|
Grex > Coop11 > #114: Motion to Rescind Board Resolution on Suspending Grex Public Access | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 57 of 203:
| 
Aug 2 21:15 UTC 1999 |
I'd personally rather avoid getting into a situation where acquittal is a good
outcome.
|
aruba
|
|
response 58 of 203:
|
Aug 2 21:37 UTC 1999 |
Oh for Christ's sake, Dave, we did not pass a motion to "cease
operations". I would never have voted for such a thing. All we voted to
do was to close public access temporarily while we decided on a plan to
allow everyone to participate in deciding what to do next.
No, we didn't consult with the ACLU lawyers because we didn't have time -
that was why we had the vote in the first place: there wasn't time for the
usual lengthy Grex decision making process.
But now there is. I agree with Jan, that this motion would be better
replaced by one describing a course of action. As it is, if this motion
passed, but no further plans were made, the board would be in a very
awkward position if the law ever did come into effect. So I wish you would
table this motion, Dave, and instead propose a substantive one.
I am the contact person for CCI with the ACLU, so I'll take responsibility
for finding out what their answer is to "would you defend us if we ever
got sued under this law".
|
richard
|
|
response 59 of 203:
|
Aug 2 22:23 UTC 1999 |
It is silly to think that the Michigan State government is going to think
that a little, non-commercial, text-only place like Grex is worth the time
and money to go after. The government no doubt would have limited
resources to enforce this new law, and would concentrate on web sites
offering graphic porno content or pointers to sites that do. The board
seems to have an exaggerated sense of self-importance about Grex. Surely
the possibility of them coming after grex are remote at best, so why go
extremely paranoid and make drastic changes or shut down?
Just keep operating Grex as usual, and if they come knocking, either
follow their suggestions for changes, or fight it. The ACLU or some other
legal advocacy group would probably represent grex pro-bono. Grex could
also start a legal defense fund and raise contributions for that
eventuality. Grex need not go into crisis mode over being in theoretical
violation of a stupid law that may *not* even apply to it anyway.
So why overreact??
|
steve
|
|
response 60 of 203:
|
Aug 2 22:36 UTC 1999 |
You know Dave, you really Don't Get It.
As Mark has said, we didn't vote to cease operations. I don't know
what other language to use. I suppose we could have a meeting and I could
jump up on the table and proclaim this right in front of where you are
sitting, but short of that, I don't know what to do.
To be fair to you, there seems to be an entire boxcar load of similar
individuals on M-Net who didn't get this, either.
It was a fall back position, one that *I* think is only reasonable. If
Grex were to have continued under this law, there might have been changes
in either personell or policies. Why there seems to be a set of people
that doesn't understand that this is *vastly* different from a motion to
cease operations I can't understand. I *can* understand why some don't
like what the board did, but that is (hopefully) a seperate issue from
this misunderstanding you (and others) have.
|
keesan
|
|
response 61 of 203:
|
Aug 3 18:24 UTC 1999 |
I think more non board members should attend board meetings. There was a lot
of well-reasoned discussion about this topic at the last meeting.
|
dpc
|
|
response 62 of 203:
|
Aug 3 19:10 UTC 1999 |
Suspending public access until new policies are made has the same
effect as ceasing operations to the members of Grex' "public".
I'm comfortable with #0 as it is. If is passes, the Board
is free to come up with other ways to address the hypothetical
situation.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 203:
|
Aug 3 22:05 UTC 1999 |
It seems obvious that the point of temporarily closing should that law
have been enacted was to give board members time to resign if they so
chose. thus the motion was in the personal interests of the board
members more than anything else.
Grex should decide ahead of time whether to keep operating, as opposed
to shutting down temporarily and then deciding. If the consensus is to
keep operating even if it might be illegal, any board member can submit
a "sealed" resignation only to take effect the day the law is enacted.
|
steve
|
|
response 64 of 203:
|
Aug 3 22:18 UTC 1999 |
No, the motion was in the interests of the best way to handle a crisis.
Giving board or staff members the option to resign seems the only logical
and graceful way to do that.
