|
Grex > Coop11 > #98: Possible Michigan internet censorship law/challenge | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 111 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 39 of 111:
| 
May 28 06:02 UTC 1999 |
Enter an item, soliciting specific examples that we can then pass on to
the ACLU. :)
I am, for 3.5 years now, a board member and a staff member. I, too, feel
that this is something that Grex should fight. I was a member of Grex
before I turned 18, and I valued, and still value, the freedom of speech
and thought here. I'm willing to devote time to this case.
|
dang
|
|
response 40 of 111:
|
May 28 06:02 UTC 1999 |
Kevin slipped in.
|
remmers
|
|
response 41 of 111:
|
May 28 11:25 UTC 1999 |
I also support Grex's involvement and am willing to devote significant
time to this case.
That's subject to the caveat that my availability is limited this spring
and summer. I will be out of town for substantial periods of time in
June, July, and August. It's my understanding that much of the crucial
activity on this case will be taking place during that time period. In
resp:26 J.C. Salyer indicated the desirability of designating a couple
of Grex members as contact people. Because of my limited availability, I
suspect I shouldn't be one of them. The board will need to designate
appropriate contact people.
|
remmers
|
|
response 42 of 111:
|
May 28 11:28 UTC 1999 |
(Hopefully Mr Steinberg and Mr Salyer will be checking back on this
discussion item. In case they aren't scanning the whole conference, I'll
note that Jan Wolter has posted a call for a member vote in support of
Grex becoming a plaintiff. The vote item is #100. From the web, click on
this link - item:100 - to reach it.)
|
rickyb
|
|
response 43 of 111:
|
May 28 14:08 UTC 1999 |
I've been away from CoOp.cf for a long time...just too time consuming, I
guess :(
Without advocating Grex either becoming a party to this suit or abstaining,
I have some experience with a state association which was involved inan >10
year class action lawsuit involving insurance companies, the State insurance
commissioner and became extended to federal anti-trust issues. So, I'd like
to raise some points (some of which have already been discussed up there) for
"grex" to consider.
first and foremost, you must weigh the risks against the benifits. As has
been said it seems the risks are few and the benifits (to the 'cyber-society'
and to grex) may be many. Financially, the costs seem minimal or
non-existent, but I've seen such estimates escalate by 100's of percentages
as this kind of process goes on. Be prepared to develope some sort of fund
raising for unexpected contingencies.
On the management side, I might suggest a "legal liaison committee" of the
board (BOD) and/or members. There _will_ be times when specifics of
discussions must remain secure (for legal/political reasons) but a committee
of trusted persons should be able to inform the BOD and membership to the
greatest degree of specificity permitted to keep all involved and remain as
true as possible to the tradition of consensus in management which has brought
Grex to this point in its existence.
Besides such a committee, public relations will become essential. As
mentioned, Grex will get called upon by reported of all sorts of media, and
some may be "agents" of the opposing side of the issue as well. Whether or
not a legal liasion committee would (or should) also double as a public
relations committee (IMHO it should _not_), a single individual must be
designated as the contact person. The "voice of Grex", so to speak. Not
unlike a presidents press secretary or Jamie (what's-his-name) the NATO
spokesman. You'll note that even though several military persons have
addressed the NATO actions over the past, "Jamie" was _always_ right there
with the meanings, motovations, objectives, reiterations of conditions, etc.
Such an individual (even as the voice of a larger committee) can divert a
public relations disaster for Grex into a public relations coup! Aside from
the basic issue of freedom from censorship, this could be the greatest benifit
for Grex out of such participation. The appearance (at least) of an educated,
organized, societally-conscious, deliberate organization which offers great
assets to its community and takes whatever time is needed to fully think
through its position(s) and actions for the good of the community rather than
"knee-jerking" reactions is one which can help assure Grexs' position in
"cyberspace" as an honorable role-model for those who will come later.
all that being said, and understanding that my wife and I have recently
dis-engaged ourselves from most of our volunteer/organizational activities
to focus on our family for awhile, I would be glad to meet with Grexs' powers
that be, to offer some more detail of my considerable experience in such
matters (for 9 of the >10 years of the legal suits i mentioned above I held
elected office on our BOD, was member of the legal liasion committee, helped
secure a public relations firm to plan out some of what I've just described,
and did quite a bit of legal research to turn over stones our 'million dollar
lawyers' couldn't even see, let alone stumble over. In some cases they were
astonished at what I could present them "...I've heard about this but we
haven't been able to get our hands on any citation!...", etc).
