It has been suggested that Grex should publicly support the "Blue Ribbon
Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression" sponsored by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) to the extent of putting a "Blue Ribbon Icon"
on our web page.

A page describing the Blue Ribbon Campaign is at:

    http://www.eff.org/br/

The current excitement about the subject was spurred by the "Child
Online Protection Act" (COPA, also known as CDA II), which was slipped
into law as part of the recent Omnibus Spending Billing, and which is
going into law at the end of this month.  This law is being challenged
in court by the EFF and the ACLU.  The full text of this act is
available at:

   http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/final_hr3783.html

The COPA is definately a restriction on on-line freedom of speech,
though clearly a less drastic one than the CDA was.  In particular,
while the CDA would have shut Grex down completely, it appears that COPA
would have no direct effect on our operations.  Which is not to say it
is innoculous.

The question before us is whether Grex should take an active stance on
this issue by placing the blue-ribbon icon on its web page.  We did so
during the campaign opposing the CDA.  However the board was not willing
to vote on the subject this time around.  The following arguments were
made:

  - Grex is nothing if not a supporter of Free Speech On-Line.
    Promoting free speech is one of our major reasons for existing.
    The "Blue Ribbon" is not really meant to indicate specific
    opposition to COPA, but support for the EFF's campaign to protect
    on-line speech.  It would be positively weird for Grex *not* to
    support the EFF in this.

  - Grex, however, is not a political advocacy group.  We are a forum
    for free speech, a place where opinions of all types and flavors
    can be expressed.  Even if most users on Grex believe COPA is bad,
    that does not mean Grex as an organization should oppose it.  To
    be as open as possible to all points of view, Grex should generally
    avoid having official points of view.  The CDA directly threatened
    the existence of Grex.  On such subjects, Grex clearly must have a
    point of view.  COPA does not appear to directly threaten Grex.

  - As a 501(c)3 organization, Grex is not able to expend a substantial
    amount of its resources in attempting to influence legislation.
    However, this is not really relevant, because putting an icon on
    our web page is clearly non-substantial.  Our joining the protest
    against the CDA was described in our 501(c)3 application as an
    example of the non-substantial ways in which we might sometimes
    attempt to influence legislation.  We could certainly do so again.

  - Some people are convinced the COPA is unconstitutional.  Others
    think it is a straight-forward extension of existing pornography
    laws to the internet, and mostly redundant.  The people I've seen
    express the former position have better legal credentials than
    the people I've seen express the latter.

  - The offical "Blue Ribbon" icon is an ugly animated thing with
    flashing slogans.  It's look would not fit well with our home
    page.  Our home page is so cluttered that it would be hard to find
    room for it.

  - Though the board doesn't normally approve web page designs, the
    board felt that putting something like this on the web page would
    require board approval.

  - The board did not feel this issue required urgent action.  There
    is time for discussion.  Neither the movement to limit freedom
    of speech on the internet, nor the opposition to it is going
    away any time soon.

The board's idea was to start a new item for discussion of this issue
(although some discussion has already occured in other items), and
instead of putting a link to the Blue Ribbon Campaign page there,
putting a link to that discussion item there.

This is that item.

Note that this item will have just a bit more visibility than the
average conference item, since there will be a direct link to it from
our web page.

81 responses total.

