response 50 of 103:

Mar 1 20:26 UTC 1996

   Let's try and remember that we don't know what the CDA is, yet.

   If the CDA gets enough teeth knocked out of it, such that only
"obscene" materiel is illegal, then we can live with it.  Thats
already the law in the slow world.  So that type of CDA is essentially
something we're already living with.

   But I am beginning to wonder if Leahy's bill might not make it,
simply becuase the politicans can then vote for the repeal act, so
they can say, "I'm for free specch" come election time.

response 52 of 103:

Mar 1 22:45 UTC 1996

  SRW, of course I respect your opinions with regard to this, and nobody
should be reducing this to name calling.  But I would argue that you 
currently support Grex, when its unverified, open access policy probably
pushes the envelope on any number of current laws.  Each user of grex
basically has a licence to broadcast their opinions anonymously.  By
simply supporting such a board, that has no access restrictions, you took
a stand that many would find unacceptable and irresponsible.  Maintaining
the open access policy when grex went on the 'net was an even bolder, 
and riskier proposition.
   I would argue that you have already taken greater risks in supporting
grex as it is today than you would take by continuing to support it if
the board declines to comply with the CDA.  As long as the clinton
administration is running the justice department, this is a law that will
almost certainly be loosely enforced.  There are many laws on the books
in this country that are only enforced when it suits somebody's objectives.
If you had sex with your wife before you were married, you probably violated
a state sodomy law of some kind (most states have them but they are rarely
enforced)  If you cross a street in the middle of the road instead of at
a crossing, you are breaking the law, but that doesnt mean anything unless
the law is being enforced.  
  All I'm saying is that there is no need to make contingency plans, and 
fall all over each other trying to get in compliance the minute the CDA
clears the legal challenges and makes it onto the books.  The best course of
action is to not do anything, and wait until the day comes that someone
official knocks on the door of the dungeon and suggests what they would like
done.  I'm sure there were many who said grex would get overrun and end up
in legal trouble if it went on the 'net with its open access policy.  But
it hasnt happened.  
  I'm guessing that Grex is much too small for the justice department to
come after anyway.  It would be a waste of resources.  This law is
intended to influence large web sites and places like AOL and compuserve.
So grex should just quietly go about its business, not ruffle any
feathers, and unless someone complains, nobody is likely to pay any
attention.
  The worst thing that could be done in this situation is to overreact.

response 54 of 103:

Mar 2 00:03 UTC 1996

re: #45  I think I can safely take that pledge, kerouac.  I agree that booting
kids (up to 17 years and 364 days) off the net is a bad idea and completely
inappropriate.

response 56 of 103:

Mar 2 08:38 UTC 1996

well said.

response 58 of 103:

Mar 2 18:10 UTC 1996

        There is a *big* difference between obscene posting and indecent
postings.  I don't think there will ever be a problem with obscene postings
on Grex, we're just not that kind of system.  However if the indecency
provisions are left in the CDA/enforced then I think Grex may be in big
doggy do-do.

response 60 of 103:

Mar 2 21:34 UTC 1996

There have been obscene posts on Grex, Matthew.  My CF (After Dark) 
has quite a few of them...

response 62 of 103:

Mar 2 23:59 UTC 1996

  Well then SRW, you answered my question....if it was the CDApartheidAct,
(CDAA), and the law said grex had to validate all users in order to 
screen out those who are minorites and not white, you would support that
because that would be the law.  You let the law decide for you what is
right and wrong, rather than following your own moral code and making
your own decisions about morality.  Lawmakers arent perfect and there
are times when the law is not right.  Of course you can say that its
better to follow a law while its in effect and try to change it, but 
there are times when it is just wrong to blindly follow edicts.

Under that theory, the nazi soldiers at the death camps were right to hold
open the doors to the ovens, even if they personally thought it was
wrong to be doing so, because they were obeying the law.  I guess what Im
saying is that if you believe that your own personal moral code, what you 
believe to be right and wrong, is the standard by which you want to 
lead your life, then you cant betray that code for reasons of societal
conformance.  Those soldiers in those camps sold out their souls, and
I think most came later to realize that.

