Path: sn.no!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!208.206.176.15!dimensional.com!flatland.dimensional.com!not-for-mail From: janda@dimensional.com (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: 25 Oct 1997 20:03:47 -0600 Organization: Dimensional Communications Lines: 142 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <62u8e3$26f@flatland.dimensional.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: flatland.dimensional.com Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387826 comp.org.eff.talk:73804 alt.censorship:171299 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Posted and e-mauled. Please be sure to also read the response from Deana Holmes (mirele@xmission.com). Line length reformatted to better fit most newsreaders.] In article <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com>, Donald Janke wrote: >This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute >between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet. Aloha. You have failed to pgp-sign this message, so I am taking your word (and the fact that nobody else has said anything) that you are actually whom you claim to be. [Don is president of IVI, etc etc.] >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 >the leader of IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the >postings. Why? Your company fucked up. Admit it, correct your mistake, and move on. [IVI is just this little teeny-tiny company, with little teeny-tiny investers...] >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). Sorry, but thanks for playing. You _are_ trying to dictate the terms of free speech on the net, specifically, you are trying to dictate what original text Grady Ward may or may not post. This is not about "copyright infringement", or "trade secret misappropriation", or anything of the sort. This is about the content of Grady's posts. >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've seen one (1) person claim the locking of Grady's account had merit; wgert@loop.com, the person who whined to tidepool. >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. Don't lie, it hurts your case. >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. Contigent upon the next paragraph, of course. >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. Compuserve and AOL have both acted in this fashion. They really shouldn't have, because it opens them (and now, tidepool) to lawsuits because you have shown that you are engaging in "editorial control" over the content of your user's posts. Doing this is a BadThing[tm], because when somebody does actually get around to posting something libelous, you will be dragged into the lawsuit. >However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands >before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE". Judges are supposed to interpret the law. That's their job. It's not your job, it's not tidepool's, it's not even wgert's job. If wgert (or little Davie) thinks they've been slandered, libeled, or held up for public humilitation by somebody's posts, they are free to seek redress via the courts. >Rather than taking it to the "Judge" I am proposing that you know more than the US Supreme Court? Read up on Jerry Falwell vs Hustler Magazine, Inc, please. For that matter read up on their decision in the case of the parody of "Pretty Woman". [Snip - "please let's hold a big flame war".] >In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have >asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. As I'm sure you know, Grady already has another account. If this is your method of "greasing the squeaky wheel", or attempting to show that you are "acting in good faith", you've failed. Acting responsibly would have been to never lock Grady's account, and acting in Good Faith would have been to not throw together another TOS and attempt to apply it to Grady ex-post facto. [Yaddah yaddah yaddah. What's the matter, Donald? Afraid Grady might use some naughty words?] >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". ars is the perfect place. Just make sure you start threads with "TOS:" or something so people can kill/read as they want to. >I would welcome Grady's opinion on where he feels a discussion of "free >speech" would be "on topic". I doubt you want to hear Grady's opinion on where you should stick this dicussion. I really do. :] -- .sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/ ^L "[scientology] is less evil than the Aum cult, and thus to the extent it keeps people out of some even worse cult, that is a positive feature of scientology." H. Keith Henson in finger -l janda@dimensional.com for my PGP public key block. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFKk+G2jF2vR4ZtNAQF+6gP+JOlM5a5Z5dR6Z1/OaKtLHN+ztAnNhHzG H6EXWgBQTvxngPNFom+pfSAVTGGjNsPy6nU2OnOSr+FDp7cMD+omemqV037/I4Oo flnuuqufRle/jyE8AUqxLn9CJC2JIuuyNqTZv+m/EceIHvf8ajssuu+Wo4MxDY96 tCLlMwp/nis= =Jzos -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----