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?

response 101 of 111:

Jun 2 15:19 UTC 1999

I'm thinking the usual room may be too small.  I don't know how many people
will show up, but I can easily imagine there being more than will fit into
our usual space.