Path: sn.no!Norway.EU.net!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!pseudo@anony.mous!anon From: Information Security Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: 25 Oct 1997 09:07:08 GMT Organization: NYC, Third Planet from the Sun Lines: 112 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <62scrs$eft@news1.panix.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com X-Newsreader: FANTASTICO NEWSREADASAURIS Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387602 comp.org.eff.talk:73763 alt.censorship:171211 In comp.org.eff.talk Donald Janke wrote: : This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute : between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet. : I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and : Northcoast Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of : Internet Service Providers (one of seven wholly owned ISP : subsidiary corporations). Tidepool Internet is a d.b.a. : (doing business as) of NCI. Thanks for restoring Grady "Anti-Co$" Ward's account. : As a long time netizen (I might even be able to say that "I was : Internet before it was cool" since I've been online since 1988), Then require anyone claiming defamation or libel to go to court, if they want to "complain" about someone's speech. As a long time netizen, you know what flames are. : In other words we are not in a position to dictate the terms : of free speech on the net... Except for that little account-termination deal. : we are just trying to prevent getting run over by it You _were_ run over by it when you knocked Ward off the Net. Just where do you think adult speech is supposed to be allowed, after the U.S. Supreme Court said that the government expressly can't censor the Net? Mind fixing your TOS' to reflect the Supreme Court decision? You don't "have" to, but, why not? [Dear idiots, I am not mixing up 1st A. with private business.] : Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and : defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed : towards another human being. But not *legally* "abusive or defamatory", right? Sympathies to you for having Co$' lawyers breathing down your neck, though. : We became drawn into this posting when we received a formal : complaint regarding his postings. A formal complaint means in writing. Please post it!!! : We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the original : terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account. No choice? C'mon... Are you going to answer these posts, as implied when you said you wanted to have a dialogue? The vast majority of all regular posters already know what turds Co$ are. So, it is you we'd like to hear from. : As a company our limit is set when a another netizen complains : that they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit : could result. You mean Co$ complained. They are not "netizens". Did the complaint not say it was from Co$??? : As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are : fragmented and unclear. However, there must be some outer limit to : free speech. : : Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation. : : However this dispute is not about mine or other's personal opinions : of free speech, it is about the outer limits that a company must : set when they decide to be in business. : However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until : one stands before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE". Then, are you going to leave it to a complainer to go to the court, or are you going to allow lawyers to bully you? Here's the problem I had with Panix: I talked about mailbombing someone. ISP Panix said if I said that again, that alone would be grounds for termination of my account. Subsequently, they changed their mind, saying people should take disputes to court if they felt it necessary...that Panix didn't want to be in the business of determining what was abuse. Here's the 64 trillion ruble question: if Grady wants to post something "on the edge" again, can he show it to you to pre-screen it? Of course, it also means you have signed off on it as "approved for posting"...no way around that. Are you going to provide the service of pre-screening posts for Grady (when he feels it necessary to post full-flame), or are you going to adopt a go-to-court position? ---guy at ISP Panix