Path: sn.no!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: icartist Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:20:48 -0800 Organization: I'm *working* on it! Lines: 118 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <34559250.4E9C@ix.netcom.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> Reply-To: icartist@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: sjx-ca31-01.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Oct 28 12:50:34 AM CST 1997 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I) Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:388470 comp.org.eff.talk:73870 alt.censorship:171444 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. [erased marketing talk] > 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). If you're "not in the position to dictate the terms of free speech on the net", then what are you doing pulling the account of Mr. Ward without notice because of a spurious complaint about libel? And why does Tidepool keep changing their story about this incident? > 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. Obviously you haven't read too many postings here. You haven't investigated the history of the "church" of scientology vs. Mr. Ward, Mr. Henson, Rev. Erlich and others because if you had, you'd understand the passionate postings concerning the abusive and coercive tactics of the "church" of scientology. > 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. Formal complaint? And Eric, your 20 year old admin, doesn't know how to verify the identity of the complainant? Gee, even I could look up Whois, find the phone number for SuperNews and call them up! In fact, I'd be suspicious of an admin who wanted me to close an account when 1. All the postings came from the site the admin was complaining from. 2. The person making the request is not the person being allegedly libeled. But then, I'm not 20 years old anymore. > 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. [erased] > 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. This does assume that > while participating in a "court of netizens" Grady will abide by the > original terms which *ORIGINAL* TOS! You mean the one where Tidepool doesn't worry about content because they are merely a access provider, not a publisher??? Like the telephone company? > he agreed to when he opened his Tidepool account. > 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 have been reading Mr. Ward's postings for the past year. They are always on topic. I've read a few that I thought were superb prose, irregardless of the scatological content. Perhaps he shows his superior command of language precisely because he is able to write such scandalous, provocative and visually disturbing prose. Ms. Kobrin and the other lawyers representing RTC et. al. set themselves up as public figures on the net when they attempted to RMGROUP a.r.s. Ms. Kobrin even recieved the KOTM Award. (If you have been online for as many years as you claim, you will know what *that* means.) And I suspect that you'd rather deal with the net rather than "the judge" because you know that you would lose in court. Katy "can we say First Amendment"