Path: sn.no!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.185.79.5!zdc!szdc!newsp.zippo.com!snews2 From: zane@die_spammers.mabry.com (Zane) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 03:38:59 GMT Organization: None Lines: 154 Message-ID: <3494afab.194735875@snews.zippo.com> References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-235.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387852 comp.org.eff.talk:73808 alt.censorship:171309 On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:25:25 -0500, Donald Janke wrote: Thanks for coming out in the open to discuss this issue. Now that the smiles and handshakes are behind us let's get on with it. >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). ... That seems like a wise position to take. Unfortunately it's exactly the opposite of what tidepool actually did. I happened to be on the scene early on the day Grady's account was yanked and so was, afaik, the first person other than Grady to talk to tidepool about the situation. As we spoke I took notes and read the TOS at tidepool. Immediately after hanging up I wrote up the conversation, as seen from my perspective. You can read what I wrote at http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/news/gw-v4.txt. Please do so. My conversation with Jim at tidepool made it abundantly clear to me that tidepool was struggling to find some way to justify canceling Grady's account, and not having much success at it. The first tack taken was that Grady's posts were "off topic". Anyone who has followed ars for more than a couple days would know how absurd that statement is. Next Jim tried to tell me that Grady's account was cancelled because he was causing trouble for tidepool and that he had slandered[sic] someone. Now we have a new rationale to discuss: not getting run over by free speech. You claim that your actions were "necessitated by abusive and defamatory comments" made by Grady. If Grady had been e-mailing such stuff to the Ho, and had refused to stop when asked, then that would clearly be abusive. That isn't what happened. Also I'd like to point out that when I spoke with Tim McGrath he mentioned "abusive e-mail" and I had to explain to him the difference between newsgroups and e-mail. Where the incorrect assertion that Grady was e-mailing instead of posting crept in is anybody's guess. It could be that wgert created that impression, or that Eric did as things began to heat up, or perhaps Tim just doesn't know the difference between posting to a newsgroup and sending e-mail to someone. As far as defamation goes, that's hardly something I'd think it wise for you to insert your company into. Court cases I recall from the past indicate to me that the more an ISP involves itself in defining the content of posts the more likely it is to get caught up in libel suits. I believe the smart thing to do in order to avoid getting run over is to stay off the street and quit trying to act like a traffic cop. >In reading postings in this newsgroup, and other related newsgroups, it >seems that some posters object to the locking of Grady's account. Yes, the vast majority of posters expressed outrage. >Other posters feel the locking had merit. Yes wgert and perhaps one or two other scientologists, maybe Garry Scarff too. >It also appears that some posters feel they have not heard enough >information about this dispute. I recall two such posters, one of which e-mailed tidepool more than once asking them to step up and explain their position - something I also did more than once. >We had no choice but to terminate his account, under the >original terms he himself agreed to upon opening his Tidepool account. I don't believe that's true, not even close. Like I said before I discussed the original terms with Jim and gave him every opportunity to tell me exactly what term(s) had been violated. He couldn't, and the fact that tidepool changed their terms that afternoon leaves no question in my mind that they acted outside of their agreement with Grady - and know it. >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. If you really want to avoid getting run over then your best strategy is to remove yourself from that process. In the long run I don't see how you can possibly win. Either you're going to improperly terminate someone's account, and pay for it in court, or you're going to fail to act even-handedly when it comes to dealing with complaints and you're going to find yourself caught up in a libel case. I see that Bill Stewart-Cole has dealt what that issue in detail. I hope you heed his advice. Also I fail to see what "outer limit" there should be to free speech on the net. There is no equivalent to shouting fire in a theater, noone is going to get trampled as netizens around the world jump up from their systems and run screaming out the door. There are limits, however, when it comes to libel. Grady has been saying the same sort of stuff about the shit-vagina Ho for months. If she thought she had a good case, or even one that wouldn't be thrown out immediately, then I would think that she is perfectly capable of filing a suit to protect her "good name". >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. As far as I know strong language, in and of itself, will never result in a lawsuit that has any merit. Libel might, but you don't want to get caught in the trap of being responsible for the contents of your users posts, that would be a really big mistake. Further, some people are easily offended and have differing ideas on what constitutes "strong language". I know people who are offended if you say damn! in their presence. Do you really want to be in the business of responding to each and every person on usenet who's offended by something they read? There are inumerable expressions of opinion that I might find offensive while not containing any "strong language". For instance, one of your users might post an entirely offensive screed on why blacks are inferior, or jews evil, or whatever without a single fuck or whore. What do you propose to do in those cases? Are you going to try to get in the business of determining what ideas are offensive too? Words are used to express ideas and emotions. Grady uses certain words, other people might use other words. It's not up to you or me to dictate what words others use to express their ideas and emotions. If wgert is so sensitive to bad language that he really was offended by Grady's post then perhaps he should just quit reading alt.religion.scientology. Noone is e-mailing Grady's posts to him, he doesn't need to read them, and the truth of the matter is that he simply sought to get Grady kicked off the net because he doesn't like the contents of Grady's posts. Tidepool was made the pawn of wgert's personal animosity. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been a service provider for any length of time would have failed to see through wgert's scheme. But perhaps Eric's age and inexperience make that a moot point. >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. That's mighty generous of you. But we did this last week and the overwhelming majority of netizens say tidepool made a mistake. Zane