Item 102. Minutes of the June 7, 1999 Special Meeting of the Grex Board Jan Wolter (janc) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (00:01). 126 lines, 15 responses. Cyberspace Communications June 7, 1999 - Special Board of Director's Meeting Minutes Presiding: John Remmers (remmers) Recording: Jan Wolter (janc) Other Board Members: Mark Conger (aruba) Dan Gryniewicz (dang) Scott Helmke (scott) Steve Andre (steve) Misti Tucker (mta) From the ACLU: Michael J Steinberg (mikes) Jessica Leibermann Members of the Public: Eric Bassey (other) David Cahill (dpc) Steve Gibbard (scg) Andrew Lanagan (drew) Arlo Mates (arlo) Valerie Mates (valerie) Mary Remmers (mary) John Remmers called the meeting to order at 7:32pm This meeting was called to discuss whether or not Grex should join as a plaintiff in a suit being organized by the ACLU with the intent of overthrowing a law recently passed into law by the State of Michigan. This law bans "disseminating sexually explicit material to minors" and which is referred to by the ACLU as the "Internet Censureship Act" was originated as Senate Bill 117. (At the meeting, nobody knew what number was assigned to after it was signed into law - it is now Public Act 33 of 1999.) There has been extensive discussion of this question in Coop Item 98. Mark Conger moved: That cyberspace communications join the suit that the ACLU is bringing against senate bill 117. Misti Tucker seconded the motion. There was extensive discussion, mostly taking the form of various questions directed to Michael Steinberg. Some of the topics discussed: - The ACLU hopes to file the suit by June 18. The member vote on Grex won't be complete until June 20. - Should the motion explicitly say that we will drop the suit if the motion currently up for member vote does not pass? We decided the wording was unnecessary, since a member vote always overrides a board vote, and the board would certainly withdraw from the suit if that motion failed. In the meantime, the board wants to unambiguously commit to this action. - Discussed the resources we would have to be able to commit to this undertaking. We need to name one or two contact people for the ACLU. Initially we will have to prepare a (somewhat elaborate) disclosure document describing why this law would hinder us. We might have to answer discovery questions from the attorney generals office. Someone (possibly the president) might have to make a deposition at a trial. That trial is likely to be held in Detroit, but might be in Ann Arbor or Flint. We should not have to pay any money. - The lawsuit could be over before August 1, or it could run on for years. The first alternate is probably more likely. - There was some discussion of the possibility that if this suit should fail, we might have brought ourselves to the attention of law enforcement officials and might be more likely to be prosecuted than we might otherwise have been. Nobody really expects the suit to fail, and nobody was very troubled by the possibility of coming under greater scrutiny if it does. - The lead attornies on the case will be Andrew Nickelhoff and Marshall Widick of Sachs, O'Hare, Helveston, Bogas & McIntosh (a Detroit firm specializing in representing workers in labor cases). J. C. Salyer, Michael Steinberg and Jessica Leibermann will also be involved. - There was some discussion of how much input we would have on the suit (mainly just the portions that directly talk about our organization), and how we would be kept apprised of the progress of the suit (we'll get press releases). - There was some discussion of the question first raised by Rane Curl - whether it is appropriate for us to pick out particular material on Grex that would violate this law and use it as an example is our disclosure. Michael Steinberg felt that we probably would need to do this, though we might not need to quote it explicitly. No real resolution was reached on this, except that we will get permission from the authors. We would try to choose examples where we can say "here are some valuable discussions that would be interfered with by this law." The idea is not to present material in a negative light. - There was some discussion of how we would answer possible media questions about why we want to allow such material on our system, or why we allow anonymous posting on our system. - Mark Conger presented for discussion his spin on the stance John Perry took on-line, suggesting that maybe it is inappropriate for Grex to take any political stance on any subject, because it might alienate users of different opinions, and thus effectively limit our ability to act as a neutral forum for free speech. (OK, maybe that's my spin on Mark's spin on John's position.) The motion was called to vote, and passed, 7-0-0. John Remmers moved that: We designate Mark Conger as contact person for the ACLU and Mary Remmers as spokesperson. Misti Tucker seconded the motion. Mary Remmers would be the main person to direct any media people to who want to talk about this. Mary stipulated that most of what she does will get cleared through the coop conference. Jan Wolter also volunteered to help write up statements and responses. Dan Gryniewicz and John Remmers also said that would be interested in helping. The motion was passed 6-0-1 (Mark Conger abstaining). John Remmers adjourned the meeting at 9:20pm. 15 responses total. ---------- (102) #1 Jan Wolter (janc) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (00:04). 5 lines. I didn't try to summarize all the positions taken by people at the meeting, since I can't really do so without distorting them, and all the participants have accounts here and can readily state their positions better than I can. Mainly I just tried to list the topics discussed, and some of the facts that turned up. ---------- (102) #2 Rane Curl (rcurl) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (00:53). 