Should Grex Join the Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression?

Nov 6 04:04 UTC 1998

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.

response 2 of 81:

Nov 6 12:35 UTC 1998

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.

response 4 of 81:

Nov 6 16:40 UTC 1998

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.              

response 6 of 81:

Nov 6 17:26 UTC 1998

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.

response 8 of 81:

Nov 6 17:51 UTC 1998

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".)  

response 10 of 81:

Nov 6 21:56 UTC 1998

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).

response 12 of 81:

Nov 7 01:28 UTC 1998

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.

response 14 of 81:

Nov 7 08:06 UTC 1998

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. 

response 16 of 81:

Nov 7 14:53 UTC 1998

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.

response 18 of 81:

Nov 7 15:33 UTC 1998

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. 

response 20 of 81:

Nov 7 18:37 UTC 1998

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.

response 22 of 81:

Nov 7 20:07 UTC 1998

  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.)

response 24 of 81:

Nov 8 03:55 UTC 1998

Beware of right-wingers bearing gifts....