC is defined so narrowly as to be
practically impossible, even by someone deliberately trying to create
it, it seems to me that grex runs a significant risk.  The more narrow
the definition, perhaps the less the risk for grex, but the harder it is
to determine the definition, the more expensive and problemmatical it
becomes for grex.  The penalities are pretty stiff here; I don't think
anyone on the grex staff or board wants to see any user on grex become a
convicted felon because of their activities here, and I'm even more sure
that nobody on grex staff or board wants to be held responsible as well,
and also become convicted felons.  There are also the matters of the
court costs, and legal fines, which could well be higher that the fines
directly provided for in the bill, not to mention the possible jail
time.  Basically, we don't want to go there, and that applies even if we
managed to win every case that ever happens involving grex.  (Going to
jail for a case you ultimately win on is still a big drag.) That means,
this bill puts us under heavy pressure to develop a local formulation of
SEAHTC that is not just a strict interpretation of whatever the courts
decide it means, but instead to develop a very elastic expansive local
definition that is basically the *union* of all the possible definitions
an irate parent might decide to apply to grex, to avoid even the least
possibility or risk of a felony investigatino of grex.  And that is the
most dangerous part of this bill; not what it directly implies to us,
but what it might inspire us to do to ourselves, to avoid the least risk
of being prosecuted under this bill.

response 77 of 111:

May 31 13:52 UTC 1999

time, once again, is my problem in this conference.  I was writing a response
(after reading all the responses since my last post up there) and got logged
off the system for being idle.  I've not masteres the art of off-line writing
and uploading my response.

IAE, mor my part I hope Grex joins this suit, but I hope _many_ others are
solicited as plaintiffs.  The don't have to have servers in Michigan (do
they?).  Once they're are on the internet and conducting
"business"/communications in Michigan they could become subject to this law,
or am I way off base on that one (that might be where the fed supreme court
may come in as well).  Even so, there are lots of ISP's and other systems
operating within Michigan who should become party to this not just to deflect
liability from Grex as a plaintiff, but to demonstrate a much stronger case
for freedom of speech than a few thousand people, mostly in Ann Arbor.

response 79 of 111:

May 31 16:46 UTC 1999

Right, there will be a longish list.  If past experience with these
suits is any guide, Grex' name will appear in the media only twice,
if at all: first, on the filing of the suit, and second, when it's
decided.

response 81 of 111:

May 31 20:29 UTC 1999

I'm curious of whether the guys with the Davis three-wheel cars pay motorcycle
liability insurance rates (generally lower than cars when I was buying it)
and licence plate fees.

response 83 of 111:

Jun 1 04:35 UTC 1999

So the text of the bill seems to say:
    (f) "Internet" means that term as defined in section 230 of title II of
 the communications act of 1934, chapter 652, 110 Stat. 137, 47 U.S.C. 230.

umm, `internet' was defined in 1934?

response 85 of 111:

Jun 1 13:07 UTC 1999

re #83: Sure. Al Gore was a busy boy back then.

response 87 of 111:

Jun 1 15:11 UTC 1999

Re #83:  I wondered about that too...

Re #84:  Engler has been governor for 8.5 years.

response 89 of 111:

Jun 1 18:59 UTC 1999

Mr. Steinberg also pointed me to the ALA vs. Pataki case he mentioned 
above as a good model for how he thinks this one will go.  The key 
document to look at is the Brief in Support of a Motion for Preliminary 
Judgement, which can be found at:

http://www.aclu.org/court/alavpataki.preliminary.html

response 91 of 111:

Jun 1 20:04 UTC 1999

We might look at the back room at Gypsy Cafe or the meeting room at Crazy
Wisdom.  I don't think CW is quite up to speed yet at it's new location --
but Gypsy has a back room where they regularly have bands -- so it should be
big enough.

