Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.corp.sgi.com!not-for-mail From: Baba ROM DOS Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:52:00 +0200 Organization: Dark Satanic Mills, Inc. Lines: 156 Message-ID: <3451DD60.41C6@tourrose.paris.sgi.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tourrose.paris.sgi.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SGI (X11; I; IRIX 6.2 IP22) CC: donjla@tidepool.com Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387631 comp.org.eff.talk:73770 alt.censorship:171221 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. > 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), > and as theleader of IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate > in the postings. I, for one, commend you in this. I rather imagine that your company's lawyers will try to limit your participation, however, and I will not be surprised if in the end it is not as open and free-wheeling as many people, yourself included perhaps, might like. > First, a further clarification of IVI might be in order. IVI is > substantially an employee owned company. We have formed by bringing > together smaller ISPs that want to remain involved in this business > rather than selling out to big corporations. They joined IVI by > exchanging the stock of their company for stock in IVI. We are not > "venture capital" backed nor backed by any large organizations. > All of our cash investors have purchased stock in small dollar > amounts and for the most part are small business owners in their > own right. In other words we are not in a position to dictate > the terms of free speech on the net; we are just trying to prevent > getting run over by it (thanks Bill for allowing a modified quote). There has never been a strong argument put forward that IVI has been trying to dictate the terms of free speech on the net. The complaint is really that IVI has allowed themselves to be used as a pawn of a group (the "Church" of Scientology[tm]) bent on doing so. Your description of IVI's investor base corresponds to exactly the sort of company that is most vulnerable to this sort of thing. Professional VCs and corporate investors are less easily intimidated by the sort of campaign to which IVI has fallen victim. > In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, > it seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. > Other posters feel the locking had merit. It also appears that some > posters feel they have not heard enough information about this > dispute. I am curious as to how many of the messages you received supporting your decision to lock Grady's account were substantially identical. The "Church" of Scientology is well-known for orchestrated letter-writing campaigns against those they perceive as their enemies. > Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and > defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed > towards another human being. We became drawn into this posting > when we received a formal complaint regarding his postings. We > had no choice but to terminate his account, under the original > terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account. This is really the heart of the matter. Grady has posted extensive evidence that the terms under which he had opened and prepaid his account are *not* those under which your staff claim to have terminated it. On the basis of all evidence available to public netizens, those new terms of service were only established *after* the termination of his account, as a means of covering up a breach of contract. > 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. I have determined, for my life, where to set my > outer limit. Others have certainly set their limits to the left > and right of my position. Within the IVI family of companies we > certainly find ourselves with a spectrum of opinions on how far > is "out of bounds" for free speech. Exactly. And the moment an ISP allows itself to be convinced that it has a responsiblility for the *content* of the messages that pass through it, it is lost. There will always be someone with an axe to grind. The law is not yet 100% clear on this, but it seems to me that the only rational course for an ISP is to treat itself as a "common carrier", with an obligation to protect the integrity and security of communication, but without responsibility for the content. > 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. 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. By what possible mechanism could a lawsuit against IVI have resulted from Grady Ward's actions? The offensive message in question WAS NOT POSTED FROM TIDEPOOL, as can be seen from the news header of the message in the original complaint from "William Gertner". The sole link to Tidepool was that Grady Ward's internet address is in the tidepool domain. If I publish an offensive tract and print my home address on it, do you think that my landlord is liable? > However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until one > stands before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE". Rather than taking > it to the "Judge" I am proposing that we (Grady and Tidepool) take > it to the netizens. What I am suggesting is that this dispute be > opened to all on a newsgroup where both sides of the issue, and > opinions of interested parties, can be presented in an open forum. > In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I > have asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. That's excellent news, whatever the reason. > This does assume that while participating in a "court of netizens" > Grady will abide by the original terms which he agreed to when he > opened his Tidepool account. Do you mean what you said here, or do you mean that he should abide by the new terms of service defined after his account was locked? Not that I think it matters much from the standpoint of Grady's own participation, but whether IVI can make ex-post-facto changes in their terms of service is a key element of the debate, and it's not much of a debate if that is assumed at the outset. > I would like to suggest a newsgroup, for this discussion, should > be where we are "on topic" to discuss "the acceptable outer limits > of free speech" as opposed to a newsgroup where free speech is > utilized to state opinions about other topics. Two suggestions > are "alt.censorship" and "comp.org.eff.talk". I would welcome > Grady's opinion on where he feels a discussion of "free speech" > would be "on topic". I note that you have posted this message to alt.religion.scientology as well - otherwise I must admit that I would not have seen it. This incident is very much on-topic in that newsgroup, but I fear that conducting the debate there will attract more in the way of flames and hyperbole than you might like. My own opinions, for what they are worth, are that: 1) Grady Ward's postings are offensive, but not obscene, fall clearly within the genre of satire, and are protected free speech. 2) Tidepool's termination of his account was unjustified because a) His posts were protected free speech. b) His posts did not originate at Tidepool. c) The terms of service on which the decision was ostensibly based were not in effect when the decision was taken. Any one of the above should have sufficed to preclude the action taken by Tidepool/IVI staff. 3) Tidepool joins a long list of companies and organizations that have been intimidated and manipulated by the "Church" of Scientology. Mr. Janke, if you have not already done so, please spend some time browsing the web sites documenting the "war" between Scientology and "the internet". http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/index2.html is one good place to start.