response 325 of 382:

Feb 8 04:23 UTC 1996

John -- # 313 - sincerely I believe you have misunderstood what I wanted to
convey. That is my fault. HVCN will always be willing to talk to Grex (said
as an individual board member and not with board blessing, but with 
most reasonable assurance of accuracy). Talking and working on this problem
will always be possible. What I am getting at is cooperative efforts reaching
out to the larger community of Washtenaw County and surrounding areas. In no
way am I trying to force Grex to a particular stance, though my feelings
have been made clear. Grex mus follow its own conscience. And Grex should do
so.  HVCN has a different constituency. I hope they will remain compatible,
but deliberate defiance of a law, _in this context_ ( I repeat: _in this
context_) creates problems for HVCN when we are dealing daily with law
enforcement, prosecutors, multi-faceted religious forces, and other groups
in the local community. If Grex/HVCN cooperation is not possible because
of this issue, then we both have to consider the why and the results. I don't
want that to happen but must seriously consider what our board will require.
I am ready to help a fight against this law, hopefully to provide a reasonable
alternative at worst. I am not ready to tear up the streets and load Molotov
Cocktails over this issue. This has not been rasised with our Board yet, but
it would be a major surprise to me if they did not agree with me here.

I have given up on WIN for the time being. I see no hope from Arbornet
quarters. The Comnet Conf. should be discussing this -- the last meeting I
had last week addressed concerns of fiscal survival for the most part. Perhps
we can generate some interest in this issue. I'll try.

response 327 of 382:

Feb 8 11:00 UTC 1996

  NPR did a piece on the CDA last night.  An ACLU rep said the biggest
problem with the CDA is that it's so vague, *nobody* knows how to
interpret what's protected vs. prohibited speech.  They fear that
organizations will err on the side of prohibited speech as a result,
and say this is the most harmful aspect of the bill.  They'll file
a challenge "as soon as it's signed into law."
 
  I think we should save our money rather than hiring an attorney.
Neither an attorney nor anybody else can say with any certainty how
to interpret the law.  Grex has to pick its own approach based on
the variety of interpretations available.  The EFF provides a good
starting point for reading opinions: http:/www.eff.org .

response 329 of 382:

Feb 8 18:50 UTC 1996

Excellent. Thanks, Steve.

I brought up yahoo.com this morning; they have turned their pages
black. A lot of people look at yahoo. Good for them.

response 331 of 382:

Feb 9 00:51 UTC 1996

Steve, I think and believe our board would support this, but I believe we
should do this (the protest) as individuals and not as representatives of 
the on-line community of Washtenaw County, Michigan. We are 501(c)(3). We have
a voice as a corporation, but it is not the same voice as an individual. 

At least as long as we want to keep the benifits.  It is not black and white,
but I sense danger here -- with the IRS.  

response 333 of 382:

Feb 9 07:27 UTC 1996

In email, I have seen enough support from the HVCN board to 
proceed to blacken the pages of HVCN in support of the protest.

I understand your concern, Arnold, as 501(C)(3) organizations are 
prohibited from lobbying. But the bill has already been signed now.
I am not convinced that those prohibitions apply to such a 
protest as this. You should raise this issue with the other directors.

The CDA directly affects HVCN's ability to conduct public fora on issues
that matter to the community, such as abortion. It is antithetical to our
stated purpose. If it is lobbying to oppose it, then it is lobbying for us
to exist.

I will restore the HVCN pages on Saturday morning, or sooner if the 
HVCN board reverses itself.

response 335 of 382:

Feb 9 16:45 UTC 1996

I blackened my page, too.  I think it's pretty cool that yahoo did also.

response 337 of 382:

Feb 9 21:00 UTC 1996

   As I mentioned in Agora, I think there needs to be a vote among
at least grex members (if not all grex users) on whether or not to
authorize the board to attempt any means of complying with CDA.
This can be a simple yes/no vote.  Should we comply or not?  I
think the Board and staff should not want to take any action until 
user sentiment is accurately guaged (Im guessing it would be a close
vote)

response 339 of 382:

Feb 9 21:51 UTC 1996

<robh notes that bruin is halfway there already>

response 341 of 382:

Feb 10 02:51 UTC 1996

A "simple yes/no vote" on compliance is vague, as "compliance" is
in the eye of the complyer.  Voting on a specific policy aimed at
addressing CDA compliance might be more useful.

response 343 of 382:

Feb 10 05:40 UTC 1996

Not only did Yahoo turn their pages black, but so did Web Crawler, and (I
think) Lycos.  There were also a lot of other sites that looked like they
could be pretty high profile, as well.  Topping the list on the protest page
was Senator Leahy's page, which in addition to being blackened contains lots
of other information about what is wrong with the censorship provisions.  His
page says he was one of the five Senators who voted against the
Telecommunications Bill.  Does anybody know who the others were?

response 347 of 382:

Feb 10 23:50 UTC 1996

In early January, I sent e-mail to Lynn Rivers to express my concerns about
the CDA.  She sent back a short letter saying that she would study the issue
more.

On January 17, she sent me a longer letter.  It doesn't tell me how she
voted, but it's interesting to hear her thoughts on the issue.  Here's the
text of the letter:

Dear Ms. Mates:

Thank you for contacting me regarding internet transmission restrictions. 
Currently, House and Senate conferees continue to work on this issue as a part
of the larger telecommunications bill.  While the language of the final draft
is unknown, I have given a great deal of thought to the proposals being
debated in conference.

Like you, I have concerns about censoring certain internet messages and/or
materials.  The House bill contained language which would subject to criminal
charges those parties which transmit messages deemed "harmful to minors." 
Under the Senate bill, those transmitting "indecent" material over the
internet could face prosecution.  Both terms are vague and open to broad
definition.  It seems to me that material transmitted over the internet should
be judged by the same standards as materials transmitted in other ways.

The telecommunications bill is currently bogged down in the conference between
the House and the Senate.  Regulating internet transmissions is only one of
many serious issues to be dealt with by the bill.  One can only guess what
the final bill will look like.  I will consider internet provision carefully
when the bill returns to the House of Representatives.  I hope that we can
protect both minors and the First Amendment.  I believe that certain materials
transmitted through cyberspace may have detrimental effects on children;
however, I do not believe that broad-based censorship is a correct response
to this problem.  It seems reasonable to maintain the standards currently used
in other media as guidelines for cyberspace.

Please feel free to contact me about other issues important to you.

Sincerely,
Lynn N. Rivers

response 349 of 382:

Feb 11 01:14 UTC 1996

What precisely did she say?  Sounded like, "both sides have a point,
the current language is vague, I'll decide one way or the other when
I have to vote."  But much more eloquently than that.  :)