|
Grex > Coop11 > #102: Minutes of the June 7, 1999 Special Meeting of the Grex Board | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 15 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 4 of 15:
| 
Jun 8 15:34 UTC 1999 |
Excellent minutes of a l-o-n-g discussion.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 15:
|
Jun 8 17:51 UTC 1999 |
Thanks to Jan for the prompt and excellent minutes.
Also, thanks to Mark for organizing the meeting. I was unable to
do so myself, as I was out of town for a week, getting back just
three hours before the meeting began. I'm glad it worked out that
I was able to attend and that the Board was able to go on record
in unanimous support of joining the suit.
Addtional thanks to Mark for agreeing to be the liaison with the
ACLU and to Mary for agreeing to be media spokesperson.
As to John Perry's point about Grex being "used" -- I don't see
it that way. Rather, I view it as Grex *using* the expert
services of the ACLU to protect its vital interests.
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 15:
|
Jun 8 20:02 UTC 1999 |
resp:3
John,
While the case of the blue ribbon on our web front page, which is a symbolic action taken by GREX, is
arguably a political move, the participation of GREX in this lawsuit is much less identifiably a political
move than simply a parallel to the kind of work that the staff does to protect GREX from the many
vandals who daily attempt to damage or otherwise prevent GREX from offering its services to the
community at large.
This law, Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999, if allowed to stand unchallenged, would essentially mean the end of
GREX. We're not so much taking a stand against narrow-minded legislation or government
interference as we are standing up to assure that GREX will be able to continue to function as a
home and haven for the free expression of ideas, one of the basic principles upon which GREX was
founded.
Political activism is an abstract concept. Our involvement in this case is because we have a legitimate and
vital interest in the removal of this law from the possibility of enforcement. I'm sure many of us feel that
in so doing, we are also taking that more abstract step into political activism, and for a cause about which
many of us appear to feel very strongly, but those are individual feelings, and not the real rationale for
GREX to be involved in this suit.
We all want GREX to be here for us. Participating in this action will neither alter the character nor
the function of GREX, and the decision is not taken lightly in any case.
|
jshafer
|
|
response 7 of 15:
|
Jun 8 20:29 UTC 1999 |
Ouch! Um, from backtalk that looks horrible.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 15:
|
Jun 9 10:43 UTC 1999 |
(I agree. Harder to read than a plain-text version would be.)
|
jep
|
|
response 9 of 15:
|
Jun 9 13:31 UTC 1999 |
I'm not convinced of the logic of #6. Never mind it's formatting.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 10 of 15:
|
Jun 12 03:28 UTC 1999 |
While I have no objection to seeking permission from posters ("authors")
before using the text of their responses to supply examples of things that
would be affected by the law, I don't think the actual names (handles) of the
posters should be included, as it's the content of the postings that matters,
not who said what.
|
aruba
|
|
response 11 of 15:
|
Jun 12 04:46 UTC 1999 |
Well, if we include a whole item, it is a bit tricky since people refer to
each other by name. I think it's appropriate to change someone's name and
login to hide their identity, though, before submitting an example. I'll do
that for anyone who requests it.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 12 of 15:
|
Jun 12 19:48 UTC 1999 |
I suggest that you do that for anyone who does not request otherwise; ie, that
it be the default that names and handles be disguised.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 13 of 15:
|
Jun 12 19:55 UTC 1999 |
I agree with lilmo.
|
janc
|
|
response 14 of 15:
|
Jun 13 13:21 UTC 1999 |
I understand very well the objections to including people's words in a
context different from where they originally posted it.
But I feel it is necessary to point out that there are also problems
with editting a document that we are submitting as evidence in a court
case. We at least need to talk to the attorneys before doing that.
My thinking is that we might do best by (1) getting permission to use
sections of these items as they stand, (2) quoting those sections, while
giving the URL to read the whole item.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 15 of 15:
|
Jun 29 00:11 UTC 1999 |
That sounds pretty good. But I am still in favor of not submitting the names
and handles of ppl whom we have not been able to contact.
|