I don't think a conditional resignation is sane, personally.
|
mwg
|
|
response 65 of 203:
|
Aug 4 18:38 UTC 1999 |
Actually, an organization with nearly no chance of defending itself would
seem a prime target for a government that wanted to send a scare into
everybody. ("We won!, You're next!")
|
dpc
|
|
response 66 of 203:
|
Aug 4 19:54 UTC 1999 |
Ah! But we have an *excellent* chance of defending ourselves! In fact,
we've given "his grimness" John Engler and his right-wing allies
a small black eye already.
|
scg
|
|
response 67 of 203:
|
Aug 5 06:15 UTC 1999 |
Because of that excellent job of defending ourselves, this issue has become
moot for the time being. That's a good thing. If we were to lose this case,
our chances of defending ourselves would be much less. I don't see that
happening, though.
Dave, so as an attorney, you're asking us to ignore the law? I don't see that
as responsible at all. I can see possibly advising us on some things that
would be good faith approaches to trying to comply, which might be
reasonable. However, that seems very different than telling us, oh, ignore
the law, they're not interested in text anyway. I'm thinking of a case in
Ann Arbor a few years ago, somebody who if I remember correctly was briefly
a client of yours. A UM student named Jake Baker posted a story on Usenet,
in which he detailed a fantasy of raping, torturing, and killing a fellow UM
student, who he identified by name, and of whom the story also contained what
was apparrently a fairly accurate physical description. There was a ton of
media attention, and if I'm remembering correctly, Baker also got thrown out
of the UM, and got in a fair bit of legal trouble with the Feds. Now,
granted, Baker's text based porn piece could have been very easily construed
as a death threat, but it still doesn't give much credence to the argument
that law enforcement isn't interested in text.
|
dpc
|
|
response 68 of 203:
|
Aug 5 14:42 UTC 1999 |
Sure, I represented Jake. Actually, although the Usenet posting got
folks upset, he was actually *prosecuted* for e-mail that he *voluntarily*
gave the cops (prior to my representing him, actually). The cases
are not parallel.
I'm not saying "ignore the law". I'm saying that it's a bad
response to the law to suspend public access, pending new policies,
if the law goes into effect. By this time the Board should have had
these priceless new policies ready to go, anyway. If the law had
taken effect, I expect we were looking at a l-o-n-g suspension.
There are legal issues which were not raised in our federal
lawsuit that could easily be raised in any prosecution of Grex.
For example, to show that stuff posted here is "harmful to minors",
the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
stuff appeals to the lustful interest in sexual stimulation or
gratification of the average 17-year-old minor in a particular
county. It is *extremely* doubtful if any of the text here
meets this test. The "lustful interest" requirement wasn't mentioned
by the ACLU in its brief because it relied (successfully) on the
mere fact of material being *about sex* to convince the federal court
to intervene.
But being *about sex* doesn't establish the *lustful interest*
requirement at all. Can you imagine what the Washtenaw County
prosecutor would have to go through to try to establish that, say,
Valerie's pregnancy diary appeals to lust?
No wonder there aren't any prosecutions of stores for renting
adult videos. The similar requirements in the "obscenity" statute
are just too complicated for prosecutors used to dealing with domestic
violence and drunk driving cases.
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 203:
|
Aug 5 16:12 UTC 1999 |
But even if they couldn't prove it, they could certainly bankrupt us in the
process.
|
aruba
|
|
response 70 of 203:
|
Aug 5 16:39 UTC 1999 |
Valerie's pregnancy diary was not one of the examples we submitted for the
lawsuit, becasue it didn't fit the definition of "sexually explicit material"
in the law. (Though when I told that to Mary, and read her the definition,
she said, "Oh, childbirth is definitely sadomasochistic abuse. Only a man
would suggest otherwise." :))
I am absolutely certain that closing all public access because of the motion
the board passed would not last more than a few days. By the end of that time
people would surely be able to access their e-mail, and at least a few
conference items to discuss what to do next.
Dave, if you want to propose that Grex go on with business as usual if the
law takes effect, why don't you make a motion to that effect, and drop this
one. As it is, if this one passes, it's really not clear what we would do.
|
steve
|
|
response 71 of 203:
|
Aug 5 17:42 UTC 1999 |
Agreed--the closing would have been for a minimal amount of time.
|
dpc
|
|
response 72 of 203:
|
Aug 5 17:46 UTC 1999 |
If my motion passes, the BoD will be perfectly free to do anything
it wishes *except* suspend public access pending new policies.
Since it will probably be months before anything else happens,
I suggest the BoD work *actively* on these new policies, whatever
they might be.
