response 26 of 103:

Feb 29 01:06 UTC 1996

My concern isn't about our current users.  I think if the CDA had never been
passed, we would have remained a clean free-speech system indefinitely.  

I am concerned though, about the effect of combination of GREXes open newuser
and the systems in the rest of the country being forced to crack down or close
down.  I fear that if we try to remain a completely open system, we'll find
every numbskull in the country ( <-- Hyperbole) logging in here to spew filth.
Now, I have little moral objection to filth, but it's boring, and the load
of it could well bring GREX to its knees.  We could end up losing our system
to knuckleheads.  I don't think that means we have to close down immediately
and let the threat of the law have it's chilling way with us.  I do think it
means that we should be prepared with a plan for what we plan to do about it
if it starts to happen.  Censor?  Close Newuser and allow only verified people
to use the conferences?  Sit it out and hope we can cope?  There are many
possible reactions.  The worst one is to "wait and see" and "Hope we won't
have to deal with it".  If it catches us unprepared, this (possible) influx
has the most potential to close us down.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Board and Staff in composed of
individuals.  These people have to make personal decisions about just how much
we are prepared to risk and for what causes.  I;'m sure that by now all of
us have discussed the possibilities with those closest to us and have some
idea how far we're willing to go.  I respect the decisions of every member
of the board.  Yes, the brave and "right" thing may be to stick your neck out
for what is right, but looking out for the interests of people who depend on
you is just as right as taking a stand for an ideal.

Something the membership and usership needs to keep in mind is the vast
difference between democracy and tyranny by the majority.  When you vote to
force someone else to make a stand you are *not* participating in a democratic
action.  You are hiding behind the anonymity of the majority.  So, if you,
the user or member of GREX think that there is a point at which GREX must take
a stand, are *you* prepared to take your place on the Board or the Staff to
fill the position of someone who is forced by that decision to step down? 
Are you willing to take your chances with committing a felony, accruing a
criminal record that may handicap your future ability to get work and may
endanger your ability to have custody of your own children?  Are you prepared
to shoulder the huge legal debts to defend yourself and the huge fines if you
lose?

If you are, stand forward.  If you're not, make your thought known loud and
clear, yes, but also be sensitive to what you are asking of another person.

I have my line.  I will take a stand against the CDA if I think it demands
too many concessions of our First Amendment Rights.  But I won't make that
stand on any one elses part.  And I won't sanction breaking the law if it's
brought in line with all the other impositions on our first Amendment Rights.

response 28 of 103:

Feb 29 02:11 UTC 1996

  mta, can you honestly say that closing certain confs or eliminating
newuser and validating everyone wont kill grex?  The minute grex 
starts to build walls is when even the most loyal users start leaving. Even
now, as it is, grex's user base is extremely fragile.  What does it do
to the membership base if you eliminate all those members who are under 18?
Grex needs to be open access in order to survive because it needs 
members to survive, and you dont get them by making it hard to get here or
restricting content.

There are no workable options.  None.  Thats the bottom line.  There are
some that may be technically feasible and may make it safer to be on the
board or staff.  But whats the point if noone comes here anymore?

Even now membership is down.  Conference participation is down.  There has
not been one suggestion in the way of compliance that would not result in
Grex becoming a ghosttown within a year of implementation.  Thats the reality.

Unless you want to cut 'net access, and go down to two phone lines and
become local and tiny again, grex cannot survive economically as a closed
board.  And there's no way to be open access and be in compliance with the
CDA without making changes that will alienate too large a percentage of 
grex's member base.  

So the only options are to fight it, or when push comes to shove, shut
down altogether to protect board and staff from prosecution.

response 30 of 103:

Feb 29 03:33 UTC 1996

I've seen little to suggest that conference participation or membership
is down - from everything we know, all the current bottlenecks are
purely technical - how many people we can get on at once, how much
internet bandwidth, etc.

Even so, I'd not care to participate in a system that practiced
censorship, and I would not wish to see the results of CDA, or to
participate in any way to further CDA.

response 32 of 103:

Feb 29 06:32 UTC 1996

Well said, arianna.  I was 15 when I started using Grex, a bit over three
years ago, and I learned a lot here while I was still a minor.  I really don't
want to see us restrict minors' access to the system.  I think it would be
a big loss.

response 34 of 103:

Feb 29 15:46 UTC 1996

It is interesting to watch people's unconscious assumptions being expressed
here. kerouac says "sexual or other objectional material", adding that
word "other" thinking unconsciously that "sexual" = "objectionable". And
scott expresses value judgements ("clean"), presumably having a standard
for that - perhaps the CDA? Its one thing to take steps to adhere to
a law, but its another thing to fall into implicitly supporting the law.

response 38 of 103:

Feb 29 18:08 UTC 1996

How many grex users that are minors are also members?