My personal point-of-view: I'm against censorship, and I have a young child
whom I wish to 'protect' from violent or pornographic material. but these
things are out there in the world anyway. I think the best way for me, as
a parent, to protect my kid is to educate him on what these "evils" are,
instill honorable and sensible values in him and empower him to make his own
choices and follow his own path to the best future he can make for himself.
This is not a venue for government to step in and muck up the works.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 111:
|
May 28 14:54 UTC 1999 |
Re #38: Grex has no basis or right to "just do extracts of any number of
items in the sexuality conference". For one thing, there is no definition
of "sexually explicit content" in law. Someone would have to apply their
own, personal, standards in order to select such material. Secondly, this
is an infringement upon the persons that posted material that someone else
might consider "sexually explicit content": it may be that they themselves
would not characterize it as such, and anyone else doing so is arbitrary
and capricious.
My suggestion is to simply state that what some persons might consider as
"sexually explicit content" might appear anywhere in any of the
hundred-plus conferences on Grex, and anyone is welcome to explore Grex to
identify for themselves material that they would consider as sexually
explicit.
If we believe in free speech, what right do we have to put someone else's
labels on types of speech conducted here?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 111:
|
May 28 14:59 UTC 1999 |
In #44, I should have in all instances written "sexually explicit content
harmful to children". I do recognize that if I write "penis", I have
written a sexually explicit word, although I am not sure about "crotch".
|
jep
|
|
response 46 of 111:
|
May 28 15:38 UTC 1999 |
I'm by no means in favor of the new law, from what I've seen of it. I
hope groups which are involved in politics, such as the ACLU, manage to
do it in. But Grex is not such a group. Those who want to oppose this
law should join other groups that do such things.
When we discussed the Blue Ribbon campaign, in response to CDA II, some
said it would not be the opening of a floodgate of political advocacy
using Grex. I disagreed with them. Now there's this law, not a very
long time later, and the ACLU wants to use Grex to endorse and promote
it's political agenda. And Grex is going to go along with it (or so it
appears to me). I was right during the previous debate. Once again, I
urge everyone to consider whether this is really what we want Grex to
become. I hope enough people will say "no" to turn Grex back into being
a user community open to everyone, including those who may not support
this particular agenda.
|
aaron
|
|
response 47 of 111:
|
May 28 16:03 UTC 1999 |
I don't think the proponents of that bill would feel very welcome here,
even if Grex does not join as a plaintiff. I don't think Grex would
enjoy trying to function under the restrictions imposed by that bill --
and may, in fact, find it impossible to comply.
I realize, John, that you oppose the ACLU on general principle, but the
ACLU can't bring this suit in its own name. It requires the participation
of organizations which will actually be affected by the legislation.
My concern, if I were a board member, would be more along the lines of
responding to the discovery and depositions -- who will sign on the dotted
line, and who will be deposed? If you are a board member, consider that it
may be you who ends up spending a day or two in depositions.
I am still at something of a loss to understand John's concern that Grex
might step on users' toes by opposing this law. Grex would change a lot
if this law were fully enforced against it -- presumably, even pro-
censorship users see something they like about Grex, or they wouldn't be
here.
|
dang
|
|
response 48 of 111:
|
May 28 16:49 UTC 1999 |
John: We need to fight this law to keep Grex "a user community open to
everyone, including those who may not support this particulary agenda."
