Censorship and Reality - further discussed
Gordon Burditt
>Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
>recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
>crimes.
Are you sure this letter is authentic? It sounds like it
was written by one of the perpetrators of Nazi war crimes.
The Nazis at least liked to use censorship.
>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>address on their site.
This is a mistake. Make that requirement of everyone or no one,
regardless of content. Finger already provides real names, doesn't it?
Gordon L. Burditt
gbur...@airmail.net
Dexter Hathaway
>
> Greetings -
>
> Last month we had an interesting discussion about the realities of
> Censorship or content limitations which are necessarily coming to the
> net. That discussion was instrumental in developing our Acceptable
> Use Policy which can be found at
> http://www.iadfw.net/acceptable_use.html
>
> I have recently received a letter from Abraham Cooper of the Simon
> Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
> recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
> they are dedicated to halting the spread of hate groups in general and
> anti-semitism in particular.
>
> With that said, Rabbi Cooper has suggested a Code of Ethics to the
> major internet providers in the country and has asked me to adopt it
> on behalf of Internet America. I have reproduced it below and I am
> interested in your thoughts on whether you think it appropriate to
> adopt as our official policy regarding objectionable material.
>
> I want to make it clear that Internet America has NOT officially
> adopted this code of ethics. I merely present it here for discussion
> purposes.
>
> Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics:
>
> The Internet is an unprecedented technological tool which for the
> first time in history has democratized communications throughout the
> world. It provides tens of millions of people with the tools to
> communicate freely and share their ideas to an audience whose size and
> diversity was previously unimagined. It is the embodiement of the
> concept of an international marketplace of ideas.
>
> As such, it deserves to be encouraged and protected from those who
> would abuse it. There are those who use this incredible power to
> promote violence, threaten women, denigrate minorities, promote
> homophobia, and conspire against democracy. Internet Providers have a
> first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
> groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
>
> Given the unprecedented potential and scope of the Internet, we (read
> here as ISP's who agree to this code of ethics) consider it our civic
> duty to terminate service to any individual or group who exploits our
> services to incite mayhem or racist violence.
>
> End of Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics
>
> As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
> agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
> defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
> abuse are myriad.
>
> However, we are no doubt embarking upon a new age of communication,
> one without universal controls, or even market controls. For
> instance, the market will likely not support a major magazine which
> espouses white supremacist ideals due to a dearth of advertisers
> willing to pay for space in such a publication and a paucity of
> individuals wiling to subscribe.
>
> There is no such market control in the case of the web because the
> distribution barriers to entry are so low.
>
> So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
> Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
> of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
> What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
> domain name from their address. And, their content ends up receiving
> the tacit approval of my company, even though I myself find the
> content to be revolting in the extreme.
>
> My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
> with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
> address on their site.
>
>
> Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
>
> Robert Maynard
> CEO, Internet America
> Texas' Largest Provider
Many of our ancestors fought and died defending our constitution, of
which a right to free speech is granted, and to coerced any type of
speech however abhorant is clearly against that right. Any true
American who has faith in the constitution and what it stands for will
defend those rights no matter the content. Remember both Hitler and
Stalin favored censoring speech and controlling content, and we surely
don't want the lessons they gave us to be repeated..
Dexter Hathaway
Paul Schmehl
[snip]
>As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
>agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
>defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
>abuse are myriad.
I completely agree. It is censorship. All censorship does is
generate more controversy. If the holocaust is true, anyone with a
desire to know the truth will not be fooled by demagoguery.
Only lies need fear exposure.
[snip]
>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
>of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
[snip]
>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>address on their site.
Who decides what's controversial Robert? Solution? Require all
information providers, who use IA to transmit, to post real names and
mailing addresses, regardless of content. That way you don't censor,
and they can't hide behind your company's tacit approval.
