Path: sn.no!Norway.EU.net!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!208.206.176.15!dimensional.com!not-for-mail From: no.spam.andy@n.o.spppaaammmm.pagan.net (Andy Collier) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:37:03 -0700 Organization: Consultant Lines: 95 Distribution: inet Message-ID: References: <344cca1d.8671929@news.supernews.com> <344f85c8.61309398@news.calstate.edu> <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: druid.pagan.net X-Newsreader: Anawave Gravity v2.00 X-Noarchive: Yes Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:388166 comp.org.eff.talk:73845 alt.censorship:171385 In article <34513C75.312B433B@tidepool.com>, donjla@tidepool.com says... > This is an open letter to Netizens who have been following the dispute > between Grady Ward and Tidepool Internet. 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. [snip] This subject is somewhat debatable as far as exactly what the terms of service mean. And if you were to close every account that received complaints, espcially on basis of "flames" posted to the net, it would be far too easy to eliminate accounts under your service through a relatively easy process of forging a usenet post, then lodging the "formal complaint". Grady Wards posts all came from Supernews usenet service, which claims no responsibility for the content of posts originating there. As a common carrier, you have no responsibility for the content posted by your users, since the service is wholly owned and operated by a different company. Ex: you don't hold the telephone company legally or morally responsible for the content of 976-sex lines, although they do provide them access. Likewise your cable company for providing "adult" entertainment (or even those strange public access channels in cities like NY). And the same for ISPs - most net folks hold Grady responsible for his own words and consider you to be somone merely supplying the wire. Rather than face Grady, the individual concerned has tried to silence him - as has his Church with numerous other critics in the past - you may want to contact Andrew Burt (aburt@nyx.net) at Nyx in Colorado for information on a massive mess from a couple of years ago caused by posts from Nyx by "henri" and the involvement of Scientology's private investigator Eugene Ingram (who has oustanding warrants in several states). It will serve as an example of how far these folks will go to suppress the ability of percieved enemies to "speak." - or you can address numerous law suits filed by Scientology in attempts to suppress the speech of its former members and critics. On another point though you may want to clarify your position insofar as being a publisher rather than a common carrier (i.e concerned with content on other services accessed from your ISP). If you, however, claim responsibility and authority for posts from supernews (as seperate service provider) of a subscriber who uses you only for access and email, you may be biting off more than you think - and assuming editorial and publishing responsibilites, which then in turn make you a liable party to libel. (See the AOL case). Here's a "thought experiment" - suppose someone were to put up a very vulgar and offensive web page denigrating a minority group on another service (say, GeoCities) but giving his address at tidepool as a point of contact. Do you deem your company to be responsible for the content of that web page (of which you have no control) under the TOS? This is after all, a bery similar situation. I will admit that I find Gradys scatological posts offensive at times, and qyuite vulagr. But as long as Grady wards posts do not interfere with the technical functions of your service, and do not break the law, in my opinion you should not be concerned with the content, no matter how offensive and vulgar it may be. After all, to quote Shakespeare, its "...words, just words." (Obviously explicit illegalities such as child pornography would be sufficient cause). To do so would be to expose your compnay to far too much risk, as well as the redicule and scorn of the netizens (as Im sure you have seen from the flame mail coming your way). The loss of credibility and standing would likely hurt your company's reputation in a business that is very much differentiated on reputation after cost considerations. > 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". I do congratulate you on your forthrightness and openness in handling this issue. It took a lot of guts to do this after your employess attempted an *apparent* stonewall and coverup. It would behoove you to check all the facts before acting in the future - but thanks for acting openly and in good faith in fron of the eyes of the net. You might want to teach your lawyer a thing or two about the way things work out here on the net - he didnt seem to have much of a clue of the firestorm his hard- nosed attitude would bring. Maybe have him read Covey's seven habits on Win-Win negotiating - its a start. Good luck - its sure to be an interesting discussion. Regards, A.C.