If this law passes, Grex will no longer be able to be open to
everyone. We will have to restrict access based on age, or else
police and censor the conferences. This law, if upheld, will be
the death of Grex. I certainly wouldn't want to be around a
system that lived under the restrictions emposed by this law. It is in
Grex's vital interest to fight this law in any way it can. It has
nothing to do with political agendas, it has to do with the very
survival of Grex. If we don't fight, we lose Grex.
|
mwg
|
|
response 49 of 111:
|
May 28 17:04 UTC 1999 |
I think that this has to be addressed. If this law actually takes effect
unchallenged, Grex could not continue to function in any worthwhile way.
There are some things you have to fight for, full-time, or give them up.
The censors will not stop, ever. We deal with it every time it comes up,
and be assured that we will not even know which way the current issue is
going before something else starts, or we fold up the tent. Ignoring the
issue is just waiting to have the tent confiscated.
Applying someones labels to posts for example purposes may be necessary,
if you cannot work out what the enemy is likely to target, you lose a
fairly short battle. If examples of speech that may be supressed are
needed for participation, it will have to be done, however distasteful
some may find it. Again, we do this or we pull the plug, or we have the
system carted away in blue panel trucks.
|
mwg
|
|
response 50 of 111:
|
May 28 17:05 UTC 1999 |
(dang slipped in, I detect a trend here in responses.)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 51 of 111:
|
May 28 17:12 UTC 1999 |
> Grex has no basis or right to "just do extracts of any number of
> items in the sexuality conference".
Get real - each and every [telnetting] grex user has the capability to do
this very thing right now, and so has the "right" to do it. Grex as an
entity certainly has the right to do what its users can do. Obviously,
there would be no need to identify the users making each posting, but to
make extracts of the content of discussions - which are freely available to
the whole world, via the web even, for crying out loud - is betraying no
trust to grex users. I'm not saying that this should or will be done, but
it certainly could be done, and I would have no problem in grex doing so.
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 111:
|
May 28 18:06 UTC 1999 |
It might be someone's contention that nuclear weapons could lead to a
nuclear war, which would destroy all life on the planet, and with it,
Grex. Therefore, Grex ought to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons.
Any one of us here could think of 1000 such agendas for Grex to support,
and could think of a similar argument by which Grex could support any
such political agenda. (Abortions could lead to 0 babies being born,
therefore the end of Grex; telephone company mergers could drive up our
costs, therefore the end of Grex; increased parking meter fees could
lead to someone blocking Grex's driveway, so that no staffer could
reboot the system for a month, therefore the end of Grex.) They're all
silly examples, intended only to lead to the phrase "end of Grex", and
thus to an excuse for Grex to take political action.
The arguments in this item are about as silly. We can and do live with
censorship. The commonest example is credit card numbers. Users cannot
post credit card numbers on Grex, and yet we've survived, and prospered
pretty well.
The real reason for driving Grex into political action, and dragging
every user of the system into supporting the ACLU's political agenda as
a condition for using the system, is that some people here find the new
law to be distasteful. To use Grex is to support Grex. Every user here
is a part of the reason I am here. I wouldn't be logging on to a system
with 100 users -- just those who pay money -- for very long. Thus,
those who log in here are by that definition "supporters", and to some
extent, they have to buy into Grex's endorsements for agendas. Ask
those who won't eat Domino's Pizza because of Tom Monahan's Catholic
activities what I mean, if I haven't yet made myself clear. Even one of
the ACLU lawyers pointed out that some people will see opposition to
this law as support for free access to pornography by children.
I do despise the ACLU. No doubt about that, and I've said so many times
over the last 13 years while I've been on-line, here and on M-Net. They
have a very politicized liberal agenda. Where is the ACLU on defending
people's right to own guns, or practice religion even in public places
like schools by common, popular religions like Christianity? They don't
support such rights, they oppose them. They oppose other rights, too;
they pick whose rights to support and whose to oppose, and stomp some
people pretty well into submission.
