Grex invited to join Vermont Internet free speech lawsuit

Jan 12 19:05 UTC 2001

> I am starting a suit in Vermont against a law similar to the Mich
> law involved in the Cyberspace/Engler case. I would love to have
> Cyberspace as one of the plaintiffs.

This item is for the purpose of discussing, and ultimately voting on, joining this lawsuit as a plaintiff.

The lawsuit in which we are currently involved has about 10 plaintiff organizations, but because of the nature of the Internet, only Grex and M-net among those plaintiffs are Michigan or Michigan-based groups.

If you have questions about the nature of the lawsuit we are presently involved in, and for additional background information, please visit http://grex.cyberspace.org/lawsuit.

response 2 of 49:

Jan 12 22:50 UTC 2001

We're already involved in one such suit, I don't see too much harm in 
joining another.

What I would be concerned with is if Grex or it's officers have to 
testify, they have to go to Vermont to do so, which is a bit of a trek. 
 Not impossible, but you just have to make sure that we have someone who 
doesn't mind driving/flying to Vermont, and being there for however long 
they would have to.

response 4 of 49:

Jan 13 07:52 UTC 2001

It seems unlikely, purely from a strategic standpoint, that we would be a 
lead plaintiff in the Vermont case despite the significant legitimacy our 
involvement conveys.  I doubt we would be called upon to testify 
directly.

response 6 of 49:

Jan 13 19:36 UTC 2001

I'd like to know more details too.  We're more likely to be asked to submit
a written deposition than oral testimony.  We have a draft deposition that
we wrote for the Michigan case that could work as a starting point of the laws
are really similar.  I'd be willing to work on such a document, but I'm not
sure that I could find as much time as I did the last time, but if it's just
a revamping of the old document, then I certainly have time for that.

response 8 of 49:

Jan 14 03:45 UTC 2001

Grex should defintely join this lawsuit...it would be great if people
around the country found out about grex as the great defender of free speech..
the little board that refuses to censor its posts in any way.  

response 10 of 49:

Jan 14 22:56 UTC 2001

I searched various ACLU and Vermont government sites for clues to what this
suit was about, and failed to find anything.

The ACLU wants to show that a broad range of people with different legitimate
interests and agendas would be harmed by this law.  I suspect that they like
us because we are a pretty good representation of (to quote Judge Tarnow's
summary) "the Jacksonian ideal of a marketplace of ideas."

response 12 of 49:

Jan 15 08:22 UTC 2001

   I am in favor in our joining this too, though a little more information
would be nice to have.
   I would be proud to see Grex's continued stance against censorship in
any way possible that we can do.

response 14 of 49:

Jan 15 15:58 UTC 2001

I'm even more opposed to this one than I am to the ACLU vs. Engler suit. 
Grex has no interest at all in Vermont.  #4 makes it clear what Grex's 
goal would be in this lawsuit; getting some publicity.

I don't think Grex should *have* an "editorial voice" the way a 
newspaper does.  I think Grex should be a forum for discussion where 
anyone is welcome, unslanted by having it's own opinion.  By meddling in 
politics, it becomes the case that there is Grex's side, and then the 
other side, when you participate in certain discussions.  I shouldn't 
have to be arguing for or against Grex itself when I participate in 
political discussions.  Some opinions are not as welcome here as others.

I don't think Grex should be letting it's name be used by political 
groups like the ACLU.  The ACLU has no other interest at all in Grex 
other than to have Grex legitimize some of it's operations.  Re #10, I 
suspect they like us because of the name "Cyberspace Communications".  
There are quite a few ACLU members and supporters here, but there's no 
significant presence on Grex by the ACLU itself.  Other than by Michael 
Steinberg, when he wants something from Grex.

I think this is a terrible idea.  If some Grex users want to pursue 
lawsuits in other states, then by all means, they're free to do so, but 
this kind of thing is *not* the purpose of Grex.

response 16 of 49:

Jan 15 18:03 UTC 2001

Indeed.  Needless to say, my view of this is about 180 degrees
opposite from jep's.  Nonetheless, I would like to know more about
the Vermont law before advocating Grex's involvement.

(Incidentally, I'm a little surprised that this battle is being
fought in Vermont, one of whose senators -- Patrick Lahey -- is one
of Congress's staunchest advocates of free speech.  He was one of
the few outspoken foes of the Communications Decency Act in the
Senate.)

response 18 of 49:

Jan 15 19:16 UTC 2001

I agree with Aaron that we may be bound by the Vermont law.  I also
would like to see the text of the law.

response 20 of 49:

Jan 15 20:09 UTC 2001

What effect on Grex would this law have if upheld?  Does it, like the Michigan
law, attempt to cover people outside Vermont whose "harmful to minors"
material is accessed by people in Vermont?  On systems that the public can
post on, does it hold just those doing the posting responsible, or does it
hold the system operaters responsible as well?  When you say it covers
descriptions of "harmful to minors" material, does that mean that if a picture
of a naked woman is considered "harmful to minors," having used the phrase
"a picture of a naked woman" in this sentence would have put me (and Grex)
in violation?

If the answer to my first two questions is yes, then it seems likely that this
law would shut Grex down if upheld, much like the Michigan law would.  In that
case, Grex should sue to block its enforcement.  If the answer to either of
those questions is no, then it's much less clear to me that Grex has any
business being involved.

response 22 of 49:

Jan 16 00:06 UTC 2001

Er, to see Michael...

response 24 of 49:

Jan 16 20:43 UTC 2001

Mr. Bamberger - thanks for responding to this item.  As you can see, we have
a lot of questions.

I'm wondering about the difference between pictures and text.  You said the
changes to the law only affect the transmission of pictures, though the
other sections of the existing law seem broad enough to cover transmission
of text over the internet.  On Grex, we don't allow users to post images, so
we are in no danger of transmitting any harmful images to minors.  Does this
mean that we don't have standing to fight this new law, since we're not
affected by the changes?

I also would like to see the text of the law(s).