|
Grex > Coop11 > #114: Motion to Rescind Board Resolution on Suspending Grex Public Access | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 7 of 203:
| 
Jul 28 23:17 UTC 1999 |
Richard, curb your paranoia.
I'm with jep on this. I support what the board did, even at the cost of
losing my net access. I think the board is very mindful of the turmoil that
would be caused by shutting Grex down, even for a short while. I think it
is a very unlikely possibility that we will have to shut down.
Nonetheless, the board _should_ be considerting these kinds of things, and
just as I am making arrangements should this emergency action be required,
they are very prudent in making arrangements for that possibility.
As far as I can see, those of us who feel civil disobedience is the correct
course should be getting our MNet accounts set up quickly.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 203:
|
Jul 29 00:14 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:6 - the hearing last week *was* to enjoin the state from
enforcing the law while the suit is pending. We're waiting for the
judge's decision. If it goes against us, the suit on the merits will
still go forward, but the law will be in effect and Grex will be
liable for prosecution.
I'm the board chair, so I'll try to explain where the board is coming
from on this. C. McGee has it basically right. We were planning for a
worst-case scenario that we don't expect to come about. But we felt
there should be a contingency in case the law did go into effect. I
suspect the reason that nobody - either board members or users -
initiated public discussion of this earlier is that we are so
optimistic of winning. In retrospect, it would have been better if
there had been. But there wasn't, so the board took it up for the
first time at Monday's meeting. We thought it would be irresposible to
continue with business as usual if the law goes into effect. To cite
just one concern, users could be in jeopardy without knowing it - for
example, someone who posted sexually explicit text in a conference a
while ago and who isn't even on Grex anymore, even though their text
still is. We felt we needed some time to make decisions on what to do
about things like this.
Like Steve, I don't think this will really be an issue, since the
judge promised a decision before August 1, and I have every reason to
think it will be in our favor. At the hearing, which I attended, the
judge appeared very sympathetic to the our case. (Also, he's an ACLU
member, and not an Engler appointee since this was federal, not state,
court.) And in any case, a temporary shutdown would not be "running
away". If our request for an injunction is denied, the ACLU will
appeal, there will be a trial on the merits of the law, grex will
participate in that process, and we will fight the thing in court.
In the unlikely event of a shutdown, users won't be out of the
loop. I'll call an emergency board and staff meeting for purposes of
getting as many services up as we can as quickly as possible. There
will be updates on the web page. It is probably feasible to use
Backtalk to have a discussion item in which users can post responses.
Email appears to be protected by the "ISP exemption" in the law, so I
think we'll be able to have that up and available with minimal
disruption.
Again: A shutdown appears very unlikely to happen. My take from my
participation in this suit is that the judge is almost certain to
grant the temporary injunction against enforcement of this law (he
promised a decision before August 1, as Steve points out) and we won't
need to worry about changing a thing when August 1 rolls around.
Dave's take on the law in #0 puzzles me, and seems contradictory. It's
far from obvious to me that it's aimed only at "teaser pages on adult
porn sites." If that's really true, then Grex and Arbornet don't have
standing in the case, Grex shouldn't have become involved, and Dave
shouldn't have been the declarant for Arbornet. If we don't think
this can have serious consequences for Grex, we shouldn't be plaintiffs
at all.
Anyway, an article in last week's Detroit Free Press indicated that
the Michigan State Police plan to use it to nab "internet predators"
without having to produce a victim. Hmmm... Presumably if someone
posts sexually explicit material and a cop decides that it looks
"predatory"? A scary prospect. In any case, I think we have to go by
what the law actually says, not a best-case scenario of how it might
be applied. Look at the text in item 98, resp. #7 (resp:coop,98,7),
read Section 2(c) definiing "sexually explicit verbal material", then
Section 5, which criminalizes posting it where it would be seen by
minors. Then think about Grex's open conferences, where postings hang
around for years and are probably just about all seen by minors at
some point. The "ISP exemption" in the law doesn't appear to apply to
the conferences. I don't buy it that the law is only for "porn sites".