Enough of that. I'm not interested in debating the benefits of the
ACLU. I do not see the acronym "ACLU", though, and put on the blinders
like a lot of people here do, and leap to support their agenda,
whatever it is. As much as I dislike the ACLU, from what I know in this
case, I maybe hope they prevail on this one issue. I just hope they do
it without Grex, which shouldn't be involved in politics.
|
swa
|
|
response 53 of 111:
|
May 28 18:10 UTC 1999 |
Yes. Any user has the capability to extract something from a conference and
do whatever they like with it. I'm not sure what Grex's usual policy is,
but
it seems to be that it would be more meaningful to provide specific examples
than to merely say more vaguely, "um, yeah, we have some stuff like that out
there."
I'd like to suggest that such examples, if we provide them, *not* be limited
entirely to the sexuality conference. As albaugh said in #38, the point is
that grex *as a whole* is threatened, with or without the sexuality
conference. And let's face it, we talk about questionable things
everywhere. ;)
Look, I'm not even a dues-paying member (yet! that will change when I get
my act together, really!), so I'm not sure how much y'all should listen to
me over those who know what they're doing and the board members and such. :)
I'm not sure what our current policies are, or how this will affect them.
And I think jep has a point, that getting into a habit of political advocacy
may not be wise for an organization such as grex. That said, I think this
is something grex needs to fight, and I would be willing to help in whatever
way I could.
Oh, and like dang, I was active on grex as a minor, and I really benefitted
from it. I think this is a good place for teenagers to test out their ideas
and get into discussions with others and ultimately come out of it wiser
people. But good luck convincing the government of *that*.
|
swa
|
|
response 54 of 111:
|
May 28 18:13 UTC 1999 |
#52 slipped in. But I question the assumption that most of us are just
thinking blindly, foaming at the mouth becasue, hey, it's the ACLU. Not only
does the fairly thoughtful discussion we've been having here bely that, but
it's also a bit insulting to assume that most grexers can't think for
themselves.
|
jep
|
|
response 55 of 111:
|
May 28 18:22 UTC 1999 |
I agree, most Grexers can think for themselves. They can act for
themselves. That's what they should do, and we should encourage. Grex
doesn't need to be involved.
Many people here *do* accept the ACLU as "right first, ask questions
later".
|
aaron
|
|
response 56 of 111:
|
May 28 18:34 UTC 1999 |
re #52: You are truly missing the boat, with your analogy to nuclear
weapons. It would be more analogous to your complainting that
the NRA shouldn't oppose a law that banned all handguns, as some
of its members might not oppose such a law.
When I have asked you for specifics with regard to the ACLU --
actual cases where you disagreed with their actions -- you failed
to name a single one. Forgive me, but I think your reaction is
knee-jerk. You don't like the ACLU, because it is "liberal." You
oppose anything that the ACLU wants to do, because it is the ACLU.
You would have Grex bite off its nose to spite its face, because
you think it would also spite the ACLU.
Name the people here who are your obverse -- who propose that
people should blindly follow the ACLU. Can you name even one?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 111:
|
May 28 18:41 UTC 1999 |
While I think the ACLU is one of the most important citizen based
organizations in the country for defending Bill of Rights against all
those that would want to take away our rights - that is not why I
support entering this suit. This goes right to the heart of what
Grex was founded for and what it is - an public, open, conferencing
system. It *is* Freedom of Speech. We disppear if freedom of speech
disappears, including freedom of even a little bit of speech that some
very narrow interest groups don't like.
I'm sure John knows that what the ACLU is defending is the freedom of
the minority from being oppressed by the majority, in regard to the
religion-in-schools issue, and I am also sure he knows that sure-as-shootin'
(apropos adage...) non-Christians in school that promote Christian
activities in the classroom, would be put at a disadvantage. ACLU does
not take a general position on guns, however.