Some previous discussion of COPA is in item:agora27,80

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in your constitution, right?
So, if the stand is to be made whether an individual can express his/her
 opinion publicly it can be done without much fear, but not a necessity.
But as I see, this is something else. I wouldn't know what legislation
in the US says about publishing  pornography, with or without commercial
purposes, but if it is a  phelony/crime it should be prohibited, or
certain kinds of publishing  pornographic material are criminallike e.g.
child-pronography, sex with  animals, torture, name them. Still it
should be be prohibited,  regardless what attitude is held towards the
same in other countries.  Those countries got their own legislation on
the matters. Freedom of expression imho does to some extend cover the
publication of  explicit material when this isn't freely accessible to
minors. With this  remark I dismiss possible protection by means of net
nannies and the  like. But, access to it should be as restrictive
(without previews or  whatever)as is common when it comes to paper
publications. Publication of (and putting on the web)of illegal stuff as
mentioned  above, should by all means be treated with the same kind of
penalty as was meant to be. So, I can say that publication of anything
against the law, whether it  be an instruction manual of how to
construct bombs, promoting hatred in  any kind (but most often of racial
signature) or illegal pornography should be persecuted.  Why? Fear for
the decline of freedom of speech by not supporting wouldn't be  the
issue when one takes into account that any legislation in the US, or 
the Netherlands for that matter, hasn't been under threat by 
restrictions and criminizing certain publications; example netherlands: 
legislation concerning child pornography has been changed from 
penalizing trade and dispersion into mere possession. Racist material 
and material that provokes people into racist actions, terrorist type of
 publications are all criminal, and yet freedom of expression is 
guarranteed, with the restriction that we aren't allowed to insult our 
reigning queen.

  Although I feel current laws trying to restrict certain kinds of 
  information on the internet are incredibly poorly written and much
  more likely to deter legitimate and valuable speech than they are
  to stop the intentional and deliberate delivery of "harmful" material
  to children, that's my personal belief and I am content to hold it
  and act on it personally.

  I'm sure an overwhelming percentage of American grexers disagree with
  some or all of the implications of the newly passed law.  Nevertheless,
  I think *Grex* should not take an official public position on political
  matters unless forced to do so;  I do not support adding a blue ribbon
  to Grex's home page.

OK here's another idea.  If not a blue ribbon how about a link on the
home page that says something like "Grex Cyberspace supports free
speech" as a link to page that has links to various organizations
that support free speech rights and even perhaps conservative
organizations that are against free speech for the full range
of opinion?  My main concern is that people be aware that this
issue exists and that they think about the implications of the issue.
I also disagree with the legal opinions that say this doesn't affect
Grex.  We violate the speech provision in the sexuality and gay/les/bi
conferences, and according to some interpretations of CAD we *may*
a commercial organization due to our t-shirt sales, mug sales, etc.
Did we ever get full tax exempt status?  That would ofcourse help us in
CAD based law suit brought against us?  Anyway regardless of Grex's
legal status I think links links to free speech pages on Grex's web page
is the right thing to do for an organization that prides itself on
defending free speech.              

BTW I think the link on the web page to this debate goes a long way
towards getting people to think about this issue. Thanks

I don't think Grex should take positions on political issues of any 
kind.  Individual Grexers certainly have a lot of opinions, as they 
should.  Grex itself has never had what journalists call an "editorial 
voice".  It's place is as an independent forum on which anyone at all 
may express his opinions.  Keep Grex independent.

I'm with jep on this.

Grex can have an "editorial voice" in resolutions adopted by the board. 
Grex was founded on certain principles, and I think it is consistent to
continue to express those principles as an organization. While a tax
exempt organization is allowed to devote a certain proportion of its
resources to lobbying, most tax-exempts whose specific missions are far
removed from political issues usually adopt an "advisory" position. That
is, they provide information and even judgements on the consequences of
proposed rules, regulations, or laws. So Grex would be acting within its
purposes and history to take a position, say, that freedom of speech is
guaranteed in the Constitution and that, in the expert opinion of (this)
forum for freedom of speech, these proposed/enacted laws would suppress
that right.  (Why is speech spelled with an ee, while speak is spelled
with an ea? It should be "speach".)  

I agree that the Board has the right to act.  However, I was asked if 
they should do so, and my preference is that they do not.

I am arguing that they not only have the right, but also the responsibility
to stand up for the freedom of speech rights upon which Grex is founded.
There may be a difference, though, in what you mean by "act", and what I
mean. I mean formulating and presenting an advisory opinion of the impact
of the law upon speech freedom in its many facets. This is not "advocacy"
(although the same principles could be used by advocates in their arguments
to declare the law unconstitutional).