As has been pointed out, Dave's motion can't be voted on by August
1st, and there's no provision in the bylaws for "emergency user votes"
to override the time limits. However, this issue may come up again.
Assuming that the judge grants the injunction before August 1, the
Attorney General's office may decide to defend the law, in which case
there would be a trial on the law's constitutional merits 6 to 9
months from now. A possible (but I think unlikely) outcome of that
trial could be that the law is upheld and goes into effect. At which
point, decisions will need to be made about what to do. At least in
that case, we'll have had at least 6 months for thorough discussion.
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 203:
|
Jul 29 01:11 UTC 1999 |
Anyone could have entered an item to discuss what Grex should do if the
law were allowed to go into effect. The item didn't show up because I
don't think anyone out there feels the law will go into effect on
August 1st.
But, when the remote possibility was brought up, the Board was prudent to
at least authorize a "first step if" plan in the event the law goes into
effect. I expect even under a partial shutdown discussion on this topic
will be facilitated and the members will be part of policy decisions.
Mail would continue. Users would be given up to date information on the
status of things. Other services would be opened as soon as we get
a better understanding of our liability.
I really don't think there is reason for panic. I think the
Board did just right. I look forward to the discussion on how
folks think Grex should be managed if this law stands.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 203:
|
Jul 29 02:37 UTC 1999 |
I understand the reasons for shutting down -- both the legal worries, and
the idea that it well make a statement about what the law would do, as a
sort of protest action. I will, however, miss Grex if the law passes and
it's decided that bringing the system back up in infeasable, or against
people's principles. (I think it's been said in other conferences that Grex
would be taken down if it ever ceased to be the free system it is now.)
Though my participation has often been uneven, Grex has been the most stable
email address I've had, and I really enjoy the conferences.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 203:
|
Jul 29 02:39 UTC 1999 |
Also, Re #6, I could be wrong, but I think Grex 'membership fees' are
actually donations. In the event of the system going down, noone's entitled
to any prorated fees. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
I worry, too, about the fact that the Michigan government is very
conservative. I wonder if this law might have a good chance of being
upheld.
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 203:
|
Jul 29 12:45 UTC 1999 |
The law is being fought in federal court, not state court.
|
jep
|
|
response 13 of 203:
|
Jul 29 13:18 UTC 1999 |
The judge has today and tomorrow to decide whether to grant an
injunction. I am worried.
re #9: Anyone could enter a discussion item to decide what to do if an
asteroid hits Ann Arbor. I don't think the lack of such an item from
the general population means that policy makers shouldn't probably
discuss it a little before deciding to shut down Grex in preparation for
it. Same with the Internet obscenity law.
I think it is the responsibility of the policy makers to bring such
things up before deciding on them, allowing sufficient time to allow
discussion. I don't think this situation was a sufficient emergency to
cancel that obligation. No one thought of it 3 weeks ago. It isn't
very likely to occur. But as soon as someone mentions it at a Board
meeting, it has to be leapt at? I don't buy it.
I was in similar situations on the Arbornet board a few times. We made
decisions on the spur of the moment that -- like this one -- didn't need
to be made so hastily. I don't think we ever made such a decision
without regretting it. We got herded (or herded ourselves) into making
bad snap decisions. The Cyberspace board has done that now.
There are alternatives, and it is very clear that they haven't been
considered. There are consequences, and they haven't been considered,
either. Does the Grex board really envision themselves, and the staff,
being carted off to jail, or heavily fined, or anything, on August 2
(the first working day after it is scheduled to take effect) due to this
law? I don't buy *that*. Does shutting down Grex really seem like a
reasonable thing to do, taking away conferencing, and violating
people's dependence on their e-mail, and all that, in response to the
actual likely risks of continuing to run it?