Sometimes to have integrity and honor, and to be true to ourselves, we
have to stand up in the face of what is wrong.  Not stand on the sidelines
and simply cheer while others do the fighting.  The CDA is wrong, it goes
against the bill of rights, and the principles on which this country was
founded.  To decline to comply in this instance would be the right thing to
do, the courageous thing to do.  This isnt about grex, but about the
world our kids will grow up in and the environment in which they will be
allowed to live and communicate.  Its about making sure kids in the future
arent taught to be afraid of everything, and ARE taught to understand
the world.  About kids in the future not being forced to live in censored
cocoons that represent a false reality.  

response 64 of 103:

Mar 3 01:46 UTC 1996

  Query: to comply with the CDA might require an update or revisions in
picospan.  Picospan is marcus's program, and he's already indicated
he's not in favor of grex adopting censorship policies.  Since it is his
copyrighted software, would he be within his rights to refuse grex 
permission to adapt picospan to a censored environment?  
   Obviously Grex could just use somebody else's conferencing software,
(export a copy of yapp from mnet or something), but these are difficulties
that could be encountered if the Board insists on adopting an unpopular
policy.

response 66 of 103:

Mar 3 07:05 UTC 1996

brighn, the RICO statute was one of those "just for extreme cases" laws
that you perhaps thought wouldn't become teh BigGummintClub that it
has become. Frankly, i see little difference (in application potential)
between RICO and CDA. Legal feces has this annoying tendency to get
spread around when some power monger farts too hard.
  
And yes, there is a very wide separation between Nazism and CDA. It used
to be, however, very, VERY wide. 

response 68 of 103:

Mar 3 08:16 UTC 1996

..and that is what the Constitution also protects - seeking a redress
of grievances.

response 70 of 103:

Mar 4 00:08 UTC 1996

  SRW, Grex as it currently is, would horrify people like Senator Exon because
there is no way to determine which users are kids.  I dont even know how
they could enforce the CDA here because somebody complaining would have
to PROVE that such and such a user was under the age of 18, and that staff
KNEW that person was under age.  So maybe the idea should be to discourage
users from posting their age in their .plans or elsewhere on the system.
As long as there are such obvious ways to get around the CDA, there is no
point in rushing into compliance.  
  The CDA assumes there are set ways to identify users who are minors.  Here
there are not, and the CDA (from what I can tell) does not require computer
boards to have such verification policies, but probably just assumes 
(correctly) that most do.  Grex is so out of the norm that I seriously doubt
a CDA complaint against it would hold up in court, so what is the risk in
not complying?
  If the Board got a legal opinion that a lawsuit filed against grex for
violating CDA would not hold up because there are no verification procedures,
THEN would you agree to a policy of non-compliance?

response 72 of 103:

Mar 4 00:17 UTC 1996

        Uhhhh it would be nice if it worked that way, but presumbly all
that has to happen is that the BBS (Grex) provides access to "indecent"
material to an actual minor regardless od whether we know the minor is
a minor then the CDA is triggered.  In fact it will probably have the
opposite effect of causing more BBSs to ahve an age veriftion policy.
<sigh>

response 74 of 103:

Mar 4 05:25 UTC 1996

I personally don't believe the CDA is either right or proper.  That does
not mean I think believe people who believe in CDA are "bad" -- but I do
believe these people are confused about what it means to live in a free
society, or in fact *don't* want to live in a free society.  I want to
live in a society that practices tolerance and diversity.  I believe CDA
would destroy this, and I think that would leave the world considerably
the poorer for it.  So, yes, in the sense that I disagree with both the
means & the goals of the CDA proponents, I do believe they are "wrong".

If CDA folds entirely (& I think there is cause to hope here), then
there will have been no reason for us to do anything here.  If CDA does
not fold, well, I think one thing is for certain, it is not likely to be
fully implemented in the fashion that senator Exon would wish.  That is
good, because I do not think there is any way Grex could legally &
safely operate that would satisfy the senator.  There is a wide range of
possibilities for what such a modified form of the law might end up
meaning for Grex, and even slight differences in interpretation might
dramatically shift their impact on Grex.  It is certainly reasonable for
us to discuss the range of possibilities & and how we might deal with
these possibilities.  But I think it would be a waste of effort to try
to form any more definite plans in the meantime, until we know the shape
of things - there is simply too great a range of possibilities for
anything we decide now to be useful later.

In some of the discussion above, it seems to me we've confused the role
of "staff" and "board" with the "particular people" on them.  I do think
it's reasonable to insist that board & staff act within the parameters
of the the express wishes of the majority of the members.  That does not
mean we have any right to insist individual board or staff members do or
take any particular action.  I would hope that if board or staff members
found they had personal or "other" reasons why they could not accede to
the wishes of the membership (and there were no real alternative), that
they would resign rather than imposing their wishes upon the membership.
I also think that things have not come anywhere close to that yet, and I
think there is good reason to hope this will never be a real issue.

So far as verification goes: CDA comes in two parts: an "obscenity" part,
which covers everyone, and a "indecency" part, which only covers minors.
Judging by recent court rulings, it is almost certain that the "indecency"
would be quickly found unconstitutional, and would evaporate.  Note
that the first injunction granted was in fact against the indecency
part.  The only reason to do verification under CDA is to deal with
minors, and therefore, it is extremely unlikely we need worry about
any new requirements for verification, at least under THIS law.