|
Grex > Coop7 > #128: Web-Page Building on Grex |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 382 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 125 of 382:
| 
Dec 30 13:54 UTC 1995 |
Well, my version is designed to:
a) protect cowardly board members (That's me!)
b) if we do get involved, we would have a good chance of getting some support
from those organizations like ACLU that have promised to fight. If the local
prosecutor gets our system shut down because of an indecent Web page, we have
a pretty clear example of the "jack booted thugs in the black helicopters".
|
mdw
|
|
response 126 of 382:
|
Dec 30 21:22 UTC 1995 |
Sorry Greg - but so far, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the
"black-booted" thugs theory of prosecution just ain't so. Not that the
gov't doesn't *want* to do so (undoubtedly, there are many in gov't that
would love to do just that), but incidents like SJG do have an effect;
and these days, the evidence is that even in the case of small and
relatively poorly defended systems, the gov't will generally make an
effort to find the actual persons responsible, rather than holding the
whole system responsible.
|
aaron
|
|
response 127 of 382:
|
Dec 31 01:15 UTC 1995 |
With the notable exception of situation where they believe the owners
of the system know of the illegal activity and profit by "overlooking"
it. A couple of "upload/download" system operators have been prosecuted
despite their claims that they "didn't know" they had substantial traffic
in child pornography, for example. The situation on Grex is very
different, of course, save for the clear lesson that willful ignorance
is no defense.
|
gregc
|
|
response 128 of 382:
|
Dec 31 03:00 UTC 1995 |
Re: #126 & #127 Mdw & aaron,
If the situation has turned around as you say, then I'm very relieved
to hear it. It's just that I read of several incidents, both before and
after the SJG incident that essentially involved someone being served
a warrent, a truck was backed up, and all their equipment was confiscated.
I havn't heard of any such incidents lately, but I havn't had USENET
access for the last year. Lack of their appearance in the regular new
media doesn't mean they're not happening, just that it's more likely
the regular media is bored with them.
|
scg
|
|
response 129 of 382:
|
Dec 31 18:51 UTC 1995 |
So, Aaron, what do you suggest that we do about this situation? In reading
what you say about several different points of law, some of what you say seems
to say that, as a non profit that certainly isn't making any money from this
sort of thing, we have nothing to worry about, while some of the other things
you said made it sound like we do. When evreything you said is put together,
and weighted against eachother, what is the situation then?
|
mdw
|
|
response 130 of 382:
|
Dec 31 19:52 UTC 1995 |
I've heard of stories where the systems are just shut down, for a short
period of time, while the authorities try to trace the particular person
or persons.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 131 of 382:
|
Dec 31 21:22 UTC 1995 |
Politicians pass laws. Politicians are sensitive to voters. Unless we are
thinking about some method of non-compliance that is illegal, possibly even
treasonous, why don't we attack the problem where it is vulnerable? Not as
much fun, I admit, but ultimately more effective.
|
mdw
|
|
response 132 of 382:
|
Dec 31 23:32 UTC 1995 |
Think it through, & look at the side effects, first.
Interesting that you should mention "treasonous" - truely the last
vestiges of liberty will be gone in this country when people can be
accused of treason for expressing the wrong combinations of words and
ideas in public.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 133 of 382:
|
Jan 1 10:52 UTC 1996 |
Of course. Just trying to cover all bases. It is an exageration to get the
attention of people who might seriously consider a conspiracy to break the
law. I see little merit in such an approach to problem solving. I don't like
the (proposed) law either but working to change it makes more sense than
planning on violating the law. I understand the emotional tug towards
non-compliance but I am clueless about the rational basis for such a proposed
course of action. If Grex does choose the course of conspiring to break the
law for this or some similar purpose I would never be able to become a member.
A free and open system is one thing, and a good one, but a system that commits
legal suicide in the name of allowing children access to sexual content, when
that (may become) is against the law, is beyond my understanding.
|
mdw
|
|
response 134 of 382:
|
Jan 1 13:07 UTC 1996 |
Only way to deny children access to sexual content, is to forbid
children. EPCA keeps you from censoring private mail; hormones in
adolescents guarantees you have an intrinsic & inescapable problem.