Perhaps being overly partisan might be an inappropriate role
for Grex to strive for, but seems like being a forum for
a vigorous debate about free speech is very appropriate
for Grex.  That's why I changed my proposal to linking
to a page that has links to a variety of organizations that
have different positions on the CDA issue including
ones I find distasteful like the Christian Coalition.

If there were materials for a balanced debate of the CDA
would that allay some of your fears jep?

I do think bringing peoples attention to laws that
may abridge speech is very apporiate on a conferencing
oriented BBS that encourages free & open expression.

I hope that Grex puts the blue ribbon back on the Web page.  It is
true that the "son of CDA" applies only to commercial sites (which
we are not) and that it largely duplicates laws throughout the
country which restrict pornography to adults.  However, the same
people who wanted the high-test CDA got this "CDA lite" throught:
the Christian Right and its allies.  They are always looking for
ways to restrict people's freedom.
        Since there is a free-speech campaign against this new law
(including a big lawsuit recently filed), I think we should take
part.  I suggest we use the still-life version of the blue ribbon
rather than the active one.
        No, our 501(c)(3) status doesn't forbid us from doing this.

I agree that our 501(c)3 status doesn't prohibit us from doing this, but I'm
not at all convinced that that's the issue.

I see the role of Grex's board of directors and staff as to run a computer
conferencing system.  That is, we put up the computers, the network
connectivity, etc, and make sure the system keeps running and the bills keep
being paid, so that there is a place for the users to come and discuss things.
In general, the users don't always agree with eachother, and that's what makes
the discussions interesting.  I'm not sure I like the idea of having those
discussions framed along the lines of who follows Grex's official position
and who doesn't.  I worry that those who don't agree with the official
position on things might then feel somewhat out of place, rather than feeling
free to provide the other side of the arguments as full members of our
community.

Obviously, there are some things that, as an organization, we have to take
a stand on, since they impact the survival of the organization.  The original
CDA would have held us liable for things we couldn't control while allowing
free speech.  Obviously, we had to protest it.  This new bill, on the other
hand, both only applies to commercial organizations, which we aren't, and is
written far more specifically in terms of what it bans, such that it's a lot
less restrictive, although I still wouldn't call it good.  It doesn't affect
us.

I would encourage individual Grex users to protest this law, but I think it's
something that Grex, as an organization, should stay out of as a matter of
policy.

You are describing grex as though it is just a service, and has not
principles. In fact, the role you describe seems to be that of just *staff*.
But there are principles here that go to the heart of what Grex is.

You think the new bill only applies to commerical organizations? It isn't
much of a step, once the idea is accepted, to apply it to any organization
that accepts money. You may think it doesn't affect us right now but
should we look the other way when a menace is afoot? "It doesn't
affect us" has been the beginning of many tragedies in history. 

  Let's not roll out the Niemoller quote just yet, shall we?


  +  I believe that Grex is already doing a fine job supporting free
     speech by providing a volunteer-supported forum for speech that
     is free of editorial influence and bias.

  +  I think that it would set a bad precedent for Grex as an
     organization to start taking official positions on current issues
     no matter how noble the position may seem to even a huge majority
     of Grexers.

  +  To top it off, my personal feeling is that adding a ribbon gif to
     one's web page is just about the shallowest and least meaningful
     form of activism possible.  Considering the much more substantial
     support Grex's board, staff, and contributors lend to the cause of
     free speech by donating their time, their expertise, and their money
     to keep Grex running and available as a free speech vehicle for
     citizens of not one, but many nations, a ribbon gif on Grex's home
     page would strike me as demeaningly superficial.

  Let's support free speech the way Grex has always done -- by providing
  a neutral meeting ground for everyone who wants to come and participate.

Thought this law would not impact Grex simply because we are non-profit
and charge no fees, it would cause very important problems for someone
who wanted to set up a commercial system like Grex.  I think it is
stupid that what we are doing here is only legal because we are
non-profit.  I don't see why pornography laws should be different for
non-profit organizations.

