|
Grex > Coop11 > #225: Grex invited to join Vermont Internet free speech lawsuit | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 49 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 25 of 49:
| 
Jan 16 23:47 UTC 2001 |
Have to disagree about your assertion that grex doesn't allow users to "post"
images. They can certainly store them on the file system, and make them
available on their web site by encapsulating in a zip file. Pretty damn
clunky, I'll admit, but grex still ain't off the hook.
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 49:
|
Jan 17 14:46 UTC 2001 |
There is also some question of what it would mean to speak of pictures
on Grex. Users of the Backtalk interfaces would certainly be tempted to
believe that this response contains a picture of a cute sleeping baby.
Though technically the image itself is not actually stored on Grex, I'm
not sure that would be OK. If we said, our system was safe for people
offended by pictures of sleeping babies, and then you went in and found
pictures of sleeping babies on all the pages, I doubt if you'd find the
fact that those pictures aren't actually stored on our computer, but
merely referenced from our computer to be a satisfying explanation.
It looks like the changes to this bill are primarily in reference to
picturial material (though one might be able to prosecute text-only
people under it), but it isn't clear that it's internet language is
clear enough to protect us simply because we allow links to images and
not images itself, plus as Kevin says, it is certainly possible to
transmit images through Grex in other ways.
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 49:
|
Jan 18 04:11 UTC 2001 |
Hmmm. I thought we didn't allow storage of images on Grex for any purpose.
|
scg
|
|
response 28 of 49:
|
Jan 18 04:59 UTC 2001 |
We don't. We do, however, as Jan points out, allow linking to images via
Backtalk (and via Grex users' web pages). The point about there being ways
to sneak images past us and not get noticed immediately is probably
irrelevant, I think. If we post in a bunch of places that images are not
allowed, as we do, and actively hunt them down and delete them on a fairly
regular basis, as we do, that would probably count as making a "good faith
effort" to keep images off our system.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 29 of 49:
|
Jan 18 06:33 UTC 2001 |
Please cure my ignorance: Does a process or do humans in fact scour the user
file systems looking for .jpg .gif .bmp etc. image files to delete, and in
fact delete them?
|
spooked
|
|
response 30 of 49:
|
Jan 18 08:32 UTC 2001 |
Not to my knowledge, though I don't know as much as some other staffers on
here <:
|
richard
|
|
response 31 of 49:
|
Jan 18 16:02 UTC 2001 |
grex does have an interest in vermont because it has users in vermont--
I can think of two or three, although whether any of them are active
anymore I don't know.
it also has an interest because any law passed in vermont or anyplace else
that isnt challenged and goes on the books, could be copied by other
states. grex has a strong interest in not seeing any such law becoming
common in any number of states.
that said, grex shouldnt be the lead plaintiff-- there has to be some
board in Vermont willing to do that.
/.
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 49:
|
Jan 18 17:44 UTC 2001 |
I know of some small .gif and .jpg images that have been allowed to reside
in home directories, whence they can get attached to email. (8-15K) They
take up quite a lot less space than most other binary files. Would it be
better to rephrase the rule as 'large images ' (over some limit)?
|
janc
|
|
response 33 of 49:
|
Jan 20 03:41 UTC 2001 |
We do have a general policy against GIF images. I suppose if someone
complained about pornographic gifs stored on Grex, we'd delete them, but
becaused they are images, not because they are porn.
|
keesan
|
|
response 34 of 49:
|
Jan 20 20:31 UTC 2001 |
Is there some important difference between a small gif and a small jpeg?
Or between pornographic text and images? Would you delete pornographic text
in someone's home directory that could be read by anyone? Can one set
permissions on images so that nobody else can copy them?
|
swa
|
|
response 35 of 49:
|
Jan 21 00:01 UTC 2001 |
I agree that this issue is one important to Grex, and I thoroughly
supported our joining the suit that became Cyberspace vs. Engler. But
doing so on a regular basis makes me uneasy, and I worry that being a
party to this a second time would lead to being involved with such suits
again and again. I don't think these issues aren't important, and
aren't worth fighting, but I think that there's a limit to how many such
attacks Grex can fight, and how much energy we can devote to fighting
them.
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 49:
|
Jan 21 14:28 UTC 2001 |
Given Michael Bamberger's comments in <resp:19>, I'm not too
concerned about the energy expenditure. It sounds like we
wouldn't be expected to do much beyond lending our name to
the cause.
What is the AAUP's time frame for a response from us? If the
matter is put to a member vote -- which I'm inclined to think
it ought to be -- there's a mandatory 15-day discussion
followed by a 10-day voting period. That's nearly a month.
Can they wait that long for a response from us?
|
other
|
|
response 37 of 49:
|
Jan 26 21:11 UTC 2001 |
Subject:
Re: Cyberspace/Vt suit
Date:
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:18:55 -0500
From:
Michael A. Bamberger
To:
Eric R. Bassey"
We are about to move forward, hopefully filing a complaint in a week.
