|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 75 of 154:
| 
Mar 26 00:53 UTC 1996 |
Also, I think de-emphasizing the role and responsibilities of
the Fair Witness is important, because other than the largest confs, the
track record of confs surviving fair witness changes doesnt appear good.
A lot of these confs die because they are too closely identified
with a fair witness. History, for instance, is dead because Polygon
doesnt bother with it much anymore. FW's need to push confs and
develop them, but they dont need to foster the idea that they are
anything other than users of the conf like everyone else there.
|
raven
|
|
response 76 of 154:
|
Mar 26 01:50 UTC 1996 |
Re # 75 Conferences are tied idenity wise with thier FWs whether
you like it or not, that's a fact. This is a cultural issue we are
talking about here, each conference being like a country with it's
own idenity languge etc. Making a lot of rules/guidlines for confs
will just stiffle them IMO.
This being said I agree with Kerouac that there shouldn't be
censorship on the confs, and we should get rid of the kill command.
If some one enters an off topic item in a conference the FW should
e-mail that person and see if they can get them to freeze the item.
|
robh
|
|
response 77 of 154:
|
Mar 26 10:37 UTC 1996 |
Oh really? And what about the time I was f-w of Sexuality
(before the schism) and a fourteen year old entered an item asking
people to mail him porn stories? Was I supposed to send him
a polite note asking him to remove the item because it might
trick people into performing a felony?
Sorry, folks, but shit does happen, and I'd rather know that the
f-w has the option of removing an legally scary item like that.
|
janc
|
|
response 78 of 154:
|
Mar 26 15:01 UTC 1996 |
Agreed.
|
davel
|
|
response 79 of 154:
|
Mar 26 15:43 UTC 1996 |
Agreed. Let's see how it would go. Consider classified as an example.
Someone posts an item for sale. Someone else offers to buy it. The item sits
there for two years, or 5, or 10, because the FW can't kill it any more? The
kill command is a basic tool for ordinary conference maintenance; removing
it because it's open to abuse would be pretty dumb, IMO.
|
raven
|
|
response 80 of 154:
|
Mar 26 16:49 UTC 1996 |
OK point conceded I know there are times when items have to be killed
if they are security violations, or they violate the law. However *I*
think that FWs should be strongly discouraged from killing items strictly
based on content as aparently happened in the AD conf. I do not think this
should be a written rule but rather one of those unwritten "common law"
things that are in the spirit of Grex's strong free speech stance.
|
brighn
|
|
response 81 of 154:
|
Mar 26 17:48 UTC 1996 |
Hey, where were these examples back when Rane said he'd never heard of
anybody killing an item before? *pouts* (nevermind the fact, of course,
that every three months the Agora from the antepenultimate season gets
completely trashed)
Raven, let's try this one more time:
I *never* *ever* *ever* completely killed Kerouac's item. I moved it
to another conference. Intact. No deletions, no freezing.
Ironically, the item *was* accidentally trashed completely when the
two conferences merged, and the merger was encouraged by Kerouac.
If I hadn't had FW access to both of the conferences involved, I would
have frozen the item and asked the poster (privately) to find another home
for it.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 82 of 154:
|
Mar 27 00:08 UTC 1996 |
robh, first of all you had no proof that the user who posted that
was 14, second of all anyone responding to it could not have been
convicted of a felony because e-mail is private and age cant be proved
withoiut verification.
Even so, if you wanted the item deleted, all you had to do was
notify the cfadmin, and get them to do it. The cfadmin ideally should
be the only person who can use the kill command.
Third of all, you as fw are not responsible for the actions of the
people in your conference. Thats not the job of the fw. In no way
should the fair witness use fw commands to censor content. I dont
think the constitutional right to free speech is suspended when one
enters a conference. The "kill" command should be disabled for the
same reason the "censor" command is. You can freeze the item in question,
but removing it entirely is inapproprirate.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 83 of 154:
|
Mar 27 00:11 UTC 1996 |
And the cfadmin should only use the "kill" command where system
security is at stake. If someone posts the password to root in Agora,
thats an item the cfadmin would remove.
|
carson
|
|
response 84 of 154:
|
Mar 27 02:19 UTC 1996 |
not to rain on kerry's parade, but the Constitutional right to free
speech does not apply to private organizations.
carry on.
|
bruin
|
|
response 85 of 154:
|
Mar 27 02:24 UTC 1996 |
RE #84 Carson, can you define what may be considered a "private organization?"
|
kerouac
|
|
response 86 of 154:
|
Mar 27 02:38 UTC 1996 |
#84....sure it does. Nowhere in newuser or elsewhere does it say
that the Constitution does not apply on Grex.
Besides, cyberspace inc. is a private organization but this is also a
non-profit, and all org's who apply for non-profit status have to agree
to follow and adhere to common public law. For instance, the KKK could
never get non-profit status because its charter probably, almost
certainly, violates civil rights laws.
Anyway, Grex is a public access board and the users of grex are not bound
by cyberspace inc. because usage does not imply acceptance of
membership. Therefore no freedoms are abrigated by using grex.
Generally speaking, a citizens rights are considered constant unless
he/she specifically gives up those rights.
|
janc
|
|
response 87 of 154:
|
Mar 27 03:35 UTC 1996 |
Nope. It would be perfectly legal for Grex to refuse to let Richard Wallner
to post on Grex while allowing everyone else on the planet to do so. Grex
is not the government.
|
srw
|
|
response 88 of 154:
|
Mar 27 03:37 UTC 1996 |
All that notwithstanding, Carson is still right. The constitutional right to
free speech is simply a limitation on what the government can do. Since Grex
and Cyberspace Communications are not (last I checked) the government, they
are simply not bound by that constitutional amendment.