Governance is up to the BoD. I just don't want access
suspended, that's all.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 73 of 203:
|
Aug 5 18:33 UTC 1999 |
If this actually goes to a vote, I will vote against it. Although I'm more
in agreement with dpc about the actual effect on Grex, I think the BoD should
not be hobbled by a resolution that says it can _not_ shut down. While I
disagree with their conclusions, I will vigorously defend their right to draw
them. ;-)
|
steve
|
|
response 74 of 203:
|
Aug 5 20:35 UTC 1999 |
Thank you.
|
richard
|
|
response 75 of 203:
|
Aug 5 21:38 UTC 1999 |
only the membership should be able to cease operatoins. If the board
shuts down grex (Im not talking about system shutdowns for maintenance
or anything like that) it is infringing and rescinding the membership
rights of the members. The bylaws dont give the Board that express
right.
Imagine, for example, that the board supported an amendment to the bylaws
to make some major change. the amendment vote fails. Rather than
accept the membership verdict, the board is presently asserting that it
could enforce its amendment by voting to shut down operations unless
the membership reconsiders. The board can shut down operations at any
time right?
The Grex bylaws should be amended to say that Grex is supposed to remain
up and in operation, except in cases of routine maintenance or basic staff
issues like repairs or technical/facility problems, unless or until the
membership of Grex votes to temporarily or permanently cease operations.
This is the issue, in fact the only issue, where it should be spelled out
that the board cannot supercede the authority of the membership.
If grex is funded by the members, than only the members shouldbe able to
shut it down.
|
scg
|
|
response 76 of 203:
|
Aug 5 21:48 UTC 1999 |
The members *do* elect the board. But Richard, weren't you the one who
thought it was horrendously unfair to base voting rights on monetary
donations?
|
richard
|
|
response 77 of 203:
|
Aug 5 21:57 UTC 1999 |
I do scg, but thats a different argument-- I think any user choosing
to validate themselves and show committment to grex by being a user
for a certain period of time, should be allowed to become a full voting
member. The members elect the board, just as voters elect congress.
But congress cannot do two things-- they cannot dissolve the government
and they cannot, by themselves, amend the Constitution. The board of
Grex cannot by itself amend the Grex bylaws, and they should not, by
themselves, be able to cease this organization's operations.
|
aruba
|
|
response 78 of 203:
|
Aug 5 22:22 UTC 1999 |
Well, I'm not sure I agree that the board should never be able to cease
operations without consent of the membership, but I do agree that it would
be inappropriate to do that in this case, and in any other I can think of
at the moment. However that's not at all what we voted for, as richard
well knows by now.
|
richard
|
|
response 79 of 203:
|
Aug 5 22:32 UTC 1999 |
you voted to cease operations until you figured out what do do. Therefore
you voted to cease operations, which is the same thing whether it is for
three days or three weeks. Under the terms of the resolution, the Board
could have kept Grex down indefinetly or permanently. Only the membership
should have been able to decide to do that. The effect of ceasing
operations even temporarily could have been quite damaging, yet the Board
was saying the membership should hve no say in the matter? Thats like
the Board saying to a member, "we'll take your money, but unless a board
election is taking place and you can vote us out, to hell withyou, we'll
make our own decisions"
|
aruba
|
|
response 80 of 203:
|
Aug 5 22:55 UTC 1999 |
(Most of the time I remember "hey, it's richard talking" and just hit the
"p" key. Occasionally I slip.)
As you well know, richard, we didn't vote to cease operations at all. We
voted to suspend public access while we worked on what to do next. The word
"suspend" was put in there to make it clear this was not "indefinite" or
"permanent". I'm sure a period of suspension would be a very busy time for
the board and staff, working to open the system up enough to let the rest of
the membership have a say in what to do next. So operations would not cease
at all.
It probably would have been better if the board laid out a more
comprehensive plan for the suspension, but we felt that we would need to
consult with the lawyers before we knew for sure what we could do next.
However, I'm confidant that such a plan would include
1. Getting e-mail up quickly (unless the lawyers thought we were liable
for anonymous users sending e-mail), and
2. Opening public access to a few items to a few items to allow people
to discuss what to do next.
Once again, I would like to see someone propose a policy that we *could*
implement, rather than just abrogating our safety valve. That policy
could be "business as usual", of course.
|
richard
|
|
response 81 of 203:
|
Aug 5 23:23 UTC 1999 |
suspending public access is tantamount to suspending the service that
grex offers. maybe this needs re-phrasing: only the membership should
be able to vote to decline to the members and users grex's service,
unless technical problems or maintenance is required.
|