response 97 of 316:

Jun 22 07:45 UTC 1999

I just had to do an emergency trip to Downtown Detroit during the time I
thought I was going to spend on writing something.  I have no idea if I can
come up with anything coherrent at this point.

Having skimmed John's press release, I think his first paragraph starts it
off very wrongly, in that anybody skimming press releases for interesting
stories is going to get bored and move on to something else before they find
out what the press release is about.

response 99 of 316:

Jun 22 10:25 UTC 1999

I like that version a whole lot, Steve.  Very nice.

response 101 of 316:

Jun 22 15:48 UTC 1999

I just had a call from Michael Steinberg of the ACLU. They're filing
today, with Cyberspace Communications as the lead plaintiff. They don't
yet know what judge will be hearing the case. (As previously noted, they
decided not to hold a press conference.)

There are nine other plaintiffs, listed below.  Some are based in
Michigan, some are not.  The suit has an "interstate commerce" component
-- under this clause of the constitution, Michigan has no authority to
regulate interstate commerce.  This gives standing to non-Michigan
sites.

The other plaintiffs are:

    Arbornet (http://www.arbornet.org/) - 
    Art on the Net (http://www.art.net/) - a web art gallery
    The National ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/)
    Web Del Sol (http://webdelsol.com/) - a literary site
    Lit Line (http://www.litline.org/) - another literary site
    Alt-X (don't know the URL, but it's a literary site)
    AIDS Partnership of Michigan (don't know the URL)
    Glad Day (http://www.tiac.net/users/gladday/) - Gay & Lesbian
      online bookshop
    SexEd.Org (http://www.sexed.org/) - sexuality discussion site

response 103 of 316:

Jun 22 16:04 UTC 1999

Just got a call from Mary.  Tom Shram of the ACLU called her at work to
let her know that the suit is being filed and to ask for a quote from
her that they could include in the ACLU's press release.  She didn't
have time to give me the detailed quote over the phone, but I imagine
we'll be reading it later.

response 105 of 316:

Jun 22 19:02 UTC 1999

I'll attempt a combination of the three drafts.

response 107 of 316:

Jun 22 20:48 UTC 1999

The suit will be filed *tomorrow* (Wednesday) according to Steinberg's
office.  The lawyers were still working on it at 2:00, and figured
it was too late to file today.  So it goes...

response 109 of 316:

Jun 22 20:59 UTC 1999

You can look at http://www.prnewswire.com for lots of examples of press
releases.

response 111 of 316:

Jun 22 21:04 UTC 1999

(Steve slipped in.)

response 113 of 316:

Jun 23 05:09 UTC 1999

OK, here it is - sorry it's taken me so long.  I thought about it and broke
down our reasons for opposing the law into 3 arguments:

1) The law is too broad - it covers lots of things that are not about
titillation at all.

2) THe law would require validation and censorship, which infringes upon
people's First Amendment rights.

3) The law would put grass-roots organizations like Grex out of business, and
that will leave only large corporations hosting discussion forums.

Argument 3 is the weakest one, though according to Marshall Widick (the ACLU
lawyer who gave us advice on the declaration) it's very important, legally.
After all, if you put all the institutions which allow free speech out of
business, then you've essentially curtailed the speech itself.

Anyway, the first paragraph tells what happened (that we joined the suit).
The second paragraph has a one-sentence description of Grex, followed by short
summaries of the arguments.  Jennifer (my ex-journalist friend) said it's
important to put the important information right up front, and not make
reporters go hunting for it.

After that, each argument gets a couple of paragraphs.  (There are subheadings
between the sections, which I don't know if we should leave in or not.)  The
last paragraph is about Grex.  Jennifer told me that's the standard form for
a press release.  It repeats some of the information from earlier, but I think
that's OK.

response 115 of 316:

Jun 23 05:13 UTC 1999

                                        Cyberspace Communications, Inc.
                                        P.O. Box 4432, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
                                        Contact: Mary Remmers (734) ###-####
                                                 mary@cyberspace.org

PRESS RELEASE

For release June 23rd, 1999

Cyberspace Communications Joins ACLU to Block Censorship Law

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN -- Cyberspace Communications, Inc., an Ann Arbor-based 
non-profit corporation that operates the online community "Grex" 
(www.cyberspace.org), has joined a suit to block the implementation of 
Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999 (The Child Online Protection Act), which makes 
it illegal to transmit "sexually explicit" material to minors.  The Act is 
scheduled to go into effect on August 1st, 1999.  Other plaintiffs in the suit 
include the American Civil Liberties Association, Art on the Net, Web Del Sol, 
and the AIDS Partnership of Michigan. 