Now we may choose to adhere to it, but that is quite a different matter.
In other words -- we can censor if we want to. There's no law against it.
Who is "we" and what do "we" want? That is decided here, and in
member votes and board meetings.
|
srw
|
|
response 89 of 154:
|
Mar 27 03:38 UTC 1996 |
87 slipped in and said it quicker than I did.
|
carson
|
|
response 90 of 154:
|
Mar 27 03:47 UTC 1996 |
yes. I suppose someone hasn't read the Constitution in a while. Me,
I'm currently studying it.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 91 of 154:
|
Mar 27 05:22 UTC 1996 |
Re 74: The two systems I mentioned are *forum on the U of M's UB computer,
and Kitenet. The UB system was taken off-line and merged with the UB computer
a year or three ago. I'd guess the UB edition of *forum is long gone.
Kitenet was owned by Dave Parks. He bought M-Net and merged Kitenet with it.
Later, Grex split off from M-Net. M-Net was then bought from Dave by its
users. So I guess you could say that Kitenet has descendants that are still
around today although the original system is long gone.
|
gregc
|
|
response 92 of 154:
|
Mar 27 07:16 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, there is "non-profit" and there is "not-for-profit".
Cyberspace Communications Inc. has never applied for, nor been granted
any kind of "non-profit" status. None. Nada. Zip.
CCI *operates* as a "not-for-profit", but we have never officially
been given that status either.
From an official standpoint, we are *effectively* a private club that
operates with *very* open rules, but as such we *could* make up any
rules we want.
|
davel
|
|
response 93 of 154:
|
Mar 27 11:37 UTC 1996 |
Um, Greg, I think we're organized as a non-profit corporation under Michigan
law. kerouac is trying to draw from that things that don't follow at all;
our legal form & some imagined legal requirement that we put no restrictions
at all on postings on Grex are independent issues.
(Disclaimer: I wasn't around when Grex was set up, & haven't read all the
paperwork. I'm going by the statements of several who were and/or have, over
the years, that we're incorporated as a nonprofit.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 94 of 154:
|
Mar 27 14:14 UTC 1996 |
And even if the Constitutional Right to Free Speech *did* apply to Grex
postings, there *are* limitiations on context, content, and form. Somebody
addressing a first grade class by reading George Carlin comedy routines to
them could hardly hide behind the First Amendment, nor could someone shouting
"Fire" in a crowded building when there is no fire. The whole point to
having different conferences, Richard, is so that people can choose the
topics they wish to discuss. Posting an item that doesn't match the topic
(speaking in generals, not the specific incident that spawned this)
obstructs those people's rights. If I were a reader of Smalls, and I
was greeted some fine Sunday morning with a new post, say Arthurp's lovely
"Brandi" story (farily graphic erotica), I could say I'd be rather irate.
And telling me to forget the tiem is moot... I've already read it. Unless
we modify the conf login notice to read, 2 newresponse items, 3 brandnew
items, and 1 completely irrelevant item.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 95 of 154:
|
Mar 27 16:55 UTC 1996 |
I've only ever heard of this distinction between "non-profit" and "not-for-
profit" from Gregc. Greg, are you sure about this?
Grex *is* incorporated as, um, one of those. I want to say it's a "non-
profit Michigan corporation", but it might well have been "not-for-profit"
I don't know. But it definitely has the words "not" or "non" and "profit"
in its incorporation papers.
|
davel
|
|
response 96 of 154:
|
Mar 27 18:40 UTC 1996 |
Hey, Arnold. Where are you when we need you?
8-{)]
|
kerouac
|
|
response 97 of 154:
|
Mar 27 20:17 UTC 1996 |
Well is grex exempt from paying taxes on the money it raises? I wasnt
aware you could get tax-exempt status unless classified as a non-profit
Cyberspace Inc. can have its own rules, but it chooses not to define
usage of this system as acceptance of membership. So legally, those
who log into this board are not bound by anything not specifically
stipulated in newuser. And even then, non-profit status is a privledge
and doesnt gtive cyberspace inc. the right to contradict the laws of the
state.
If, for instance, the board decided they were racists and decided to
limit membership to white anglosaxon protestants, they could do that
but most assuredly not as a non-profit. You dont get tax-exempt
status just because you want it, you have to conform.
Otherwise every group in this country would apply for non-profit, tax-
exempt status so they wouldht have to pay taxes, and our country would
go broke.
|
gregc
|
|
response 98 of 154:
|
Mar 27 20:39 UTC 1996 |
Grex does not have non-profit status. We have to pay taxes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 99 of 154:
|
Mar 27 21:46 UTC 1996 |
Grex (rather CCI) is a Michigan *non-profit* corporation. "Not-for-profit"
is identical. This means that income does not inure to the benefit of
individuals. CCI is *not* tax exempt under federal law, because it has
not applied for tax exemption. Churches are *tax exempt*, *non-profit*
organizations (and some of them are fully white, Anglo-Saxon protestant
groups).
The reason that every group in this country does not apply for non-profit,
tax exempt status, is because most groups are in business to make a
profit (leading to being able to eat, etc). If an organization is designed
not to make a profit (for individuals) it can get non-profit legal status,
but not all non-profits can get tax exemption for everything (some can
get tax exemption for some things). The Sierra Club is non-profit, but not
tax excempt because it devotes too much of its resources to lobbying.
|