It only takes a ribbon to tie you up

mcnally himself has ventured out on the S.S. *Coalitions* are a major
force in defending civil rights. Individuals acting alone can be brushed
aside. Just doing our thing, no matter how noble it is, does little to
enhance the coalition fighting tyrrany. 

re #15 Well the precedent of taking a stand on this issue has already
been undertaken by Grex when we had the blue ribbon for the first
anti-cda campaign.  having said that I think you do have a point and
that Grex can do this in a more non-partisan fashion. I think the
important thing is a good healty debate on this issue.  I have
far more respect for an informed conserved conservative who is
willing to debate than for people who are afraid to face this issue.
We here at Grex are not afraid to face this issue or we wouldn't be having
this discussion now, so why not have a link to page with a broad spctrum
of opinions to make our debate better informed?

But this isn't the first CDA.  It isn't great legislation, but the problems
with it are quite different, at least from the practical standpoint.  By all
means, form a coalition to oppose it.  Actually, several such coalitions
already exist, and I agree that they are a good idea.  I just don't think it's
Grex's place to be such a coalition.

Furthermore, I'd say that even if the board decides this is a good idea, it
should be put to a vote. We allow the board to run the day-to-day operation of
the system without any big deal, but important issues like this we have put to
a vote of the membership in the past.

  Perhaps not "have to be" put to a vote, but "should be", certainly.

  Anyway, I think my position is clear and I have no interest in 
  engaging in the tired old "slippery slope" argument (which is what
  I *assume* Rane means by "S.S"  Hopefully he's not talking about
  some other kind of SS.)

I did do a little looking for a "balanced" discussion of the COPA on the
web.  I didn't find much.  Lots of strong anti statements, of course.  A
few pages from the religious right smugly congratuating themselves on
getting this passed, and baldly stating that this one isn't
unconstitutional.

Apparantly the court's opinion on the CDA included a statement that a
more narrowly written law might be acceptable.  This is meant to be that
law.

This law doesn't influence Grex because we are not for profit.  As far
as this law is concerned, we can talk about sex all we like.  We could
post pornographic pictures on our web site for all people of all ages to
see.  It's only commerical enterprises that are banned from doing this.

Seems strange to me.  Not many things that it is legal to give away, but
not to sell.  Well, sexual favors and Gnu software.  Maybe it makes a
weird kind of sense after all.

But sexual favors aren't legal to give away to minors, and Gnu software
is a matter of the Gnu license, not federal law.

To some degree, I can actually see that as a good idea.  Let porn be
legal, but allow it only to be given away - never sold or used as an
advertizing come-on.  Decommercializing sex.  Talk about a revolutionary
concept.

Beware of right-wingers bearing gifts....

  as an aside, I think Jan should re-read the GPL if he thinks it's
  illegal to sell GNU software..

My concerns have nothing to do with "balance".  I would also be 
disturbed to see Grex supporting the new law, or the original CDA.

I'm concerned about Grex taking any position on CDA II.  I'm concerned 
about Grex taking up political positions.  What next, endorsements of 
candidates, ballot proposals, and political parties?

Not all Grexers are going to feel the same on this issue, or any other 
issue, for that matter.  For that reason, it is inappropriate for the 
Grex Board to say that Grex has a position on political issues.

It's also meaningless.  No one is going to support or oppose an issue 
because the Grex Board of Directors says Grex has this or that position.

Grex already stands for free speech.  It's a part of the charter, 
mission statement, statement of purpose, or whatever it is that defines 
what Grex is.  That's fine, it's a statement about Grex.  Political 
positions are something else entirely.