Grex is an open-access online community, with a charitable mission and an all-
volunteer staff, which hosts electronic discussions.  It opposes the new law 
because the law is too broad (it would criminalize transmission over the 
Internet of many scenes which are shown on broadcast television), and it 
erodes the First Amendment right to free speech.  It would also require all 
sites on the Internet which host discussions to validate the identities of all 
participants and censor any material visible to minors which is "sexually 
explicit."  Validation and censorship would stifle a lot of healthy 
discussion, beyond what the law is meant to cover.  And small "grass roots" 
organizations such as Grex, which cannot afford to pay validators or censors, 
would be forced to shut down. 

THE LAW IS TOO BROAD

"It is an understandable desire to want to protect children from what some
people see as unhealthy influences," says Mary Remmers, spokesperson for 
Cyberspace Communications.  "We have existing laws about pornography and 
obscenity to do that.  This law, however, is broad enough that 'sexually 
explicit' material may include discussions of rape, AIDS, safe sex, 
pornography laws, prostitution, and other topics which people are entitled to 
discuss openly and frankly.  The law encompasses even clinical discussions of 
sexual issues, not just material designed to shock and titillate." 

"It would be bad enough if this were the only material affected, but a law to
outlaw one kind of speech inevitably affects other kinds.  People afraid of
saying the wrong thing will avoid getting close to a topic that might get them
in trouble.  The result is a widespread 'chilling effect' on free speech."

ENFORCING THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE VALIDATION AND CENSORSHIP

"In order to avoid prosecution under this act, Grex would have to authenticate 
all users and censor sexually explicit material," says John Remmers, president 
of Cyberspace Communications.  In cyberspace, unlike in person, it is 
impossible to tell who is a minor and who is not.  To comply with the law, 
open-access discussion systems would be required to collect ID from every 
participant, and then to censor areas which are accessible to minors. 

"One of the ways Grex fosters lively debate is by encouraging any and all to
participate and share their point-of-view," says Mary Remmers.  "Insisting 
participants first register, then wait for an ID check, then submit their 
comments to moderators who would filter for content, would clearly limit 
participation and stifle discussion."

"It's well-established legally that free speech isn't really free unless it 
can be made anonymously," says Mark Conger, a Cyberspace Communications board 
member.  It is against Grex policy to censor content or to insist that people 
identify themselves.  "We have found time and again that the best answer to 
speech you don't agree with is to rebut it, not to censor it." 

VALIDATION AND CENSORSHIP ARE NOT FEASIBLE

Even if censorship were an acceptable solution, it would not be feasible for 
an organization the size of Grex.  Grex is a "grass roots" institution run 
entirely by volunteers.  Its 1998 income was approximately $8200, which came 
almost entirely from donations.  (The IRS has designated Cyberspace 
Communications a 501(c)3 charitable institution, so donations are tax-
deductible.)  Almost all of that money goes to pay utility bills to keep the 
system running.  Grex has no money to pay censors or validators, and yet it 
has 29,000 users who post about 200 long messages and 5000 short ones every 
day.  It would be logistically impossible to get volunteers to do the work of 
censoring that material and validating the 200 people who create accounts 
daily.

Putting organizations like Grex out of business has long-range implications 
for free speech.  "One of the great advantages of the Internet is that an 
organization like Grex with a shoestring budget can be home to a community of 
thousands of people," says Mary Remmers.  "If only large organizations with 
lots of resources could afford to host discussion forums, then all discussion 
would be limited by the biases and agendas of those organizations.  Pressure 
from advertisers and shareholders might influence their censorship decisions.  
Under those conditions, speech is no longer free." 

