Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!zdc!szdc!newsp.zippo.com!snews1 From: mirele@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:18:32 GMT Organization: Knights of Xenu, Kingdom of Deseret Chapter Lines: 126 Message-ID: <34530d43.2434495@snews.zippo.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-423.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387688 comp.org.eff.talk:73779 alt.censorship:171237 Donald Janke wrote: >In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it >seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Pretty much everyone except for the Scientologists object. >Other posters feel the locking had merit. As far as I can tell, only the Scientologists have objected to Grady's posts. >It also appears that some posters feel >they have not heard enough information about this dispute. Well, it has been intimated that wgert@loop.com said he was a Supernews administrator. (Supernews is where Grady actually posts through.) It was also stated that "threats" were made to Tidepool if Grady's account was not nuked. How about addressing that? > Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and >defamatory comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human >being. He didn't post it through Tidepool. It was posted through Supernews. Not only that, he's been posting this stuff for months. I don't agree with him, but that's his tactic for getting back at the litigious cult of $cientology. It seems to be working just fine; after all, it pushed their buttons, and now it's got yours pushed too. >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. I read those terms. I disagree. I think that if it came down to a court of law, I think we could muster enough legal support to prove that Grady's posts were (a) not defamatory and (b) protected by the First Amendment. > 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. >However, >even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a >judge and >says "YOU DECIDE". You're wrong. > 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. NO. This is unacceptable. Just restore Grady's account. Why am I being so dogmatic about this? Because Grady's speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment. He's got great legal backup. I suggest you read the CDA case again, as well as the Falwell v. Hustler case. (In the latter case, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for running a parody ad that insinuated very strongly that Falwell's first sexual experience was incestuous.) > In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have >asked the >Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. 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. Well, he still has the account I gave him on promisecreepers.org. And if you weasel out again, he will still have that account. Unlike you, I happen to believe in the First Amendment. And having graduated from law school and passed the Texas bar, I kind of have an idea of the limits of protected speech. Grady's speech is way out there, but he's not crossed the line, I don't think. And given the reaction of the Scientologists to it, I would state that I think he's been eminently successful in his quest to yank their chains. > 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". No. Again, I will state, this is not acceptable. The First Amendment is not up for debate. I think you're trying to weasel out of a bad decision, but debating what the limits of free speech are on a Usenet forum is not acceptable. The courts *have* decided what the limits are. If you read the cases I referenced, what you will find is that Grady's speech is eminently protected, even if it is disgusting. The only participation I will have in this so-called "debate" is to (a) continually assert that Grady's account be permanently reinstated without conditions on speech and (b) that limits on the First Amendment does not need debate by a bunch of Netizens, as our highest court has already issued legal and binding opinions on the issues. Grady's speech may be vile and disgusting and unpopular (at least to the Scientologists) but it is protected. In fact, that's *why* we have a First Amendment, to protect vile, disgusting and unpopular speech. Therefore, I think this debate is pointless and useless. And in any case, his promisecreepers.org account stays...and I know FULL well what he's posting through that account. Regards, Deana Deana M. Holmes alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995 NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness mirele@super.zippo.com