|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 100 of 183:
| 
Apr 21 01:30 UTC 1995 |
How so?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 101 of 183:
|
Apr 21 04:50 UTC 1995 |
Respectfully, I suggest we obtain and read the opinion before we
base decisions on excerpts or commentators pronouncements. As events
in Oklahoma dramatically demonstrate, anonymity can be misused
in the grossest manner. Collective security vs individual freedom
is an issue of many facets. Together they deserve study that is
hard, and often results in "less bad" choices. Note - "political"
vs personal attacks and malicious damage; "leafleteers" vs an electronic
communication system reaching monstrous numbers in minutes and seconds.
It is not clear how the concepts are controlled by the same principles.
But, I am tired.
|
srw
|
|
response 102 of 183:
|
Apr 22 07:54 UTC 1995 |
It sounds like TS is concluding that the Supreme Court decision
indicates that Grex should permit anonymous posting to USenet.
|
tsty
|
|
response 103 of 183:
|
Apr 22 13:44 UTC 1995 |
I used the word "could," not "should." And I did not specify
any particular arena.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 104 of 183:
|
Apr 23 20:37 UTC 1995 |
No, you didn't specify, but it seemed a reasonable choice of an example.
|
tsty
|
|
response 105 of 183:
|
Apr 24 07:26 UTC 1995 |
Then let's start with memberships.
Except for the final sentence, the "excerpts or commentators pronouncements"
were those of The Associated Press.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 106 of 183:
|
Apr 24 22:56 UTC 1995 |
tsty- facinating. What exactly was this case, and how does it pertain
to anonymity, again?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 107 of 183:
|
Apr 25 10:55 UTC 1995 |
TS, please understand I did not mean to give offense - I have made
the mistake myself of forming opinions about Supreme Court
cases before reading the opinion - and it is done continually
by thousands of people who make extreme statements in the
abortion law area, for example. If the opinion is worth anything
it will have detailed factual statements leading to the decision
by the court. We should know those. I was not (and am not) trying
to sound ponderous and pompous, but can see the effort was most
ineffective. <adbarr digs himself ever deeper>
|
tsty
|
|
response 108 of 183:
|
Apr 25 12:00 UTC 1995 |
I took no offense - you asked for a cite and also a separation (if
there were one) from the cite and me. I provided both, not a
problem.
The case is +probably+ named McIntyre vs Ohio. The total name
was not printed. "Mrs. McIntyre, who died last year, sued (Ohio)
after state officials fined her for passing out anonymous leaflets
opposing a school tax in 1988. Her husband, Joseph, continued the
case."
This decision will affect similar laws in 43 other states.
Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, also is quoted, "(u)nder
our Constitution, anonymous phamphleteering is not a pernicious,
fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and
dissent."
|
adbarr
|
|
response 109 of 183:
|
Apr 25 23:49 UTC 1995 |
Thanks, TS. The opinions are on-line - just have to
remember where -- will let you and this conf know when
I take the time to look it up. - Ok just remembered -
Anonymous FTP:
ftp.cwru.edu
path: /hermes/*
Gopher address: info.umd.edu
Academic Resources by Topic
| United States and World Politics, Culture and History
| United States
| Supreme Court Documents
WWW:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/
thanks to the Internet Yellow Pages .
|
selena
|
|
response 110 of 183:
|
Apr 26 13:31 UTC 1995 |
Wow.. so this means...?
|
ajax
|
|
response 111 of 183:
|
Apr 27 14:54 UTC 1995 |
This means that if you want the actual Supreme Court opinions, you can
obtain them through the Internet.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 112 of 183:
|
Apr 29 00:07 UTC 1995 |
So, what does all this have to do with anonymous accounts, exactly?
|
ajax
|
|
response 113 of 183:
|
Apr 29 03:09 UTC 1995 |
See responses 99-108. Basically, the supreme court ruled on a case
about someone writing or distributing political pamphlets anonymously.
The court said it's ok to do that, even though the pamphlets may include
falsehoods. No direct impact on Grex's anonymity issues; just a related
tangent.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 114 of 183:
|
Apr 30 00:38 UTC 1995 |
Oh.
_Does_ this affect anyone's opinions on the idea of non-verified
accounts?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 115 of 183:
|
Apr 30 19:28 UTC 1995 |
Not me... If a pamphleteer anonymously creates legal trouble for
him(or her)self, nothing can be done. If a grexxer anonymously creates
legal trouble, Grex could be held responsible.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 116 of 183:
|
May 1 09:28 UTC 1995 |
But now there's legal precedent to possibly keep that individual
out of trouble to begin with..
|
lilmo
|
|
response 117 of 183:
|
May 2 04:55 UTC 1995 |
Which one?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 118 of 183:
|
May 2 07:11 UTC 1995 |
The _anonymous_ one.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 119 of 183:
|
May 5 02:43 UTC 1995 |
WHICH anonymous one ??? What I was trying to say is that if the pamphleteer
STAYS anonymous, there's nothing that can be done. You can't prosecute
someone for slander until you know who to charge !! If our theoretical
grexxer slanders someone, or transmits classified or otherwise illegal
information, or copyrighted software, GREX could possibly be held responsible.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 120 of 183:
|
May 7 23:30 UTC 1995 |
But, they knew who was the anonymous pamphletter- they found out.
The court decided that anonymity has some protectable rights covering
it.. unless I'm mistaken.
|
selena
|
|
response 121 of 183:
|
May 8 19:08 UTC 1995 |
<Selena is waylost>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 122 of 183:
|
May 9 02:31 UTC 1995 |
re: 121
Selena - are you referencing sidhe's note about anonymity as a
"right" the law protects? FWIW the question (as I understand it)
is whether anonymity on electronic systems like Grex (connected
to the Internet) is a protected right (legally protected)
based on a US Supreme Court decision protecting anonymity
for persons handing out political leaflets. I do not think
so, but it makes for interesting discussion. There are, to me,
major differences quantitatively and qualitatively between
the two situations. I hope this did not make it worse. It would
be wonderful if we could all be anonymous when we choose -
if only some would not abuse the privilege.
|
scg
|
|
response 123 of 183:
|
May 9 04:41 UTC 1995 |
I don't think that Supreme Court ruling has any bearing at all on this
situation. It applied to the government, and Grex is not the government.
Furthermore, Grex already allows anonymous speech. "Selena" is a prime
example of that. Several months after refusing to identify herself when
she wanted to access the Internet through Grex, she is still here
complaining endlessly about not having been given preferential treatment.
Speaking out in the Coop conference is Grex's equivilant to passing out
political flyers. Using Grex as a base from which to hack into other
systems -- what our verification policy is designed to prevent -- has
nothing to do with free speech. The Supreme Court, as far as I know, does
not claim that there is a right to vandalism, anonymous or otherwise.
|
tsty
|
|
response 124 of 183:
|
May 9 05:50 UTC 1995 |
scg - it applied to PREVENT the gummint from screwing with anon
political statements.
And your implication that because selena wants anon membership
so that she can use "Grex as a base from which to hack into other
systems" is nearly a slandarous and grossly illogical presumption,
on its face.
|