Would you care to be the person who tells Selena she can no longer use
Grex?
|
jazz
|
|
response 135 of 382:
|
Jan 1 13:59 UTC 1996 |
A nice compromise would be a system of hidden "tags" signifying adult
content mandated in American sites - much like some of the current WWW
parental security packages search for keywords - and some sort of software
standard that went along with these "tags" and restricted access based on
certain settings. That way people using the software take the responsibility
for setting just what it can and cannot see - and there is a reasonable
argument that if parents do not wish to have any involvement in their
children's activities - or exercise any control over them - then the general
public cannot be expected to be surrogate parents for their children.
I'm not really keen on the idea, but it does protect our freedoms.
|
srw
|
|
response 136 of 382:
|
Jan 1 16:14 UTC 1996 |
Consider this analogy. There are adult bookstores. There is even an adult
video section over in one corner of Video Watch. Free speech is protected
because we allow publishers and filmmakers to put whatever they want there.
But jazz suggested that the bookstores and Video watch should not be expected
to be surrogates for parents. The law absolutely requires that they be.
You cannot legally give a minor access to that material in Michigan.
I think we need to face the fact that the American People and the people of
Michigan feel that parents are entitled to this level of protection for their
children in all aspects of society, and that would include Grex.
I am talking about legally "obscene", not "indecent" material.
|
aaron
|
|
response 137 of 382:
|
Jan 1 18:27 UTC 1996 |
re #129: Hardly. If Grex were to transform itself into such a system,
regardless of fee, it would subject itself to the same risk.
The fee is used as evidence that the "ignorance" of the staff
to illegal transactions is willful; it is helpful to the
prosecutors, but not necessary.
re #130: As your colleagues as ITD can tell you, after the Jake Baker-
related "searches" of ITD-controlled data, the authorities have
a very limited understanding of what they are looking for and
of what it means. They are better served by seeking the
cooperation of system operators than they are by shutting a
system down and trying to figure out what data means on their
own.
Of course, cooperation goes both ways -- the system that takes
a cooperative approach from the start is more likely to find
itself up and running through an investigation than is a system
that is hostile or obstructive toward investigation. (This is
not an argument to "give up the farm" -- but when the agents come,
warrant in hand, to allow them to execute the warrant with
minimal disruption to the system, which may mean assisting them.)
re #131: The problem is, the votes are on the side of hysteria. It isn't
cool reasoned argument that gets voters into a frenzy.
re #134: Some problems don't belong to the system. Private exchanges of
kiddie porn on AOL have resulted in the prosecution of the
private parties involved, not of the system.
re #136: The laws, with regard to minors, speak of "pornography." Obscene
material is illegal not only for transmission to children, but
for transmission to adults.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 138 of 382:
|
Jan 1 21:52 UTC 1996 |
This is the saddest thing I've yet to read here.
I would only support the closing of web pages that use excessive
bandwidth, no matter the content. We can NOT go picking on any page due to
content and look ourselves in the mirrors and say, "we run a system
dedicated to the principle of free speech." If we focus on the problem,
and not the content, then we can solve the problem, without jeopardizing
the principles we have here. The problem- Web pages that eat too much
bandwidth. The solution- nix any that violate a set bandwidth limit. It's
simple. It's fair. It doesn't kow-tow to anyone's tastes; not
Conservative, liberal, yours, or mine. In that, we can all feel safe to
express ourselves here, as we always should. Isn't that what Grex is
actually about? Free expression?
Take care of the technical problems. Leave the personal calls to
the persons involved.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 139 of 382:
|
Jan 1 21:53 UTC 1996 |
Like Misti, I wouldn't have minded had my minor son wandered
into alt.sex.whatever and I certainly wouldn't have held anyone else
accountable for making it available. But that's my style of parenting.
There are other parents who feel differently and I must respect their
choice, at least to a point. An example:
If I lived on a nice big lot in a subdivision and decided to put in an
in-ground swimming pool, I'd be obligated to purchase a fence and enclose
the pool to keep neighborhood kids from easily gaining access and drowning.
It doesn't matter that it's my property and that the fence will spoil the
esthetics of my beautiful landscaping. I'd have to fence the pool.
Now, parents would still be responsible
for instructing their children not to sneak into my pool. Parents would
still be expected to watch their children. But, by installing the pool I
created an attractive nuisance; children love pools and children will be
children. I have an obligation to attempt to keep kids from drowning
in my pool.
Grex, in keeping sexually specific and erotic material easily available,
is maintaining something like an attractive nuisance. I'd like Grex to be
able to offer users who want such items or files available an appropriate
venue. I don't want folks to be told they can't hold any discussion
unless the topic is appropriate for all ages. I don't want to see the
staff become responsible for killing responses based on content. A
user-defined adult discussion area is maybe the best next step. And, yes,
the users should be encouraged to decide if their item or file is "adult"
material. Not porn police.
And I gotta tell 'ya, I just hate arguing this position. It is a type of
ageist censorship and it will lead to at least one quasi-closed
conference. I was hoping we'd never have to deal with it. But we do.
And I first realized we would when I thought through why I wouldn't run
for the last Board election - liability concerns. I respect those who did
despite knowing this volunteer activity came with a risk.
For Grex to thrive we need a qualified Board of Directors to serve as
leaders. I don't want to see the candidate pool dry up (sorry) because we
refuse to be sensitive to issues such as this.
We will have to be careful not to go too far. But to do nothing at this
point would be foolish. Again, use a light touch and resist formulating
changes to foster a moral agenda.
|
mdw
|
|
response 140 of 382:
|
Jan 1 23:43 UTC 1996 |
One of the things that strikes me about the laws & such, is that the
courts have always had a great deal of difficulty in deciding what is
"obscene", and have found it nearly impossible to define "indecent".
That is not very surprising. Obscenity is nearly by definition a
"community" standard, & hence, at best, a subjective standard, making it
a bad fit with very notion of objective law. "indecent" speech is
worse; there are many people (Richard Nixon is an outstanding example)
who in their everyday speech salt their speech with expressions many
other people find indecent. If you want those people's views, you have
to tolerate some amount of that "salt". If you don't allow those people
to speak, then you don't really have free speech.
Newspapers & broadcast radio & such present a somewhat different
picture. Here you have presumably trained people who are seeking to
reach a wide audience. The training presumably means they have the
ability to find alternate ways to express their views, & seeking the
wide audience means they have every incentive to do so - not just to
avoid upsetting people, but more importantly, because "salty" language
is usually just less effective than more specific and better directed
language.
Radio is special in that it's presumed to be scarce territory that
"everyone" has to share, with little choice or alternatives. And here,
the FCC, rather than treading the nightmare of trying to define all
"indecent" speech, has come up with specific standards. The "7 words
you can't speak" business.
In the case of video watch, television, & movies, you've got something
else there - private voluntary efforts. In the 1960's, you did not see
the human navel on US TV. There was no law against broadcasting
pictures of the human navel, then or now, and indeed, the human navel
was frequently seen on the big screen without, apparently, much fuss.
The reason is the US TV industry had decided on voluntary standards much
stricter (and rather more arbitrary & even stupid) than what the law
required.
Video watch is merely continuing the same kind of "voluntary" practice,
because they feel it's the best way to make their customers feel
comfortable. If you go to the borders at the same mall or shopping
plaza, you will find books containing virtually identical material,
mixed in with all the other books, with little if any effort made to
separate them out, or restrict their sales to minors. Apparently,
people who read can better be trusted to avoid material they will find
offensive on their own. Even in video watch they don't keep any
permament records of identity or uh.... but wait - what *do* they do
with that video card? Borders really does make a nicer example of trust
and intelligence.
Even those these many things differ, there is still a consistency within
each - you can see a definite idea on what they're doing, & why, &
they're really quite consistent.