It is not necessary to devise ahead of time a one-&-only for-all-time policy.
Grex can implement a particular policy, and if it doens't work out, change
to a different policy.  Normally this would be along the lines of starting
with a less stringent, hoping-for-cooperation policy, and only changing to
a more stringent policy if there are continual abuses.

And speaking of value judgments, how about the implication that someone
who "falls into" agreement with the CDA or some/any of its principles is
somehow "bad" or "wrong" ?

response 40 of 103:

Feb 29 18:43 UTC 1996

Rane, you know as well as I do that sexual material is the main target
for the CDA, although I agree with the value judgment in "sexual and
other objectionable material".  I do tire of this society's equation
of sex with something that will warp children's minds, but violence
seems all right.  Look at which comic books are available as 21-and-over
only:  Cherry, Omaha, Penthouse Comix.  compare the level of violence
in those to, say, XMen or Batman...  sigh.

Sorry, I don't care if my (hypothetical) child sees a pair of exaggeratedly
drawn tits and two people with feline features screwing.  Bring out the
Crumb!  Batman, however, I think I might want to take a look at before
handing it to my 5 year old.  The CDA is a continuation of this disgusting
policy on what's suitable and not.  I *definitely* want to read any 
religious tracts that might come my child's way, but CDA doesn't block that 
in the slightest.

The Comstock Act>  Interestingly, the Comstock provision is simply an
expansion of a law that already covers speech anywhere else... when we
talk about abortion over coffee at the cooffeehouse, we're violating the
old law, to my knowledge.  Interesting how up in arms people get (including
myself) when a law is created, and then interest fades when it isn't 
enforced.  The same thing with the sex and consent laws in this state,
BTW... I have yet to find anyone who thinks the sodomy laws in this state
are appropriate (and yet to find a non-virgin who follows them, and even
most of the virgins think they should be taken off the books), and yet
there are no drives to have them rewritten or removed.  And Engler *did*
enforce them against the gay community until the courts agreed with  the
queers and the ACLU that he was illegally selectively enforcing.
This gets less coverage than the CDA, though.

response 42 of 103:

Feb 29 19:20 UTC 1996

If you are old enoughto remember your password, youa re old enough
to be here. If not, then run newuser again until you are old enough
to remember your password.  That "verification" should be entierly
sufficient.
  
Another problem ... the gummint is *trying* to create, sub rosa, an
extention of the Federal Police Force (sic)  to include all sysops
and borgs and staffs, etc. 
 
If Grex or the M-b0x, or any multi-user system *does* try to shoulder
the burden and mantle of  "verifier" then that system and all its
verifiers and bureaucracy are voluntarily (withouut pay) wearing
the mantle of Federal Cop. And if some little mistake might be made,
either by omission or commission .... then there would prosecutorial
options from "up above."  
  
I'm jsut about as pissed as STeve ... perhaps more so, butthis is
not a good idea to figure out who is MORE pissed than the next person.
  
Thre is a threshold of Maximally-Pissed ... and several people got
sent tumbling over that threshold by this latest blast of legal feces;
or, rather, got tumbled over that threshold when the legal feces sythe
swept through cyberspace. Are we really legless now?

response 44 of 103:

Feb 29 21:07 UTC 1996

        re # 43 Uhhhh it might help if you learned to read.  What I *said*
take two for the comprehension impared is that it is an act of moral
cowardice to both condem and follow a law.  I actually have more respect
for someone who sincerely believes the CDA is right, at least they are
consistent.  That, however, does not mean that I won't fight CDA believers
tooth and nail.  People are free to beleieve and express what they want
as far as I'm concerened, I'm not the one in this exchange advocating
censorship.

response 46 of 103:

Mar 1 07:38 UTC 1996

Lots of people condemn and follow laws.  They do it because, while they
disagree with the law, it isn't the most important thing in their lives.
We all have to make compromises.

response 48 of 103:

Mar 1 09:26 UTC 1996

The Third Reich was a "compromise."