A reasonable situation would be like this: Grex: "I am sorry, sir. We
are working to comply with the law, but it's a big system, and it's all
run by volunteers. We are providing a valuable public service
meanwhile, as a non-profit." Some judge, police officer, or anyone but
a comic-strip zealot: "Yes, I can see that."
An unreasonable scenario if the law is upheld, but the one apparently
reacted to by the Grex Board: "You mangy riff-raff have violated THE
LAW! We're throwing you all in jail, taking your computers, fining you
to the hilt, and going after your families!"
It seems to me the Board has reacted more like adolescent zealots on a
mission than like reasonable decision makers. That's because it didn't
take enough time to consider what it was doing. The Board is normally
very reasonable, from what I've seen. What's done is done. I hope the
Board is a little more thoughtful the next time someone tries to panic
it into a hasty decision.
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 203:
|
Jul 29 16:15 UTC 1999 |
Geez, John, calm the hell down.
I didn't get "herded" into anything. I didn't like the sound of this
policy when it was brought up, but I asked a lot of questions, and was
convinced that it was a prudent thing to do. remmers outlined some of the
arguments. Another one was that if Grex did get sued under the law, we
would at the very least have to hire counsel. (Unless the ACLU agreed to
defend us, which they might.) That would wipe out Grex's bank account
right there - there woould be no need for a trial, becasue we'd be gone.
All the policy does is grant us a little time to figure out how to
proceed. Saying "shut down Grex" makes it sound like drastic,
end-of-the-world action, but it's not. The board was not panicking - it
was just making a disaster plan so we could *avoid* panic. All we're
talking about is getting a little breathing room to decide what to do.
All of the board members are strong believers in democracy and the need
for participation of the membership in important decisions. I'm
absolutely positive that the board and staff would work as quickly to
allow everyone to participate as the staff did to bring Grex up after the
last disk crash.
I'd like to ask everyone to have a little faith. I know you M-Netters
have had issues with boards on M-Net which may have made you distrustful.
But the history of Grex's politics is much different, and I don't think
I'm out of line in asking people to believe in that last paragraph. I'll
certainly pledge to try my hardest to be sure it's correct.
|
aruba
|
|
response 15 of 203:
|
Jul 29 16:21 UTC 1999 |
And to toking: I think you're are way out of line to suggest that Grex has
"tucked its tail between its legs and run away". remmers, mary, janc and I
have worked our asses off to fight this law. We're not running away from
anything.
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 203:
|
Jul 29 17:00 UTC 1999 |
There's a day and a half left for the judge to act. Tick, tick, tick,
tick...
I do not distrust the Grex Board. I just think it can be wrong
sometimes. I think it made the wrong decision in this case. I don't
think it would have made the same decision if the issue had been
considered carefully. It *could not* be thought out well at a policy
brought up for the first time and discussed in it's entirety during part
of a single Board meeting. So I disagree with the process, aside from
the decision itself.
I do trust the Grex Board. I trust John Remmers, and I trust Jan
Wolter. I trust you, Mark. I have not said otherwise. I think you
are, each individually as well as collectively, better decision makers
and representatives of the Grex membership than I would be, even if I
had the time and interest and support to get on the Board (which I do
not). My objections are not even based on a difference in philosophy.
I just think you guys overlooked some things.
|
jep
|
|
response 17 of 203:
|
Jul 29 17:08 UTC 1999 |
BTW, the Arbornet board members who have spoken up in the M-Net policy
conference are vociferously saying they *aren't* going to shut M-Net
down, even if this law takes effect. I think they're blustering and
grandstanding, and failing to face the issue. It seems better to
underreact, as they are, rather than overreact like Grex, but I think
there's a middle ground somewhere. I wonder if polygon is interested in
becoming Lord and Conqueror of both systems for the purpose of an
infusion of some sense.