Also, it wouldn't hurt to require a disclaimer on all material,
divorcing yourself from its content.
bald...@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Kyle Hearn
> c...@airmail.net (Robert Maynard) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
> >agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
> >defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
> >abuse are myriad.
>
> I completely agree. It is censorship. All censorship does is
> generate more controversy. If the holocaust is true, anyone with a
> desire to know the truth will not be fooled by demagoguery.
>
> Only lies need fear exposure.
Network World did two pieces on this recently on Jan 8 & 15 of this year.
In the articles was a bit more information on the issue, and reactions by
some providers, who disagreed that offensive speech should be banned as
the Wiesenthal Center would like.
Compuserve stated that those creating the content should be dealt with
rather than the service provider. Others such as the Hall of Shame said
the same basic thing as your above paragraph.
> >My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
> >with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
> >address on their site.
>
> Who decides what's controversial Robert? Solution? Require all
> information providers, who use IA to transmit, to post real names and
> mailing addresses, regardless of content. That way you don't censor,
> and they can't hide behind your company's tacit approval.
Anyone who demanded that I post my address in every email message or
usenet post from me wouldn't be likely to get a polite response. I
wouldn't do business with anyone demanding I put it on a web page either.
I post things that offend people often, and people offend me often. Life
goes on. Asking me to put a mailing address in my posts or pages is
telling me I have to give my name and address to every nut case on the
internet, who could then find out my phone number if it wasn't unlisted
and call and harass my family if something I post "offends" someone. This
is almost as goofy as the govt and its &*(@)(*! clipper chip and the FBI
going after people trying to protect their privacy with encryption. A few
decades the Klan was afraid of the NAACP and did their best to get their
member list. I wonder why.
If newspapers started posting addresses of people writing editorials in
their paper, all heck would break loose for the paper and fear of
harassment would make people hesitant to write in. People would raise
cain over it and boycott the paper and rightfully so.
>
> Also, it wouldn't hurt to require a disclaimer on all material,
> divorcing yourself from its content.
For customers? Why? Employees, sure. But customers?
XXX . |
Kyle Hearn XXX . | Contrary to popular belief, Unix is
XXX. | user friendly.
ky...@intex.net .XXX |
. XXX | It just happens to be selective about
Happy GNU Year! . XXX | who it makes friends with.
Nasrin Ismail
>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
>of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
>What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
>domain name from their address. And, their content ends up receiving
>the tacit approval of my company, even though I myself find the
>content to be revolting in the extreme.
>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>address on their site.
The letter you received was sent to all major, and many minor
internet service providers. It has caused quite a stir in the circles
that pay attention to the social aspect of the net. One good place
to look for discussion of the issues is CU-Digest in the newsgroup
comp.society.cu-digest.
The argument against such content control is that it will only drive
the censored speech underground. Pushing it underground makes it
inherently more attractive to the target audience (young rebellious
teens and other adults that feel ostracized by mainstream society).
Furthermore, pushing it underground makes it all that much harder for
"the good guys" to refute the ideas that the hate-mongers are
promoting.
There is a phrase that I am probably misremembering, but I believe it
goes something like this: "The only cure for bad speech is good
speech, not censorship."
For an example of a web site dedicated to refuting bad speech, see the
Nizkor Project which is a long term USENET project dedicated to
analyzing and discrediting the various holocaust revisionist theories
that appear on the net. It is at http://www.almanac.bc.ca/.
By the way, I suggest either requiring a real name and address on
_all_ web pages that you host, or on none. Making special cases is
both time consuming and slightly discriminating, which is what the
hate-mongers do, not the rational people. Personally, I'd say that
as long as the finger service returns real names, you are set.
Requiring a link to a disclaimer similar to what the televisions
stations show when they run one of those half-hour commercials might
be a reasonable compromise. You could probably coerce your web server
software to automatically append such a link to each user's root home
page to make it all automatic.
