|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 316:
| 
Jun 15 15:21 UTC 1999 |
I found a couple of typos (istinguish instead of distinguish, and one place
where "act" was not capitalized and should have been), but otherwise I think
this looks great, and I've sent it on to Marshall Widick, along with the
exhibits.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 316:
|
Jun 15 18:06 UTC 1999 |
Many thanks to Jan, who did the lion's share of the work in writing
this up. My contribution was mainly fine-tuning and polishing.
I noticed another typo. In the 2nd paragraph under "RESTRICTING
CONTENT IS NOT FEASIBLE", I typed "virtually possible" when I meant
"virtually impossible". Gotta make sure that's fixed in the official
version.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 48 of 316:
|
Jun 15 18:19 UTC 1999 |
5th paragraph under "RESTRICTING CONTENT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR MISSION"
should be "an open" instead of "a open".
|
aruba
|
|
response 49 of 316:
|
Jun 15 19:11 UTC 1999 |
OK, I've integrated those changes into my copy of the declaration.
|
keesan
|
|
response 50 of 316:
|
Jun 15 19:13 UTC 1999 |
Did anyone catch 'to finding' which should be 'to find' (volunteers) and
'this kind of perspective be gained' (missing can/could before be)?
Will this document be archived for future reference?
|
aruba
|
|
response 51 of 316:
|
Jun 15 19:21 UTC 1999 |
Got "to finding". Can't find "this kind of perspective be gained" - I think
that was from an earlier version.
|
janc
|
|
response 52 of 316:
|
Jun 15 22:10 UTC 1999 |
It looks like I will be declarant for this, since John's travel times
may be incompatible with the dates testimony might be needed.
|
remmers
|
|
response 53 of 316:
|
Jun 15 23:04 UTC 1999 |
Yes. The attorney called me this afternoon and indicated that this
was their preference, because of my non-availability during much of
July.
He also indicated that if a hearing is held when I *am* available,
they might want to call me as an expert witness. I told him I'm
quite willing to do that. So I'm not off the hook. :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 54 of 316:
|
Jun 15 23:51 UTC 1999 |
I sent Marshall a new version with typos corrected and Jan's biographical info
filled in. It's in ~aruba/aclu/dec4.txt .
|
scg
|
|
response 55 of 316:
|
Jun 16 01:03 UTC 1999 |
I would hesitate, or at least discuss it with the attorneys first, before
submitting part of an item along with a URL for the rest of it. My guess is
that the judge may not want to be bothered to go out on the Net and look for
stuff the parties to the lawsuit are supposed to have provided. That may be
wrong, but assuming URLs alone are ok is at least not a good unspoken
assumption.
|
janc
|
|
response 56 of 316:
|
Jun 16 03:11 UTC 1999 |
I don't think there is any law that says we have to submit whole items.
An item is an extract from a conference. A conference is a extract from
Grex. We can't submit all the text on Grex, we have to pick some very
small bits of it as examples. I think that could have been one
response, or even just part of a response, if that was what we thought
would make our case. We submitted some surrounding text, because we
wanted to show these (possibly) sexually explicit responses in the
context of a community. But that doesn't mean we have to give 157
responses worth of surrounding context, or a whole conference's worth of
surrounding context.
|
aruba
|
|
response 57 of 316:
|
Jun 16 04:15 UTC 1999 |
Right. Marshall Widick suggested using only a selection of the responses, if
the item was too long.
|
scg
|
|
response 58 of 316:
|
Jun 16 05:16 UTC 1999 |
Ah, ok. I'll certainly defer to the opinion of the attorney on this.
|
dpc
|
|
response 59 of 316:
|
Jun 16 13:35 UTC 1999 |
Right; if our opponents or the judge want to see the full items,
all they have to do is ask. 8-)
|
aruba
|
|
response 60 of 316:
|
Jun 16 15:28 UTC 1999 |
Actually, all they have to do is click.
|
aruba
|
|
response 61 of 316:
|
Jun 17 13:31 UTC 1999 |
I just got mail from Dave Cahill saying that Mike Seinberg told him Cyberspace
Communications is likely to be the lead plaintiff in the case. Apparently
"Cyberspace v. Engler" has a ring to it. So we might get some media
attention after all. This is exciting!
|
dpc
|
|
response 62 of 316:
|
Jun 17 13:42 UTC 1999 |
It looks like Grex will be the *lead plaintiff* in the suit!
Mike Steinberg says they like the ring of "Cyberspace v. Engler".
|
janc
|
|
response 63 of 316:
|
Jun 17 14:21 UTC 1999 |
Amusing.
|
mary
|
|
response 64 of 316:
|
Jun 17 17:38 UTC 1999 |
John and I got a telephone call late last night, from Mr. Steinberg,
giving us a "heads-up" that Grex would most likely be the lead
plaintiff, that the suit would be filed Monday morning, and a
press conference would be scheduled for sometime later that
morning. He asked I attend. I'm trying to make arrangements
to do be there.
|
remmers
|
|
response 65 of 316:
|
Jun 17 17:42 UTC 1999 |
Yes, it's exciting. It is possible that the ACLU might change its
strategy and make another party the lead plaintiff, possibly
depending on who the final list of plaintiffs turns out to be. But
they do feel that we make a very strong plaintiff because of our
structure and mission.
|
janc
|
|
response 66 of 316:
|
Jun 18 12:37 UTC 1999 |
Cool. I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to write a "press
release" document about this. It could use some text from our
declaration, but would at least need a bit more information introducing
what the Act is about, and could stand to be shorter and more compact.
I'd be interested in helping to write such a thing, but I won't be
available for about a week, so we should probably find someone else.
|
aruba
|
|
response 67 of 316:
|
Jun 18 12:44 UTC 1999 |
I can do that. I'll work on it today.
|
scg
|
|
response 68 of 316:
|
Jun 18 14:55 UTC 1999 |
Where and when is the press conference?
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 316:
|
Jun 18 18:04 UTC 1999 |
We don't know yet. Somewhere in Detroit. It's not definite yet
that it will happen, only likely. When I know more, I'll post it
here.
Thanks for working on the press release, Mark. Regardless
whether the press conference happens, it will be a useful
document to have.
|
dpc
|
|
response 70 of 316:
|
Jun 18 20:34 UTC 1999 |
Indeed it is.
|