---------------------------------------

Cyberspace Communications is a 501(c)3 charitable institution founded in Ann 
Arbor, Michigan in 1991.  Its mission is to run the online system Grex (which 
means "group" in Latin) in order to foster free speech and community, and give 
Internet access to people who cannot afford to pay for it.  Grex hosts forums 
on such topics as music, the arts, cooking, writing, consumer information, 
finance, small businesses, philosophy, living with disabilities, men's and 
women's issues, and games.  Anyone with a computer and modem or access to the 
Internet can use Grex for free, anonymously if they wish.  Funding comes 
almost entirely from donations, which are tax-deductible.  Grex gets no money 
from advertising.  Because Internet bandwidth is limited, users are not 
allowed to store pictures on Grex. 

For more information on Grex, visit http://www.cybersace.org.

response 117 of 316:

Jun 23 14:13 UTC 1999

Looking at this information from a slightly different point of
view I've tried to anticipate some of the questions a reporter
might ask, thinking through the responses.  I'm entering them
here to make sure I'm not way out in left field, missing balls.
Feedback is encouraged.

                *******************************

What makes CCI a valuable community service?

The people who participate, all 29,000 of them.  It is not unusual to find
homemakers, professors, taxi drivers, engineers, computer programmers,
actors, the unemployed, doctors and politicians all involved in the same
discussion, sharing their expertise and opinions.  Our participants log in
from all over the globe and almost all age groups are represented. 
Everyone is encouraged to participate and no one is turned away.  CCI
fosters the philosophy that it is not necessary for a discussion to end in
agreement for the effort to be worthwhile.  If you simple learn something
of why people feel the way they do then the interaction has been valuable. 
CCI provides the forum for this interaction. 




Why would this law be a problem for organizations such as CCI?

This law will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for service
organizations such as CCI to facilitate open and uncensored discussion. 
Our conferences include conversations on a wide variety of topics such as
parenting, sports, music, film, politics and poetry.  Occasionally talk
will center on topics where "sexually explicit" comments are appropriate
and unavoidable, such as when discussing AIDS, pornography, or safe sex.
This law will make it illegal to hold such discussions on the Internet in
an open forum. 



Couldn't you just keep minors away from such topics?

Only if we were able to know the true identity of everyone reading the
discussion.  And how could that be accomplished, really?  Anyone who was
truly motivated to get in would find a way - supplying fake ID is one
technique.  Too, many users simply don't feel comfortable participating
without anonymity, for whatever reason.  Authenticating all users would
make it more difficult for everyone to be part of the conversation and it
would silence many. 



Is there material in your public conferences which would be inappropriate
for minors? 

Our forums host conversation on a wide variety of topics, most are best
described as suitable for a general audience.  But what is comfortable for
one parent may not be for another. I'm sure there are parents out there
who wouldn't want their young children reading a few of our discussions. 
But for the most part the content is appropriate for minors.  Remember
too, that in all of these discussions you have a nice sampling of rational
adults present who have been or who are parents of young children.  To a
great degree there is a built-in sensitivity to this issue. 



What would happen to Cyberspace Communications should this law were
allowed to stand? 

That's not know with certainty but I suspect CCI would be forced to
abandon its mission of supplying an open forum for free public discussion. 
Once all participants were forced to authenticate, all conferences were
moderated, and every word checked by a censor, I don't think there would
be much enthusiasm left for a robust and spontaneous exchange of ideas. 
Cyberspace Communications is a valuable community resource which thrives
on Free Speech.  It would be a tremendous shame to see our community grow 
silent.
       
          ********************************************

response 119 of 316:

Jun 23 14:40 UTC 1999

Looks great, Mary.  There are a few typos ("simple" should be "simply", and
"should this law" should be "if this law", but they don't matter if you'll be
answering questions over the phone.  I suggest adding a line about people with
disabilities to the first answer.  You might also squeeze in a line somewhere
saying that by allowing children and adults to interact in public you increase
the chances for children to discover that not all adults are jerks.