Path: sn.no!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!recycled.news.erols.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.idt.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: lnieman@ix.netcom.com (BigBeard) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:13:34 GMT Organization: Hairy.Face.Org Lines: 168 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3453d1c3.20596789@nntp.ix.netcom.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> Reply-To: lnieman@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: rtp-nc4-09.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Oct 26 6:06:35 PM CST 1997 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.01/32.397 Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:388070 comp.org.eff.talk:73831 alt.censorship:171360 On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:25:25 -0500, 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 the >leader of >IVI I feel it is my responsibility to participate in the postings. > 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). Then cease and desist in yanking accounts with no warning just because one jerk makes a complaint. Jeez, even when Netcom was wrapped into the Erlich case they at least gave a warning when Cof$ lawyers made complaints so you could at least get your side of the facts on record. And usually, as in my case, prove lies were being made and keep the account. >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. From what I've seen all but one non-$cientologist on this group have objected, with good cause. That one exception was the one person who was looking for more info. All of those for what Tidepool did were $cientologists. > 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. Bullshit! There were lots of other choices that could have been made when this complaint was received. Finding out what, if any, relationship the complainer had with the person being talked about by Grady would have been a good start. If none, as in the case, he should have bee told to FOAD after stuffing his complaint where the sun don't shine.. > As we all know, the bounds of free speech limits on the Net are >fragmented and unclear. Bullshit again. The bounds of free speech on the Net are wide open since the Supreme Court killed the CDA. And there is no equivalent to shouting "Fire" in a theater on the net. > However, there must be some outer limit to free speech. Friend, you are beginning to try my patience. I did not spend 20 years of my life, and at times putting my life on the line, to "Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" so a piss-ant ISP could decide what the 'outer limit of free speech' on, or off, the Net is. > Exactly where that limit occurs is subject to interpretation. Nope. Supreme Court has set the limits at virtually none when it killed the CDA. The next case may change it some, but until then the decision stands. >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. Personal opinion is personal opinion. Apply yours to yourself all you want. Just don't apply your personal limit to me, or Grady, or any other Netizen if we are in compliance with the law and AUP. > 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. >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. More bullshit. Tidepool's limit was set by the AUP agreed to by Grady when he signed up for service. There is nothing there about another netizen complaining that they were offend by strong language. And the offending post wasn't even made through Tidepool, so even if that limit existed, which it didn't, Tidepool has no business pulling Grady's account the way they did. >However, even here the law seems open to interpretation until one > stands before a judge and says "YOU DECIDE". Damn right. These things are for judges to decide, not ISPs. If Tidepool was going to get involved at all, it should have been to tell wgert, "Sue him if you think you can make it stick. We don't edit for content." > 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. There's no dispute to be argued. wgert made a complaint, for which he had no standing and in which he lied, to Tidepool, Tidepool stepped on it's corporate 'dick' in the way it handled the complaint. And now you're trying to shift the focus away from Tidepool and onto Grady. It doesn't wash. > In order for Grady to participate, and present his opinions, I have >asked the Tidepool folks to "unlock" Grady's user account. How magnaminous, to give back what shouldn't have been taken away to begin with. >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. Grady has no need, or obligation, to participate in a "court of netizens". The Netizens who know what Grady is doing, and why, have already overwhelmingly spoken, and their response has been clear and unmistakable: TIDEPOOL WAS WRONG TO PULL GRADY'S ACCOUNT. AND THEY SHOULD GIVE IT BACK, ALONG WITH AN APOLOGY ASAP. > 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". Any discussion involving Grady's account, wgert's dispicable actions to get it pulled, and Tidepool's after the fact juggling of the TOS/AUP to justify limiting Grady's free speech is very much on-topic here on alt.religion.scientology. And be very clear on this - a.r.s. is an unmoderated usenet news group and, as much as they'd like to, wgert, MikeSmith3, and the assorted other Cof$ goons that hang our here do NOT decide what is, or is not, on-topic around here. Posted & Mailed Len "BigBeard" Nieman 0111 1110 Katana ko chi, SPsoo(p), and occasional Santa fill in. Free Xenu!