While the messages are predominantly positive, what would be your time
frame?
Also, the precise language of the Vt law is as follows:
- 3 -
Vermont Senate Bill 314
NO. 124 AN ACT RELATING TO INTERNET CRIMES
(S.314)
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1. 13 V.S.A. Section 2 is amended to read:
Section 2. CRIMES COMMITTED PARTLY OUTSIDE STATE
A person who, with intent to commit a crime, does an act within this
state in execution or part execution of such intent, which culminates in
the commission of a crime either within or without this state, shall be
punished for such crime in this state in the same manner as if the same
had been committed entirely within this state. [A> A crime committed by
means of an electronic communication, including a telephonic
communication, shall be considered to have been committed at either the
place where the communication originated or the place where it was
received. <A]
Sec. 7. 13 V.S.A. Section 2802(a) is amended to read:
(a) No person may, with knowledge of its character and content, sell,
lend, distribute or give away to a minor:
(1) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film,
or similar visual representation or image [A> , including any such
representation or image which is communicated, transmitted, or stored
electronically, <A] of a person or portion of the human body which
depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is
harmful to minors; or
(2) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced,
or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in [D> paragraph
<D] [A> subdivision <A] (1) [D> hereof <D] [A> of this subsection <A] ,
or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of
sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which,
taken as a whole, is harmful to minors.
Sec. 8. 13 V.S.A. Section 2804a is amended to read:
Section 2804a. PUBLICLY DISPLAYING SEX OR NUDITY FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES
No person may knowingly, publicly display nudity or sex for
advertising purposes. A violation of this section occurs if a person:
(1) Displays publicly or causes to be displayed publicly for
advertising purposes a picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture or other
visual representation or image [A> , including any such representation or
image which is communicated, transmitted, or stored electronically, <A]
of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sado-
masochistic abuse, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, which is harmful
to minors, or any page, poster or other written or printed matter bearing
such representation or a verbal description or narrative account of such
items or activities; or
(2) Permits any public display described in this section on premises
owned, rented or operated by him [A> or her <A] ; or
(3) For advertising purposes, purchases space in any newspaper,
magazine or other circular, printed in this state, in order to insert any
article or advertisement which contains material harmful to minors.
Sec. 9. 13 V.S.A. Section 2821 is amended to read:
Section 2821. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter:
* * *
(5) "Promote" means to procure, issue, manufacture, publish, sell,
give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, distribute, disseminate, circulate,
present, exhibit, advertise, or offer to do the same [A> , by any means,
including electronic transmission <A] .
Sec. 10. 15 V.S.A. Section 1101(2) is amended to read:
(2) "Household members" means persons who, for any period of time,
are living or have lived together, are sharing or have shared occupancy
of a dwelling, are engaged in or have engaged in a sexual relationship,
or minors [A> or adults <A] who are dating or who have dated. [A>
"Dating" means a social relationship of a romantic nature. Factors that
the court may consider when determining whether a dating relationship
exists or existed include: <A]
[A> (A) the nature of the relationship; <A]
[A> (B) the length of time the relationship has existed; <A]
[A> (C) the frequency of interaction between the parties; <A]
[A> (D) the length of time since the relationship was terminated, if
applicable. <A]
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 49:
|
Jan 26 21:43 UTC 2001 |
Subject:
Re: Cyberspace/Vt suit
Date:
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:39:28 -0500
From:
Eric R. Bassey
To:
Michael A. Bamberger
Michael,
In discussion with other members of the Grex community, the concern has
arisen that Cyberspace Communications Inc. might not have a sufficient
stake in the outcome of this case to justify our involvement.
I personally believe that it is both appropriate and essential that we
be not only involved but active in the fight against censorship,
especially online. However, in order to assuage the concerns of those
more hesitant than I to participate in this endeavor, it would be
extremely valuable if you could provide us as much information as
possible about the specific wording, meanings and interpretations of the
Vermont law upon which this case is focused.
In the Michigan case, Michael Steinberg was generous enough with his
time to allow us the opportunity to interview him at some depth at one
of our board meetings. This effort went a long way in persuading our
membership of the worthiness of the cause, but in each separate case,
supplemental review is called for.
We are essentially a non-political organization. The Michigan law was
easily interpretable as a threat to Grex's continued existence, but the
threats imposed by the laws of other states are not so easy to
demonstrate. I and many other Grex members believe we can ill afford to
sit by and watch the first amendment be eroded simply because we're
watching from a distance, but there are others who believe equally
strongly that Grex should not be involved in any legal or political
action beyond that expressly required to stay up and running as we are.