(And reasonably quiet if we can resere it.)

response 93 of 111:

Jun 2 04:52 UTC 1999

To Marcus Watts: on and on you drone
To Paul Kershaw: perhaps you are sickly
To David Cahill: the standing issue is important and I'm glad you admit Grex
                 may not qualify.
To Steve Gibbard: I favor your approach and attitude of finding examples of
materials that might be considered "sexually explicit".
To Mike Gardiner: You say if this law takes effect unchallenged Grex could
not continue to function in any worthwhile way."  I find this impossible 
to believe.
To Aaron Larson: You say Grex would chage a lot if this law were fully
enforced."  Again, I find this hard to believe.
To John Ellis: hang in there, you are a righteous fellow.
To Jan Wolter: You said you feel Grex might be liable if a minor used Grex
then used lynx to access a porn site...  The porn site would be liable at the
transmitter of the sexually explicit material.

Before you let the ACLU get your panties in a big bunch, consider the
phrase in the law, under Section 6e, Exceptions to who can send sexually
explicit material:  Under this law "ANY PERSON CAN TRANSMIT sexually explicit
material FOR ANY LEGITIMATE medical, scientific, governmental or judicial
purpose."  

Does Grex want to lend its good (?) name to this suit which REALLY protects
the really hard-core porn sites, and the fairly hard-core porn sites, and the
soft-core porn sites.

As Rand says: Let them prosecute Grex.  I have not visited "flirt" but I
really doubt Grex has anything to fear in terms of being prosecuted as a
transmitter of sexually explicit material.  Why would Grex allow that anyway?

response 95 of 111:

Jun 2 07:12 UTC 1999

I very much doubt much if any of the material on grex would qualify
under medical, scientific, govermental, or judicial purposes.  6e is a
nop so far as grex is concerned.

This suit and the law have nothing to do with hard core porn sites.  If
anything, the law favours hard core porn sites.  These sites are nearly
always for-pay, over-21, and are segmented in such a way that the big
bucks go to the "age check" organizations, while the actual porn is
distributed by small well distributed (high redundancy) organizations
which is where most of the risk would be.  The legal risk these sites
have is minimal, & by eliminating competition (from free sites that
can't afford to do the checking), this law is actually beneficial to
them.

If you reread my responses above, you will discover I posted a number of
actual examples of things actually happening on grex that pose a much
greater risk than someone merely using lynx to access a porn site (which
by itself seems more than slightly useless, since porn sites aren't big
on text.)

response 97 of 111:

Jun 2 13:58 UTC 1999

I spoke with Mr. Steinberg again this morning.  We agreed on Monday at 7:30
to have the meeting, but I still need to find a place.  Misti suggested
Gypsy Cafe - I'll look into that.  Anyone else have a suggestion?

response 99 of 111:

Jun 2 14:47 UTC 1999

Matthew says:
>To Jan Wolter: You said you feel Grex might be liable if a minor used Grex
>then used lynx to access a porn site...  The porn site would be liable at
>the transmitter of the sexually explicit material.

I said in response resp:11 of this item:
>If some minor dialed into Grex, then used lynx to access a porn site, then I
>think this law would protect us.

I think you misread what I wrote.

Matthew says:
>I really doubt Grex has anything to fear in terms of being prosecuted as a
>transmitter of sexually explicit material.  Why would Grex allow that anyway?

The law clearly includes text material.  It is clearly possible for any of
our 26,000 users to anomyously post such material on Grex.  Are you assuming
that if we said it wasn't allowed, none of the 26,000 users would ever post
such material?  Unless we take reasonable measures to enforce such a rule,
having the rule would not protect us in a lawsuit.  Would you like to describe
how we could enforce this rule without making major changes to Grex?  Recall
that we cannot transfer the liability for posting such a material to the person
posting it unless we can identify that person, and that given our registration
procedures, many of our users are unidentifiable.

Or are you saying that although material that is clearly illegal under this
law is sure to appear on Grex, the odds are against anyone ever actually
prosecuting us under this law, so we can blithely ignore the whole thing.
If so, can we depend on you to pay $10,000 or serve two years in prison if
you happen to be mistaken, or do you think taking such risks is the natural
duty of Grex's board members?