3 lines. I like the way the question of how "to pick out particular material" will be handled, except that I suggest that the perspective be "..that could be..." rather than "...that would be...". ---------- (102) #3 John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (09:01). 14 lines. Mark Conger called me at about 5:20 yesterday, asking if I'd be present at the meeting. I couldn't; it was my son's 8th birthday. He asked me a couple of brief questions and I gave brief answers, mainly referring him to what I said on-line. Thanks to Mark for making such an extraordinary effort. I was really impressed by what he did in order to make sure a position was represented that he doesn't even agree with. Grex is in good hands. Just to make it clear, my concerns are not about *this* proposal, but this is the 2nd step of a trend toward using Grex for political activism. I'm concerned about the next proposal, and the 3 dozen after that. Grex shouldn't be used this way, but it's going to be, more and more, I predict. ---------- (102) #4 David Cahill (dpc) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (11:34). 1 line. Excellent minutes of a l-o-n-g discussion. ---------- (102) #5 John H. Remmers (remmers) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (13:51). 14 lines. Thanks to Jan for the prompt and excellent minutes. Also, thanks to Mark for organizing the meeting. I was unable to do so myself, as I was out of town for a week, getting back just three hours before the meeting began. I'm glad it worked out that I was able to attend and that the Board was able to go on record in unanimous support of joining the suit. Addtional thanks to Mark for agreeing to be the liaison with the ACLU and to Mary for agreeing to be media spokesperson. As to John Perry's point about Grex being "used" -- I don't see it that way. Rather, I view it as Grex *using* the expert services of the ACLU to protect its vital interests. ---------- (102) #6 E R Bassey (other) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (16:02). 44 lines. resp:3 John, While the case of the blue ribbon on our web front page, which is a symbolic action taken by GREX, is arguably a political move, the participation of GREX in this lawsuit is much less identifiably a political move than simply a parallel to the kind of work that the staff does to protect GREX from the many vandals who daily attempt to damage or otherwise prevent GREX from offering its services to the community at large. This law, Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999, if allowed to stand unchallenged, would essentially mean the end of GREX. We're not so much taking a stand against narrow-minded legislation or government interference as we are standing up to assure that GREX will be able to continue to function as a home and haven for the free expression of ideas, one of the basic principles upon which GREX was founded. Political activism is an abstract concept. Our involvement in this case is because we have a legitimate and vital interest in the removal of this law from the possibility of enforcement. I'm sure many of us feel that in so doing, we are also taking that more abstract step into political activism, and for a cause about which many of us appear to feel very strongly, but those are individual feelings, and not the real rationale for GREX to be involved in this suit. We all want GREX to be here for us. Participating in this action will neither alter the character nor the function of GREX, and the decision is not taken lightly in any case. ---------- (102) #7 John E. Shafer (jshafer) Tue, Jun 8, 1999 (16:29). 1 line. Ouch! Um, from backtalk that looks horrible. ---------- (102) #8 John H. Remmers (remmers) Wed, Jun 9, 1999 (06:43). 1 line. (I agree. Harder to read than a plain-text version would be.) ---------- (102) #9 John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) Wed, Jun 9, 1999 (09:31). 1 line. I'm not convinced of the logic of #6. Never mind it's formatting. ---------- (102) #10 Kevin Albaugh (albaugh) Fri, Jun 11, 1999 (23:28). 5 lines. While I have no objection to seeking permission from posters ("authors") before using the text of their responses to supply examples of things that would be affected by the law, I don't think the actual names (handles) of the posters should be included, as it's the content of the postings that matters, not who said what. ---------- (102) #11 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Sat, Jun 12, 1999 (00:46). 4 lines. Well, if we include a whole item, it is a bit tricky since people refer to each other by name. I think it's appropriate to change someone's name and login to hide their identity, though, before submitting an example. I'll do that for anyone who requests it. ---------- (102) #12 Big Snauf (lilmo) Sat, Jun 12, 1999 (15:48). 2 lines. I suggest that you do that for anyone who does not request otherwise; ie, that it be the default that names and handles be disguised. ---------- (102) #13 Cyklone (cyklone) Sat, Jun 12, 1999 (15:55). 1 line. I agree with lilmo. ---------- (102) #14 Jan Wolter (janc) Sun, Jun 13, 1999 (09:21). 10 lines. I understand very well the objections to including people's words in a context different from where they originally posted it. But I feel it is necessary to point out that there are also problems with editting a document that we are submitting as evidence in a court case. We at least need to talk to the attorneys before doing that. My thinking is that we might do best by (1) getting permission to use sections of these items as they stand, (2) quoting those sections, while giving the URL to read the whole item. ---------- (102) #15 Big Snauf (lilmo) Mon, Jun 28, 1999 (20:11). 2 lines. That sounds pretty good. But I am still in favor of not submitting the names and handles of ppl whom we have not been able to contact.