This is not a matter of anyone's "political agenda" unless you call
defending the rights given us by the Constitution a political agenda. I
see using that term for the basis of our government and freedom an
attempt to put a negative label on things we value most. Freedom of
speech a (subversive) "political agenda"? Well, yes, it certainly is
in China.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 111:
|
May 28 19:13 UTC 1999 |
Is there a lot of desire here to debate the merits of the ACLU? I did
list a couple of the reasons why I describe the ACLU as having a
political agenda, as requested by Aaron -- yet he's asking for a couple
of reasons why I describe the ACLU as having a political agenda. Some
days you can't get the simplest of points across.
Rane, I'm reasonably sure you understand my point. Do you really want
to debate it here and now? The ACLU's name on anything rings loud bells
in my head, but even so, I'm not rabidly against everything they do,
regardless of what it is. *I wished them well in this case.* It's
still a political agenda which Grex should avoid.
|
dpc
|
|
response 59 of 111:
|
May 28 19:14 UTC 1999 |
I think Grex should join the lawsuit. Of course, I'm chair of the
Lawyers Committee of the Washtenaw ACLU, so what can you expect? 8-)
Mike Steinberg, the Legal Director of the *State* ACLU is a
friend of mine. He called me asking about Grex, and I've sent him
e-mail back.
A couple of thoughts:
1. No one from Grex is required to *sign* the complaint.
Ordinarily, plaintiffs don't. Their lawyers sign the complaint on
their behalf. However, Grex should insist on *seeing* a copy of the
draft complaint.
2. I'm not really sure Grex can meet the "standing" requirement
because I'm hard pressed to see that Grex is really threatened by
this new statute. The fact that we don't allow graphics means that
we are physically unable to transmit the only kind of pornography
(kiddie or adult) that is currently prosecuted: *images*. Yes,
the new law technically covers text, but images are where the action
has been for the past decade or so. Trust me--I was the "porn king
" for the Michigan House of Reps and helped write the *very* restrictive
porn statute referred to in this new statute; by "restrictive" I mean
that it is almost impossible for *anything* to be pornographic under it.
The prosecutors lost a couple of video-porn cases shortly after it
was enacted; since then they've given up.
I'd be glad to join a legal liaison committee.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 60 of 111:
|
May 28 19:35 UTC 1999 |
I would like to see Grex join this suit.
I'd also be willing to help with legal liason/public relations.
|
aaron
|
|
response 61 of 111:
|
May 28 19:53 UTC 1999 |
re #58: John, I might feel better had you explained your views on the ACLU
when we were discussing it in an item devoted to that purpose.
Instead, while grudgingly conceding that you could not point to a
single case the ACLU had taken were you opposed their position,
you took the "just because" approach to explaining your opposition.
It is easy to bandy about terms like "liberal," but what do those
terms mean? Perhaps you can now describe for us a few cases which
involved the ACLU, where you felt that the plaintiff's rights truly
should have been subverted, and explain why you feel that way.
Start, if you will, with the proposed suit over on-line speech
restrictions, presently under discussion.
re #59: Somebody from Grex would be required to sign interrogatory answers.
I was not aware that you could not obtain standing on the basis of
a plain-text reading of a statute. Is that really what you are
arguing?
|
aaron
|
|
response 62 of 111:
|
May 28 19:54 UTC 1999 |
I guess it is also worth noting, on the "graphics" front that Grex
hosts webpages, some of which have graphics.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 111:
|
May 28 20:57 UTC 1999 |
Grex should certainly join this lawsuit. I'd like to see Arbornet join it
too, being that M-net has been around many years longer than Grex and is
arguably more well known. Sad thing is, if the Michigan courts are now,
as I suspect, stacked with conservative Engler appointees, killing this
bill may be an uphill battle.
Grex will benefit from being part of this lawsuit. It will get publicity
and more people will hear and know of grex. Perhaps the board should
issue a press release announcing grex'x participation, and of course
announce it on the web page and put links to the various sites with info.
about the case.
|