Whether a community network properly has a role in supporting or opposing the
provisions of the Commmunications Decency Act provisions of the 1996
Telecommunications Reform Act? This means the corporate body of the community
network, and implies nothing about the individual stands and opinions of the
directors or members.

16 responses total.

Most non-profit charitable organizations eschew advocacy, since that is
not their stated purpose. However most such organizations also have an
area of expertise, about which they can declaim. For example,
environmental non-profits testify to the probable effect of various
actions upon the environment. I don't see why a community network should
not testify upon the effect of the CDA upon community networking. The most
obvious areas of serious impact are discussions of health issues
concerning "controversial", but legal, activities involving abortion,
sexuality, birth control, etc.  At an extreme from that, I don't see as
clearly what information a community network has about "smut" that they
can advance, so it would seem that such freedom of speech issues would be
better left to organizations primarily concerned with that (e.g., ACLU). 

While I agree that most non-profit charitable organizations eschew advocacy,
since that is not their stated purpose, I think that no matter what the field
such an organization is operating in, the possibility always exists that 
local, state, or national government might consider passing/repealing a law 
that directly and negatively affects the very goals that such an organization
claims are its aims. In such a situation, I believe it is not only appropriate
for a non-profit charitable organization to advocate, but it is their duty
to do so, for if they did not then they would not remain true to their stated
goals.

If we own ourselves, should we not make that clear in our representations to
our constituents? Those are both good and sincere and intelligent answers.
Still, I am perplexed about who we are, and what we are. I, for me, for
myself, as an individual, will gladly man a flame-thrower in defense of
free-speech, but is that translatable to representing a community
organization, with constituents that may, rightly or wrongly but legitimately,
disagree with me on -- say abortion or AIOS information, or whatever? Do we
need to be sure our positions on these issues are clear, assuming we have
positions on these issues?

When you wish to take a stand, you should consider carefully where to
stand. The solid ground for charitable non-profit organizations is
narrowed considerably by their tax deductible status, which requires
at most a minimal effort devoted to influencing legislation. Short
of attempting to influence legislation, a charitable non-profit is
free to adopt policies and resolutions, stating what they believe
(for example, in the First Amendment). And, it is also free to
testify to the extent of its knowledge on germane matters. But this
will require a majority agreement of the board of the organization (with
suitable legal counsel).

A good example is the ACLU itself. It is a charitable, non-profit
tax-exempt organization. It never attempts to influence legislation.
However, it is quite free to litigate any *existing* legislation, and
it does so with great effect. It is also free to observe in advance
that particular legislation, if adopted, would, in their opinion, have
such and such effect or stand in such and such contradiction to existing
legislation. These positions do not advocate directly for vote by
either the legislatures or the public on issues before them, and hence
do not constitute attempting to influence legislation.

If the community has good leadership (primarily on its board, from
which backbone must come), it should be able to act as a democratic
platform for all views on all matters. If it can do that, it would 
(it seems to me) be fullfilling its purpose. It would also, in many
ways, acting on an advocacy of rights of free speech and assemply. 

Rane, that is an excellent analysis. Without your permission I will ask our
board to comment. New Hampshire results may increase the urgency of this
question.

        Grex, however, is *not* a charitable non-profit; simply a Michigan
non-profit.  Ergo, I would hope that the Cyberspace BoD would advocate
strongly against the CDA.
        HVCN, of course, is a BoD of a different color.

Grex's bylaws or articles somewhere state that Grex is not to conduct itself
in any way inconsistent with that which would entitle it to 501(C)(3) status.
We perceive ourselves as charitable, even if the IRS hasn't recognized it
officially yet. We are planning to file for 501(C)(3).

I still think it can do it if the EFF and the ACLU can. 

I think Grex can too, though I no longer think it has a prima facia case.
Grex's service to the public is mostly passive - just being there to be
used. There is little Grex does that is purposeful activity to carry out
functions that would otherwise be provided by (local, state, federal)
government, the strongest case for exemption. 

I think, subject to your tax advisors, that Grex still has a shot at tax
exemption, but I question whether the board wants it, and more importantly,
will make the decision. 

I don't question those things. I think the board does want it, and I'm hopeful
that it will now be applied for.

There are 600,000 501(c)(3)'s in this country.  They perform a bewildering
array of functions.
        My favorite group for those urging the "functions that otherwise
would be provided by government" test is Ann Arbor's local Student Advocacy
Center, which was until recently housed in the NEW Center on N. Main.
        The SAC is the brain child of Ruth Zweifler.  It's *entire* reason
for being is to be a pain in the ass to school systems (government agencies)
which deny students their rights.
        They are plainly performing an *anti*-goverment function.   8-)

Don't tell anybody, but so is the Internet. The hope is they won't find out
until to late.  Then we will have an orderly, but very wild, party!

A couple of days ago I saw a demo of how some of this new parental control
software is going to work (for television and Internet content).  There
were a number of topics including sexual content, violence, language,
etc., with slide controls whereby you could set the degree you wanted to
filter and vary it for different types of offensive content. 

This is really a nice tool to be able to offer parents. I wouldn't have
used it but I think a lot of folks will. Had the industry voluntarily
offered this years ago I don't think all this heavy-handed legislation
would have come about.  There wouldn't have been the need. 

It would be interesting to see if the advocates of CDA and other measures,
will support the development and refinement of this technonolgy. Are they
really trying to protect children, only? If so, and this thchnology works,
then the need for oppressive laws is lessened. I doubt it wlll happen.

Hello I hear that CDA rule is turned down. Beside the rule does not have
any jurisdiction outside USA. Best regards (AW)

Yes, it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. However,
there is a large contingent of congressmen and senators who feel that we need
such a law. They plan on introducing new legislature in the upcoming session
of congress. The new legislature will be reworded so as to avoid the
constitutionality issues, but can still be harmful to free speech.
We must remain vigilant on this score. The war is not won.

You are correct that the law's jurisdiction does not exceed the boundaries
of the US, but do not feel complacent. It will be very influential on other
governments around the world. Germany is particularly agressive in its efforts
to limit speech on the net. 

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss