response 171 of 316:

Jun 28 04:31 UTC 1999

BTW, in case anyone's wondering, I looked on the Michigan legislature's web
site for more info about the passage of the bill.  The bill originated in the
Senate, where it passed 34-0.  then it went to the house, where some 
amendments were made.  It passed 77-30.  A number of those voting 'nay' stood
up to say that they were voting against it because it was unconstitutional,
and similar laws had been struck down elsewhere.  One representative pointed
out that the legistature's own non-partisan legistative analysis team had said
that the law was "almost certainly unconstitutional".  So there's absolutely
no excuse for the ones who did vote for it - they knew they were just wasting
everyone's time and money.

The Senate accepted the House's amendments and again passed the bill 34-0.

Here's how our Ann Arbor representatives voted:

In the House:
  John Hansen of the 52nd district voted yea
  Liz Brater of the 53rd district voted nay
In the Senate:
  Alma Wheeler Smith of the 18th district voted yea

I'm thinking about writing to my representatives (Hansen and Smith) and
inviting them to join the discussion of the act in Agora item 42.  Maybe if
enough constituents do that, they might actually do so.

John Hansen is jphansen@house.state.mi.us
Liz Brater is lbrater@house.state.mi.us
Alma Wheeler Smith is SenASmith@senate.state.mi.us

The roll call for the House is at
  http://198.109.122.10/pdf/house.journal/1999-2000/hj041599.031.pdf
on pages 6-9 (roll call 234)

THe roll call for the Senate is at
  http://198.109.122.10/pdf/senate.journal/1999-2000/sj051299.042.pdf
on page 5 (roll call 178).

response 173 of 316:

Jun 28 13:22 UTC 1999

They cannot possibly be well informed about everything they vote on.  I will
try to contact Jim's niece, who is a rep. for Warren.

response 175 of 316:

Jun 28 13:41 UTC 1999

I just emailed Alma.  We sort of know her personally, having met her at the
next door neighbor's graduation from med school, and again at a local
antitobacco group meeting.  I suggested she take a look at coop, homme, femme
and glb discussions and if she was too busy to join grex, I could email her
excerpts.  (Now where did I put Jennifer's e-mail address - Jim's niece).

response 177 of 316:

Jun 29 01:00 UTC 1999

Whew!  LONG item, I didn't think I'd been gone that long.  GOOD JOB ALL !!

Thanks, everyone.

(I'd be glad to help with the Op-Ed piece - aruba has my "home e-mail".)

response 179 of 316:

Jun 29 06:38 UTC 1999

If I have time, and get around to it, and all that.  I don't want to preclude
anybody else from also writing something.

response 181 of 316:

Jun 29 15:44 UTC 1999

(You mean the Detroit News, don't you Mary?)

response 183 of 316:

Jun 29 18:00 UTC 1999

http://www.michigandaily.com/daily/1999/jun/06-28-99/edit/edit3.html

response 185 of 316:

Jun 29 19:41 UTC 1999

I sent letters to Hansen and Smith; the text is in ~aruba/aclu/invite.txt. 
I encourage other constituents to write to them too, and to include
directions for getting on Grex.  Feel free to plagarize from my letter if
yyou'd like. 

response 187 of 316:

Jun 30 00:18 UTC 1999

The ACLU attorney's liked the sound of "Cyberspace v. Engler", which is the
name of the suit.

response 189 of 316:

Jun 30 01:58 UTC 1999

I imagine Grex's involvement doesn't hurt, either.  The work on the 
lawsuit WWW page in itself is very impressive (I linked it to M-Net's 
policy WWW page -- should have asked permission first, though), and so 
is the amount of discussion and participation here.

I still don't like it.  I like it even less with Grex being so 
prominent.  I think Grex is being used inappropriately by it's Board and 
by the ACLU in a political battle.  I can admire the effort, though, 
without admiring the damage being done to Grex.

response 191 of 316:

Jun 30 15:30 UTC 1999

I got a call this morning from Marshall Widick.  They're running a bit
behind schedule on submitting the "motion brief".  They had planned to
get it in today, it currently looks like Friday.

On July 8, the attorney's will be meeting with the judge to set a date
for the hearing.

They are expecting that the hearing will last two days.  They are
guessing that it is likely to fall somewhere around the 21-23 of July.

They have decided NOT to submit our declaration.  Instead, they want to
call me as a witness, so I get to do the whole thing orally.  With me
giving oral testimony about Grex, they don't need the written
declaration as well (presumably the defense could be annoying about any
minor differences between the two, etc).

If anyone had asked for volunteers to do this, I wouldn't have jumped up
shouting "me! me! me!", but I guess I'm OK with it.  It should be an
adventure.

I still don't think Grex had any real choice about getting involved.  I
don't know any way that we could function in compliance with this law.
The last two times such a law was passed, other organizations went to
court, and because they won, we didn't have to worry about it.  Those
other organizations in those other lawsuits weren't in the business of
political action either.  This time is the ball is in our court.  If we
shouldn't do this, who should?  Is "Art on the Net" somehow a more
appropriate organization to be doing this than we are?

response 193 of 316:

Jun 30 16:27 UTC 1999

I think it was smashing.  :)  It is odd that they're not using it at all.
Jan, will the testimony be in open court (as opposed to in a deposition room)?
Will the other side get to interview you first, privately?  I don't know much
about legal procedure beyond what I've seen on TV.

response 195 of 316:

Jun 30 21:56 UTC 1999

We considered those issues when we voted to join the suit.