|
mary
|
|
response 18 of 203:
|
Jul 29 17:51 UTC 1999 |
So, Jep, why haven't you entered an item to discuss what Grex should do
should this law go into effect? I see you venting a whole lot of anger
but not doing what you say needs to be done which is discuss our options
and help formulate a plan in the remote event this decision goes against
Grex. Of course we won't know a lot about our options until after the
judge has ruled, we get some of the details of his ruling, and possibly
have had a chance to get specific legal advice. Do you see, at
all, the circle of what happened and why?
|
dpc
|
|
response 19 of 203:
|
Jul 29 17:53 UTC 1999 |
I have always felt that while Grex and M-Net are *theoretically* in
jeopardy from this stupid law, in *practice* the cops will probably
go after what the interest groups are interested in--teaser pages--
if they prosecute anyone at all. It could be that once the law
takes effect *nothing will happen*. There are plenty of stupid laws
that are rarely if ever invoked.
Plus, the Grex Board overlooks the real possibility that
if we are prosecuted, we will convince a jury that we're not liable.
Nothing will happen swiftly, in any event. A contested prosecution
under this act will take months to complete, which gives us plenty
of time to figure out what, if anything, to do.
E-mail is exempt from monitoring by us under the 1986 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and thus we would not be prosecuted under
this law for whatever is in an e-mail.
No, bylaws may be never be suspended.
Remember what the Board said, that if the law goes into effect,
public access *shall* be suspended, pending the formulation of new
policies. That's backward. The Board *should* have said that if
the new law goes into effect, the Board will study the situation
and take appropriate actions, without specifying what they might be.
Why should we panic ourselves into shutting down because of
a small risk?
The Board got itself into this situation. The best solution
would for the Board to call a special meeting and get itself out
of this situation.
However, if that's not possible, I expect a vote to occur
on my motion. It will be up to the Board to insure that a vote
happens.
|
dpc
|
|
response 20 of 203:
|
Jul 29 18:09 UTC 1999 |
Oh - I also use Grex for some business e-mail. It is up to the
Board to see that I continue to have access to this, since e-mail
is not a source of liability for Grex.
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 203:
|
Jul 29 18:14 UTC 1999 |
Pretty much from the first moment we get into a position where we have to
secure legal counsel, Grex is in deep trouble. We don't have the money to
defend Grex from even an absurd law, that doesn't apply to us, which is
intended as more a nuisance than to set any legal precedent. Our
vulnerability lies in our not even having the funds to pay the attorney's
retaining fee.
We need to be very careful we don't arrogantly stride into such a place.
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 203:
|
Jul 29 18:43 UTC 1999 |
I agree...this is a natural response to a very real, if small, risk. The
chances of anything happening *are* slim, but the consequences if anything
did are dire. A chance to pause and regroup would make sense.
Re #20: I don't think Grex is under any obligation to provide you with
uninterruped email service, and I think one of the user agreements
specifically says they incur no liability from interrptions (though I'd have
to look.) I don't think threats are going to help matters any.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 203:
|
Jul 29 18:47 UTC 1999 |
NEWS FLASH!!! WE WON!!!
Just got a call from Mike Steinberg of the ACLU. The judge has issued a
ruling and the injunction has been granted. The law will not go into
effect August 1.
Mike is emailing me the judge's 30-page opinion; I'll post it online as
soon as possible.
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 203:
|
Jul 29 18:57 UTC 1999 |
Squeeeaak. We got lucky.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 25 of 203:
|
Jul 29 19:47 UTC 1999 |
ERm, we didn't win. We merely got the judge to suspend the enforcement of
the law until a decision on the merits of the case are made. Not the same
thing at all.
|
steve
|
|
response 26 of 203:
|
Jul 29 20:59 UTC 1999 |
John, we didn't get lucky so much as had a judge who understood the law.
There have been similar laws passed by state legislatures in New York,
Georgia and New Mexico. All were struck down. The CDA was struck down
twice, with the supreme court agreeing that the Internet deserved "the higest
form of protection from government intrusion". The follow-up law to the CDA,
COPA has been enjoined.
