|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 268 of 335:
| 
Oct 30 20:11 UTC 2001 |
pthomas in resp:256 :: Free speech is a political goal.
(Just ask any number of people in less fortunate countries.)
So Grex is a political organization, even if it is a wimpy and
non-partisan one, in much the same way that the EFF and the NRA are.
A large number of people in the computer community, including me,
believe strongly that the DMCA is the most anti-free-speech law
to come down in decades.
I would not require the NRA to take me as a member, since I advocate
strict gun control; I would not require the Young Americans
for Freedom to accept an avowed Stalinist.
I do not believe Grex is obligated to accept
a member who, by his own actions over the last few months, demonstrates
his belief that copyright claims should be adjudicated summarily over
any free speech concerns.
|
jp2
|
|
response 269 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 270 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:29 UTC 2001 |
Revision of my last paragraph in resp:268 ::
"I do not believe Grex is obligated to accept a member
who acts to summarily adjudicate copyright claims overriding
clear free speech concerns."
Resp:269 :: *exactly* what the Scientologists say.
|
slynne
|
|
response 271 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:37 UTC 2001 |
I dont think it would be good for grex to bar someone from getting a
membership because they dont like their views unless you guys really are
ready to admit that grex really does have "insiders" who get treated
differently than everyone else.
Just curious. What would you guys do if a bunch of jp2 types really
started becoming the majority here?
|
jp2
|
|
response 272 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:38 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 273 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:39 UTC 2001 |
268: Grex is a political organisation? Whoa, better call the IRS...Grex
has 501(c)(3) unlike those other groups are mentioned. They have a duty to
not engage on political issues that do not pertain to their survival, and
a duty not to discriminate against individuals because they believe in
following the law.
The DMCA lays out a mechanism for dealing with disputes regarding
copyrighted material without going to the courts. It goes something like
this: the complainant has to ask for his materials to be removed before he
can sue. Mr Howard has done that. If Grex insists on violating the law, it
will pay the consequences of violating the law.
|
krj
|
|
response 274 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:40 UTC 2001 |
My revision in resp:270 was to clarify the distinction between
belief and action.
|
brighn
|
|
response 275 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:45 UTC 2001 |
How do I contradict myself, Ken? Maybe you misunderstood. Rephrase:
(1) Rather than claiming that Jamie's rights have or have not been violated,
why don't we just let Jamie decide whether or not to sue (yeah, right), and
then leave it to the courts to decide.
(2) I do wonder why Jamie (or anyone) would want to stay somewhere that they
feel is violating their rights, to the degree that they feel compelled to
make strong demands about what staff MUST do.
(3) So far, all Jamie has done is huff and puff. If he were to vandalize Grex,
or sue it, then by all means, block his membership. Until then, big whoop.
Where's the contradiction? I don't care if Jamie *is* in the right, I don't
see how his suing Grex wouldn't be grounds for blocking his membership.
|
brighn
|
|
response 276 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:47 UTC 2001 |
#271> I concur entirely. The only criterion for whether Grex should block
membership is if the applicant is creating obvious harm to Grex, either by
vandalizing equipment, hacking security, or bringing suit. Defamation and
idiocy have been rights of Grex users for a long time; I've enjoyed them
myself. ;}
|
jp2
|
|
response 277 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:51 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 278 of 335:
|
Oct 30 21:28 UTC 2001 |
Geez, I mean if you are going to kick *anyone* off for being an asshole
it should be russ.
|
jp2
|
|
response 279 of 335:
|
Oct 30 21:32 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 280 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:34 UTC 2001 |
I have no opinion in this whole stupid chip shot conversation that has been
going on, but isn't firing someone who sues grex sort of like Ford firing a
woman for suing them for sexual harrassment?
It's not like blocking him would stop him or anything.
|
danr
|
|
response 281 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:37 UTC 2001 |
Here's a scenario for you:
- jp2 sues Cyberspace Communications.
- Cyberspace goes out of business.
- Grexers move over to MNet, taking over because we have way more
paying members than MNet.
- Grexers vote jp2 out of office yet again.
|
danr
|
|
response 282 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:39 UTC 2001 |
And for the record, I don't think we should try to block jp2's
membership. If he wants to give us money, why not? (Not that I think he
really will.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 283 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:39 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 284 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:49 UTC 2001 |
The scenario I outlined in resp:281 had occurred to me.
Unless there are some deep pockets standing by ready to buy lots
of gift citizenships, the cheapest voting rights package for Arbornet,
the next election in April is likely to have a pool of about 20
qualified candidates and voters. They could easily be outvoted by
a flood of displaced Grexers. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 285 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:52 UTC 2001 |
"The scenario danr outlined in resp:281..." ack
In light of Phil's comments about Grex's obligation to take all
membership applicants, for which I would not mind a citation,
I withdraw my proposal to bar jp2 from Grex membership.
My proposal to bar the further entry of all text authored by
James Howard, simply to avoid further lawsuits, still stands. :)
|
pthomas
|
|
response 286 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:55 UTC 2001 |
I never said that all comers must be taken...just that if you're going to
refuse to let Jamie be a member, you should probably come up with a better
reason than "Jamie has asserted his rights under the DMCA," seeing that
under the 501(c)(3) Grex is supposed to be apolitical.
|
jp2
|
|
response 287 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:57 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 288 of 335:
|
Oct 30 23:29 UTC 2001 |
I encourage jp2 to become a member. The extra income can't hurt.
|
janc
|
|
response 289 of 335:
|
Oct 31 01:02 UTC 2001 |
I see no reason not to accept a membership from jp2. If he wanted some kind
of special terms - like joining without showing id or something, that'd be
different. I have no problem with members who threaten Grex. In some cases,
a threat might be perceived by a person as the best way to induce Grex to do
something that they think needs to be done for Grex's own good.
|
scg
|
|
response 290 of 335:
|
Oct 31 01:08 UTC 2001 |
The great thing about free speech is that it covers even those advocating an
end to free speech, the "no free speech for fascists" crowd, and so forth.
Grex of course isn't bound by the First Ammendment, but I was always under
the impression free speech was an important principle.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 291 of 335:
|
Oct 31 02:07 UTC 2001 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the concept of barring people from donating
or posting to Grex completely what we've been trying to work against?????
|
janc
|
|
response 292 of 335:
|
Oct 31 02:12 UTC 2001 |
You are totally right.
|
