Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail From: Dkeith@xenu.best.com (Ex Mudder) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:19:38 GMT Organization: The ARSCC (there is no ARSCC) Lines: 25 Message-ID: <345236ed.989693@nntp1.ba.best.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> Reply-To: dkeith@best.com NNTP-Posting-Host: dkeith.vip.best.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 877804333 11671 dkeith 206.184.139.132 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387734 comp.org.eff.talk:73787 alt.censorship:171248 In article <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com>, Donald Janke wrote: My news reader would prefer it if you set your margins a little smaller. Thank you for coming out into the public to discuss this. I sent a letter to Eric Wright. I will re-post it and email it to you as well. It discusses my understanding of some legal issues you are concerned about: Dear Mr. Eric Wright. Please be so kind as to read your case law on the supreme court case of Falwell v. Flint. Grady's accusations regarding the head of the Scientology cult are no more libelous than Hustler's claim that Jerry Falwell had his first sexual experience with his mother in an outhouse. Your canceling of his account based on a distaste for his speech is censorious and the act of a coward. The CDA was declared unconstitutional, in case you missed it, and in a case in San Francisco (Aquino v. "CurioJones" and an ISP) decided that under the Telecommunications bill, an ISP can not be held liable for libel or slander by a subscriber (the libel suit against AOL is a different matter. As I am unaware that you advertise Grady as an attraction, it should not apply).