What makes grex different - what makes grex be the system it is, is the
open newuser program. No registration, no verification. 15 years ago,
most BBS systems ran that way. Few do today, but there's an unrelated
reason why - most systems can't aren't willing to invest the time &
effort to find other solutions to deal with user caused technical and
social problems. What we've done on Grex until now, and what we've done
with considerable success, is to put the ultimate responsibility on the
person - both for what they see, & what they do. Until now, this has
worked. We have succeeded in attracting a quality crowd of people. We
know that it is possible to coexist & deal with different people,
without fear and punishment. The worst problems we have to deal with
today, aren't people problems on grex, but problems elsewhere on the
internet, problems with people ruled by fear elsewhere.
This is really the verification fight all over again. Only, this time,
we're allowing somebody else to scare us into doing it. We'll end up
telling people "we don't are who you are, only we're going to assume
you're a minor and not entitled to free speech, unless you prove beyond
a shadow of a doubt who you are." We seem eager to do this well in
*advance* of any laws regarding this, while proclaiming the stupidity of
such laws, & when there is every chance such a law might never come to
pass, and even seems designed to be overturned as quickly as possible.
That seems rather inconsistent at best, & backwards at worse.
|
srw
|
|
response 141 of 382:
|
Jan 2 02:33 UTC 1996 |
Marcus, do I understand you to believe that it is legal to provide explicit
sex stories without redeeming social value such as arthurp's brandi
to children? I believe that we already have laws that would apply if that
material can be considered pornographic.
Quite frankly I cannot imagine how it could possibly be considered less than
pornographic. Furthermore, I cannot possibly defend Grex's position of
maintaining that information in full view of minors. Most of the parents I
know would be horrified at the thought. You who say you wouldn't be are very
very much in the minority here. People may have different parenting styles,
but I believe if Borders would sell that to a minor they would be arrested.
Redeeming social value is a factor in the decision of whether it is
pornographic, according to law.
If I am wrong, and it is legal for them to sell that material in a bookstore
to a minor, then I will back away from this position,
and admit Grex can give it away, too. I am only in favor of supressing
information I believe we must suppress for legal reasons.
This decision is especially hard for us to make, because the lines are not
clear cut. But I am not interested in having a jury second guess us.
Legally, of course, Grex can suppress whatever it wants. Freedom of speech as
it appears in the constitution only applies to governments. However, we do
believe in permitting freedom of speech here. I agree with that belief. I am
not happy to have to be the one to argue this position. I feel we have to be
careful here, as we are in some danger. Pornography on the internet is very
much more in the public eye today than pornography in bookstores.
|
scg
|
|
response 142 of 382:
|
Jan 2 07:47 UTC 1996 |
What is the legal definition of pornography? I think when you're saying that
arthurp's story has no redeeming social value, you're quoting the legal
definition of obscene? Then again, does that story really have *no* redeeming
social value? How do we define social value?
|
robh
|
|
response 143 of 382:
|
Jan 2 12:00 UTC 1996 |
And more terrifying, in order to prove it has absolutely no redeeming
social value, wouldn't that mean that one of us actually has to read
the entire thing? *shudder*
|
chelsea
|
|
response 144 of 382:
|
Jan 2 14:37 UTC 1996 |
Arthrup's story is an example of very soft-core porn. Lots of folks
(including teenagers) having a rousing good time. You can finds books
with the same content at Borders. Books like _Men in Love_ and _Women in
Love_ which report, in amazing detail, sexual fantasies. You can also
find examples of significantly darker versions of such material, like Bret
Easton Ellis's _American Psycho_ which details sexual terrorism, torture
and snuff (all while wearing a Rolex watch). And that's the entire
content of the book. No story, no character development, no real plot.
Just snuff. Now, I don't know this for certain but I'd bet a child could
walk through the checkout process with one of these without a hassle.
And I admire the policy that would allow that to happen.
But that's Borders. A big company. Paid employees. Lawyers
on retainer. They are currently not the focus of a well
organized and funded morality crusade.
|
janc
|
|
response 145 of 382:
|
Jan 2 18:54 UTC 1996 |
Right now, if I were in a debate on pornography, I do not feel I could
hold up Grex as an example of why pornography regulation is not necessary.
(Well, maybe I could, but my point would have to be that Grex can be quite
adequately prosecuted under existing law.)
