Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!208.25.114.6!feeder.northcoast.com!news From: Donald Janke Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:25:25 -0500 Organization: Internet Ventures, Inc. Lines: 76 Message-ID: <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts19.tidepool.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387597 comp.org.eff.talk:73762 alt.censorship:171208 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). 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. 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. 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. 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". 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 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".