All charitable non-profits inevitably take "political positions" because
they have missions and pursue activities that *someone* opposes.
Charitable organizations that feed poor people are acting counter to those
that think poor people should fend for themselves (especially not have
government provide any support). The argument that taking positions that
support one's own mission will lead to "endoresement of candidates, ballot
proposals....etc..." is nonsense. There are clear laws on this, what a
501(c)3 organization can and cannot do, and how much it can spend in doing
what it can do, so the barriers are already there. 

It does not matter that all grexers do not feel the same way on an issue.
It does matter whether a majority of *members* feel one way or the other.
It also matters that Grex has Articles and bylaws that state or imply
certain principles. Within these contexts, it is more than appropriate for
the Grex board to provide advisory opinions on any community (local or
national) issues, which is not advocacy of any political position. I
believe that it would also be entirely appropriate for a resolution to be
adopted by the members, by majority vote, that takes a more direct
political position, while staying within the rules for non-profits doing
so.

It is not meaningless, anymore than each persons's vote in an election is
"meaningless". The public voice is expressed by a huge number of
individual, if you wish "meaningless", voices. When the voice of Grex is
added to the voice of all other individuals and groups defending civil
liberties and freedom of speech, those "meaningless" voices can be heard. 

The fact that Grex stands for free speech *is* a political statement, and
it is consistent for it to be expressed vocally and publicly as well as
mutely in its articles and bylaws and practices. In fact, these beliefs
stated in the articles and bylaws and practices can become meaningless by
not exercising them publicly. 

The individual members, and users, of Grex can adequately express 
themselves, without the direction of the Board.

And so they should, but Grex is also a (corporate) person, and has
the same right. There would not be any direction from the board, by
the way, in regard to how individual members and users express
themselves, any more than the way the US Congress votes give you
direction in your political expressions. 

Having the right to do something, and having it be a good idea, are entirely
different things.

Absolutely right. But they are not mutually exclusive either. I think it
is a good idea, and we have the right. Someone suggested a vote on this.
Would they like to propose that 'officially'? We haven't had any interesting
votes for a long time.

I suggested the vote and I'd only call for it *if* the board decided to do
this.  In the absence of that, I suggest you call for the vote, Rane.

Did you mean to say, if the board decided *not* to do this? If the
board did it, we would not need a vote.

You better believe we would!  We may not want to now, but with this little
consensus, if the board acted, Grexers would react.

Would son of CDA affect publication of the Starr-Lewinsky report?

I think we should have a member vote on this.  Rane, since you seem
to be leading the charge, would you like to post a motion in the
Coop Cf?

I don't feel I know exactly what is being proposed, because I have not
followed the details of CDAII closely enough. If it seems like I am
leading the charge, it is because I perceive that CDAII is repressive
law, and should be opposed. However I would be glad to post a motion if
others would summarize the problem and suggested response again, so that
the motion could be carefully framed.

It seems an odd position to say that it was okay for Grex as an entity to
take a formal position against CDA-I, but it's inappropriate for it to
oppose CDA-II.  Nonetheless, it is certainly true that institutions (and
Grex certainly qualifies) tend to move away from political advocacy toward
neutrality as they mature.  Partly that reflects the tendency for an
institution's constituency to become more politically diverse over time,
and partly that reflects growing focus on the institution's core mission.

I myself have the blue ribbon logo (which is available as a small,
non-moving, perfectly harmless gif) on my personal home page.  I put it up
when the CDA was being considered in Congress, and never took it down,
because threats to free speech are ongoing and not limited to one specific
law or proposal. 

On the other hand, I have never put the ribbon anywhere on The Political
Graveyard, which I would prefer be seen as being above politics.

It would be legal and within Grex's rights to take a position on any
issue.  If a bill were proposed which would put an end to Grex, or
endanger its existence in some way, it would be advisable to alert the
public to this, and such an alert would make no sense outside at least
implied official opposition.

However, outside that limited exception, even on "obvious" issues, it is
preferable that Grex as an entity not take positions.

Oh, in case you want to see them:

     - My personal homepage: http://www.potifos.com/

     - The Political Graveyard: http://www.potifos.com/tpg/

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