I like defensible positions. We aren't in one.
I think if we had an "adult" group for a few conferences, validated fairly
lazily (I'd take photocopies of driver's licenses), and a ban on naughty
Web pages we'd be in acceptable shape. I wouldn't necessarily propose staff
scanning all the conferences and web pages for filth. If they run across
some, it should be handled, but mostly we should rely on users reporting
problems to us. There'd be a message on the system Web page saying we
do not permit porn, and please report it to us if you see any.
I think that is a reasonable level of effort for a volunteer system to make.
I have no idea if it is sufficient to protect us from all lawsuits, but it
would be sufficient to make me feel comfortable with what we are doing. I
don't think I'd want to be on the board as things are, even if Exon doesn't
pass.
If the Feds come after us on this, I'd much rather have them saying "your
protection of adult material is too easily circumvented" than having them
say "you are making no attempt at all to keep porn from minors."
I also think things like arthurp's page will attract more of the same. We
already have lots of people coming here exclusively to put up Web Pages. That
page is already one of the most commonly accessed on the system. Lots of
people are going to get the idea "Grex is a good place to put porno pages."
Whatever you think of porn, this is not Grex's mission. We do need to respond
to that.
|
ajax
|
|
response 146 of 382:
|
Jan 2 19:07 UTC 1996 |
Re 142, this isn't a "legal definition" of pornography, but it's a
clip from an article that may answer your question.
>(1) PORNOGRAPHY. In general, material that presents sexual content of some
>sort, with the intent of being arousing. Playboy and Penthouse could be
>included under this definition of "pornography," and, like any other uses
>of the press, such material is presumptively legal under the First
>Amendment. To be illegal, pornography either must be found to be
>"obscene" (see definition of "obscenity" below) or "child pornography"
>(see definition of "child pornography" below). If it doesn't fall into
>either category, it's no more illegal than a Muppets movie.
>...
>(6) EXPOSURE TO INAPPROPRIATE MATERIALS. Most states make it illegal to
>expose minors to sexually explicit material even when such material is
>otherwise legal (that is, when it's neither obscenity nor child
>pornography). It is *this* issue that has been the primary subject of the
>"indecency" legislation (see definition of "indecency" below) that we've
>seen so much of in Congress this year.
|
mdw
|
|
response 147 of 382:
|
Jan 3 02:06 UTC 1996 |
Borders started out as a small company. And their policy is not
unusual, but commonly practiced at most other bookstores, both large and
small, as well.
Verification is kind of an all or nothing affair. The problem with
doing a bad job of it is, you get the additional resposibility of
accepting blame for your failures, & you lose the ability to say "but we
shouldn't need to do this anyways". There are systems that have a much
greater sexual content and require verification - and on such systems,
as I understand it, a photocopy isn't sufficient. Keep in mind, any
high school student with access to a good laser scanner, & even a *tiny*
amount of artistic ability, can forge a perfectly adequate "photocopy".
|
srw
|
|
response 148 of 382:
|
Jan 3 02:43 UTC 1996 |
Well I am making no claim of obscenity here. I would agree to the
characterization of brandi as Pornography. As such, I believe it is not illegal
per se. It is certainly far more offensive than merely indecent material
would be.
Ron Argy's quotation is most to the point. In particular #6
"Most states make it illegal to expose minors to sexually explicit
material even when such material is otherwise legal"
I believe this applies in Michigan and perhaps several other states
where extradition is possible.
Mary may be right that Border's sells this kind of material. But do they
allow minors to buy it? I'd like to look into that question.
If a minor can buy this in a bookstore, then I think we may have a
defensible position, unless the Exon-amended telecom bill becomes law.
I agree with Jan's statement that as it stands right now, our complete lack
of any checks or limits is an indefensible position.
|
scg
|
|
response 149 of 382:
|
Jan 3 02:46 UTC 1996 |
Wasn't there some case a few months ago in which one of the big online
services got in trouble for censoring but not censoring enough? I thinought
the ruling there was that if there had been no intent made to censor, then
they would not have been responsable for letting things slip through.
|