I do hope you will have the opportunity to take a more active role in
the discussion on Grex of this case, as that will provide the best
opportunity for you to address these concerns. Our policy is that any
member in good standing can propose a vote on a specific proposal, and
that such vote will occur following two weeks of public discussion,
unless the motion is withdrawn.
In general, we wish to as fully as possible inform ourselves about
issues before a vote is called, so expediency in your responses will
facilitate expediency in our decision.
Hope to see you online!
-e
--
========================================================
============= Eric R. Bassey
|
mary
|
|
response 39 of 49:
|
Jan 26 23:56 UTC 2001 |
On first reading this proposed law looks like a real swipe at Free Speech
issues and something we'd most certainly want to fight.
But I'd like to get Michael Steinberg's opinion before we do anything. He
is already representing us in one case and I'd to have his blessings here.
He knows us. Too, I'd hate to go into something like this with good
intentions and maybe in some way damage our standing in the Michigan case.
I doubt that would happen but I'd like to know for certain before getting
involved.
Too, is there any chance that our involvement in this case could end up
costing Grex legal fees or expenses?
|
mdw
|
|
response 40 of 49:
|
Jan 27 00:54 UTC 2001 |
What I found oddest about this law was the continual presence of the
phrase "and which is harmful to minors." That seems like an exceedingly
difficult thing to measure, if anyone were in fact to use real science
for this. In real life, different people are likely to have wildly
divergent interpretations of that phrase, so at the very least, this
would appear to be just plain bad law. The court may have a more
precise interpretation of this law, in which case just what it means
could have big implications for grex. If it's interpreted to mean "it's
harmful to minors if anyone thinks it's harmful", then that would be
real bad news. If it's interpreted to mean "proof of serious permament
damage in a controlled scientific sense" it might essentially evaluate
as "false" rendering most of this law mere flowerly nonsense that plays
well to gullible voters.
|
janc
|
|
response 41 of 49:
|
Jan 28 03:18 UTC 2001 |
It seems to be pretty equivalent to the Michigan thing, and it is explicit
about covering out of state people, like us.
We'd have to vote on this. Does the time frame allow us time?
|
srw
|
|
response 42 of 49:
|
Feb 5 03:27 UTC 2001 |
The law is also quite explicit in that it applies to any printed matter
however reproduced, which contains any matter enumerated in ...
So we cannot assume that since we don't allow pictures on our server
this law would not apply to us.
After reading the wording of the Vermont law, I support the idea of Grex
joining this lawsuit.
|
scg
|
|
response 43 of 49:
|
Feb 5 03:45 UTC 2001 |
I think at this point I'm more concerned about the dangers of joining this
particular lawsuit than I am about fighting the law. In the other case, the
lawyers representing us were able to advise us in great detail of what it
meant to sue the governor and attorney general of Michigan, and what risks
to us were involved, which turned out to be probably not much. In this case
we've been asked to join by a representative of the Vermont ACLU, making him
or the Vermont ACLU effectively our lawyer while the case is ongoing, however
nobody here has found a way to get this person who wants to be our lawyer to
answer our questions. That scares me.
|
remmers
|
|
response 44 of 49:
|
Feb 9 16:22 UTC 2001 |
I received the following message this morning on the politech
mailing list. I assume it means that Grex won't be a party to
the suit.
***************************************************************************
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: Libraries sue to overturn Vermont's harmful to minors Net-law
To: politech@politechbot.com
[Thanks to Christopher Hunter for forwarding. --Declan]
From the American Library Association:
"On February 7, 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont challenging the Vermont
harmful to minors Internet statute which is similar to those
successfully challenged in New York, New Mexico, Virginia and
Michigan."
"The plaintiffs in this action are American Booksellers Foundation For
Free Expression; American Civil
Liberties Union of Vermont; Association of American Publishers; Freedom
to Read Foundation; National Association of Recording Merchandisers;
Northshire Information, Inc.; PSINet, Inc.; Recording Industry
Association of America, Inc.; and The Sexual Health Network, Inc."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
|
other
|
|
response 45 of 49:
|
Feb 9 20:16 UTC 2001 |
Obviously our inclusion among the plaintiffs was of insufficient value to
warrant the expenditure of energy necessary to meet our requirements.
|
janc
|
|
response 46 of 49:
|
Feb 10 03:15 UTC 2001 |
Or in other words, we are more trouble than we are worth.
|
other
|
|
response 47 of 49:
|
Feb 10 03:43 UTC 2001 |
Nonetheless, I am still disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm shown for
participation in this suit.
|
gull
|
|
response 48 of 49:
|
Feb 11 05:39 UTC 2001 |
I think the vagueness of it all bothered people. It's not good to get
involved in legal action with people who don't seem to want to
communicate with you, IMHO.
|
aruba
|
|
response 49 of 49:
|
Feb 11 16:11 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, I think gull's assessment is about what I was thinking, too. If we
had gotten better information and more promise of support, I would have been
more enthusiastic.
|