Barbara Blanton
share ideas, values,support and information. The world is being
influenced in ways we can't even imagine! The bad news is that the
bigots and the far left/right folks can do the same. I guess in order
to protect our rights, we have to protect their rights as
well...*sigh* (as Doug says).
So although I support the values in the document, I don't think it
should be adopted by IA, for all the reasons Paul so well outlined!
Barbara
bald...@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl) wrote:
>c...@airmail.net (Robert Maynard) wrote:
>[snip]
>>As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
>>agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
>>defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
>>abuse are myriad.
>I completely agree. It is censorship. All censorship does is
>generate more controversy. If the holocaust is true, anyone with a
>desire to know the truth will not be fooled by demagoguery.
>Only lies need fear exposure.
>[snip]
>>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>>Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
>>of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
>[snip]
>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>address on their site.
>Who decides what's controversial Robert? Solution? Require all
>information providers, who use IA to transmit, to post real names and
>mailing addresses, regardless of content. That way you don't censor,
>and they can't hide behind your company's tacit approval.
>Also, it wouldn't hurt to require a disclaimer on all material,
>divorcing yourself from its content.
Robert Maynard
As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
abuse are myriad.
However, we are no doubt embarking upon a new age of communication,
one without universal controls, or even market controls. For
instance, the market will likely not support a major magazine which
espouses white supremacist ideals due to a dearth of advertisers
willing to pay for space in such a publication and a paucity of
individuals wiling to subscribe.
There is no such market control in the case of the web because the
distribution barriers to entry are so low.
So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
domain name from their address. And, their content ends up receiving
the tacit approval of my company, even though I myself find the
content to be revolting in the extreme.
My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
address on their site.
What do you think?
Matt Quagliana
> Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics:
>
> The Internet is an unprecedented technological tool which for the
> first time in history has democratized communications throughout the
> As such, it deserves to be encouraged and protected from those who
> would abuse it. There are those who use this incredible power to
> promote violence, threaten women, denigrate minorities, promote
> homophobia, and conspire against democracy. Internet Providers have a
> first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
> groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
I disagree with the last sentence. "Propaganda" is a word open for wide
interpretation, which could include many forms of legal, free expression..
I do not know the First Amendment issue well enough to debate it, but I
feel that ISPs have a moral obligation to allow free thought and free
speech to pass through their systems, except for those applications of
free speech that have clearly been found to be illegal (conspiracy,
copyright infringement, etc.)
I feel that all Internet accounts should be tied to a real life user name
and address should be "finger-able" to the general public. However, finger
should not be configured to reveal information about the user's last login
or last email session.
Web pages should definitely include a real person's name and address.
To me, the issue of disclaimers is irrelevant. If I get an obscene phone
call at three in the morning I am not going to hold SWBell responsible for
it.
>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>Rape, violence against children, etc.
It depends on what you mean by "foster". As I understand it, it is not
illegal to discuss these crimes (particularly in general terms), and even
glorify them. However, when "fostering" approaches "planning" these
discussions approach conspiracy. Nonetheless, the ISP cannot be held
responsible for this activity and should not try to monitor the data that
passes through its systems.
The appropriate response for an ISP is (A) to adopt an appropriate use
policy that clearly does not permit illegal activity and (B) to cooperate
fully with law enforcement agencies in the investigations of possible
criminal activity on its systems.
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Quagliana
Cerebus Corporation
(214) 855-0880
qu...@cerebus.com
http://web2.airmail.net/cerebus
"Cerebus" is a registered trademark of Cerebus Corporation.
T.D. Shadow
>
>>As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
>>agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
>>defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
>>abuse are myriad.
>
>generate more controversy. If the holocaust is true, anyone with a
>desire to know the truth will not be fooled by demagoguery.
I had to throw my "yeah, what they said..." in.
Begin Quote --- ---
The appropriate response for an ISP is (A) to adopt an appropriate use
policy that clearly does not permit illegal activity and (B) to cooperate
fully with law enforcement agencies in the investigations of possible
criminal activity on its systems.