Its *nice* to see that Michigan's law as been struck down, but it really
wasn't a matter of luck. This is a horrid concept, that of squelching all
speech for the sake of a few, and we had a lot of weight on our side when we
went to court.
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 203:
|
Jul 29 21:18 UTC 1999 |
If there was no chance the judge wouldn't rule quickly enough, and in
Grex's favor, then why was there a Board decision to shut down the
system in case it occurred? Was it just childish grandstanding, in your
opinion, STeve?
|
steve
|
|
response 28 of 203:
|
Jul 29 21:19 UTC 1999 |
Now to comment as to the boards actions about preparing to shut down:
I believe that preparing to shut down while thinking about what to do
is/was only prudent. *I DID NOT EVER EXCEPCT TO DO THIS* but wanted a
fallback just in case we had to.
Why? Well, simple: we'd need to figure out what we were going to do
about it, and that could range from running possibly illegaly, to making
Grex a really restricted system (and likely destroying the current Grex).
It is NOT "tucking in its tail", its planning. Frankly, I am very likely
to be on the extreme side of pushing things should it ever come to that.
But even though I'm more willing to be a lightening rod than others, perhaps,
I fully recognize that the Grex board and staff might change before anything
drastic happened, hence the 'time out' of shutting Grex down for a few
days as *all* the options were weighed.
Thus, not being prepared to shut the system down would be the improper
action, I think.
|
steve
|
|
response 29 of 203:
|
Jul 29 21:23 UTC 1999 |
John, when dealing with the court system or any other unpredictable
system, its always a good odea to have a fallback policy. Grex has always
had a fallback policy on hardware--should a piece die, we usually have
had a spare waiting. So with legal stuff--I really really did expect this
to happen, from hearing judge Tarnow talk; he clearly understood a lot of
the issues, I daresay better than the laywer that the State had. But we
couldn't know the outcome, not with 100% accuracy, hence the desision
for a fallback. I was one of the vocal proponents of doing this at the
last board meeting.
|
krj
|
|
response 30 of 203:
|
Jul 29 23:28 UTC 1999 |
My opinion is that the Board did some responsible disaster planning.
Yay board.
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 203:
|
Jul 30 03:03 UTC 1999 |
I should point out that the preliminary injunction does not make Dave's
motion moot. At some point in the future, probably six to nine months
from now, there will be another hearing (probably in Cincinatti). The
outcome of that is extremely likely to be favorable to us, but it is
possible for it to go against us.
If this law had gone into effect, it is possible that the corporation,
the individual board members and many of our current and former users
could be at risk of being prosecuted. Dave says "yeah but it'll never
happen". He's probably right. But he isn't definately right.
It is almost a certainty that we will win our fight against this act.
If we lose though, then we are in a tough position. Either Grex as we
know it is dead, or we have to run in open defiance of the law.
Historically we have tried hard to avoid breaking the law, but I'm not
absolutely opposed to doing so - heck, Valerie and I break the laws of
the Great State of Michigan every day by cohabiting. But nobody can
make that decision for anyone else. Each board member has to decide
whether or not they want to expose themselves to the risk. Every user
who has ever posted anything sexually explicit on Grex has to decide if
he or she wants to leave it there or censor it. We need to decide what
to do about sexually explicit material posted by people no longer here.
Time will be needed to make all these decisions. During that time, Grex
has to be down.
We may be able to bring some services on line quickly - like Email. But
even Email has issues. We give out anonymous Email accounts. What if
someone takes out an anonymous account on Grex and uses it to Email
something really nasty to thousands of teenagers in every county of the
state. Could some county prosecuter go after that person, and finding
that we can't identify him, prosecute us instead for deliberately making
it possible for people to do this anonymously? I'd like a legal opinion
on that.
I'm pretty sure we could safely give people read access to their email
immediately. Even if a teen reads a pornographic Email message on Grex,
the ISP exemption would unambiguously cover us (but not whomever sent
it). So people worried about losing access to their Email needn't
worry.
|