Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.algonet.se!4.1.16.34.MISMATCH!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.109.1.106!ultraneo.neosoft.com!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: 25 Oct 1997 09:32:43 -0500 Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800 Lines: 242 Message-ID: <62svub$s7a$1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387668 comp.org.eff.talk:73775 alt.censorship:171228 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. > > I am the President of Internet Ventures (IVI), Inc.; and Northcoast >Internet (NCI), Inc. is part of IVI's family of Internet Service >Providers Thank you for reopening Ward's account. What was doen and how it was done, was wrong. >(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. Good. What does freedom of speech mean to you? > 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). No, Tidepool did just that. Free speech is the bus, one is on it or one is not on it. Some ISPs are good about this issue, some are not. Freedom of speech can easily be lost to numerous little gatekeepers who all decide that they will decide what freedom of speech is and how much one can have. I gave up on BBSs to come to the net and pay for the privledge to avoid petty dictators. For freedom of speech. ISPs should be like common carriers. Get out of the way. do not restrict freedom of speech. >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. This is not why he was told his account was terminated. He was "off topic". Not true. Now the excuse shifts. Not acceptable. And the TOS was changed on the fly. Not kosher. > 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. Who says? What are the limits? Pluis there is another issue. Scientolgists have tried to hijack alt.religion.scientology with massive off topic spamming campaigns. Repeated attempts to stop this purposeful abuse met with ISP notes that it was policy to give repeated warnings foirst. Ward had no such warning. Your ISPs put a lot of power into the hands of a 20 year old employee and this is not wise. Somebody should have discussed this with Grady and pointed out specific complainst and examples of what is beyond the pale alledegdly and the reasons fair, honest and reasonable and the TOS clear and to the point. This is not what happened. Fix that. Free speech is to valuable to allow it to be nibbled to death by ISPs with poorly thought out policies. I personally place high value on as much freedom of speech as possible. If Scientology cannot take flamming, they should not do it to people and harrass them also. Which is why this whole mess started. They pick fights and use ISPs as a tool to censor the net. Understand this. They are not the only people who do so. That is why three warnings is a good idea. 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. Why should you set limits on free speech? Why should ISPs decide they are the arbiters of free speech. As you say, some different spectrums exist. THis shows you it is an arbitrary decision. Why should an ISP make that decison for customers? I find this dangerous as free speech mey end up being what is allowable by 1001 self appointed censors because we allow the world to habiutate us to accpeting these limits to free speech. I find this dangerous. I say, you can't have too much free speech and flee ISPs that decide they will have to limit it because we can't make it on our iown out here in the home of the brave and the land of the free. I hereby seriously suggest we have a netizens bill of rights. Limiting what is considered reasonable encroachments on free speech by petty gate keepers. Freedom of speech, fight for it or lose it. We could see it destroyed nibble by nibble, bite by bite. > 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. No, this is about arbitrary decisions made by a 20 year old person operating on misleading information by somebody whose complaints also contained lies. Wgert claimed falsely for example that Ward's posts were off topic, no they are not, and that Wgert was a Supernews administrator, which apparently he is not. First thing, get th eother side of the story BEFORE you make any decisions, and then DON'T pass it on to a stinking lawyer with an arrogant bad attitude tio giv eteh final arbitray nay about things he knew little or nothing about. That was irritating. And unnacceptable to freedom lovers. 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. Which is unlikely. You probably are aware of the rulings on satoire from teh supreme court. The Falwell vs Hustler case is very illustrative. Now, if your lawyer does not understand that, you need a better lawyer. Freedom of speech is too precious to give it up because an ISP does not understand freedom of speech and shivers and shakes at the mention of a lawsuit. Recently a dumb sunuvabitch tried this on me, because I flamed him for being clueless and intrusive on a series of threads he had involved himself. Ron Bobo in sci.skeptic took it to complain to my ISP and lie about my posts and threaten lawsuits. I had to dig up the original posts showing he was a liar and a flame artists who initiated teh attack My ISP was a problem because teh guy BoBo contacted did NOT take it on ethemsleves to investigate before they leaned on me! This is stupid. When ISPs do this sort of stuff, you can bet every flake, fool and crank WILL threaten lawsuits to get people booted! Bobo picked this habit off of other cranks such as notorious net kook Earl G. Curley who polished this stunt to an art. I have seen this and been atacked this way and this has nothing to do with as you say, what a company must do to be in business. What you must do to be in business is compete with the big boys. And letting cranks manipulate you is a good way to lose out on business in a very competetive market with the odds against you as far as resources of large ISPs. Deciding to be censor is not a good idea. It didn't exactly work well for Sears/Prodigy, did it? Censorship and being manipulated by kooks threatening to sue is not a way to stay in business. If it was, Sears/Progidy would be buying Compuserve. >However, >even here the law seems open to interpretation until one stands before a >judge and >says "YOU DECIDE". SO you say, "Sorry, we are not a court". You will have to take this up with Mr. Ward, and if he is unwilling to settle this, you will have to take him to court." You need a better lawyer. Study Falwell vs Hustler. Flame wars get rough. Satire is freedom of speech. Stop being afraid of kooks threatening suits. Very few suits get filed. The only suit for libel on the net I am aware of now is James Randi vs, Earl G. Curley. Gloabl.net, Earl's ISP is not being sued, just Earl. Fear of lawyers destroys freedom. Stop it. Don't let kooks yelling "Sue!" sap our freedoms. Grow a backbone, guys. If you don't the kooks will bury us in threats. > 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. We cannot have enough freedom. Kooks should not be allowed to destroy freedom. Few lawsuits actually happen and fear of lawyers is unaceptable. More ISPs have been sued, succsfully, for abusing users than allowing freedom of speech. Ward would have probably won in court against Tidepool, such as Ron Newman's abusing ISP was forced to settle out of court for stunts they pulled shutting down his account. If lawsuits is what you fear, shutting down accounts arbitrarily is a good way to get involved in one and lose. Making an effort to sort out the truth rather than accepting somebody's word and closing down an account is a good way to do business. > 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". COEF, of course through the miracle of crossposting, this will surely end up in hald a dozen newsgroups. Freedom, you cannot have too much of it. Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston Slack!