End Quote --- ---
Bill Gross
carrier." That way you could avoid the problems of dealing with
people that don't know how to behave.
I have always been concerned that attempts to silence Holocaust
Deniers only leads credence to the arguements. As to being able to
identify messages, I would hope that it would require something like a
phone tap, i.e. a Court Order. In some discussion it just doesn't
always pay to let folks know who you really are.
If you work for someone who is a jerk and is involved in the public
sector and discussion comes up about that person, it would be nice to
hear all opinions about him/her. Those working under such a person
would comment at their own risk. The abiity to retain some annonimity
would be reasonible there. Of course the other side of that coin is
slander.
Hank Mishkoff
says...
>If newspapers started posting addresses of people writing editorials in
>their paper, all heck would break loose for the paper and fear of
>harassment would make people hesitant to write in.
On the other hand, newspapers typically won't print anonymous letters;
they also typically check to make sure that it's the real name of a real
person before the print the letter. I guess the newspapers feel that you
don't deserve to be able to use their forum to express your opinions
unless you have the guts to identify yourself, which seems reasonable --
yet here on the Internet, many people feel that they have the right to
express themselves *without* having to identify themselves, which also
seems reasonable. Go figure.
And Robert, if you're really considering adopting those rules for IA, I
urge you to reconsider. There are many people with views that I think are
disgusting, but they probably feel the same way about *my* views, and I
don't think you want to put yourself in the position of deciding which one
of us "really" is offensive. And frankly, if they really hold these views,
I'd *much* rather have them expressed out in the open then let them
germinate in the darkness.
Fringe groups tend to attract people who feel that they're being
persecuted; if you censor them, you help validate their fears, and may end
up making them stronger. In other words, even though your motives might be
noble, your results could be surprising and even counter-productive. It
might make you feel like you're doing something positive, but you could
easily end up doing more harm than good.
--
Hank Mishkoff
ha...@WebFeats.com
=====================================================================
W E B S E R V I C E S F O R T H E N E W M I L L E N N I U M
WebFeats http://www.webfeats.com/
MultiWeb http://www.multiweb.com/
17610 Midway Road, #134-135 Voice (214)931-5421
Dallas, TX 75287 Fax (214)733-0629
Chris Bellomy
[intro deleted]
: Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics:
: The Internet is an unprecedented technological tool which for the
: first time in history has democratized communications throughout the
: world. It provides tens of millions of people with the tools to
: communicate freely and share their ideas to an audience whose size and
: diversity was previously unimagined. It is the embodiement of the
: concept of an international marketplace of ideas.
: As such, it deserves to be encouraged and protected from those who
: would abuse it. There are those who use this incredible power to
: promote violence, threaten women, denigrate minorities, promote
: homophobia, and conspire against democracy. Internet Providers have a
: first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
: groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
: Given the unprecedented potential and scope of the Internet, we (read
: here as ISP's who agree to this code of ethics) consider it our civic
: duty to terminate service to any individual or group who exploits our
: services to incite mayhem or racist violence.
: End of Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics
: As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
: agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
: defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
: abuse are myriad.
Agreed.
: However, we are no doubt embarking upon a new age of communication,
: one without universal controls, or even market controls. For
: instance, the market will likely not support a major magazine which
: espouses white supremacist ideals due to a dearth of advertisers
: willing to pay for space in such a publication and a paucity of
: individuals wiling to subscribe.
I'm not sure even this is demonstrated. White supremacist publications
have existed for countless years and will continue to exist, though
admittedly on a small scale.
: There is no such market control in the case of the web because the
: distribution barriers to entry are so low.
True. Hate groups are free to create web pages to their heart's
content (if such a thing exists for them). But will anyone read them?
At least anyone who doesn't *want* to read them in the first place?
Wouldn't that same person be inclined to seek out similar propaganda
in the print media?
: So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
: Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
: of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
: What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
: domain name from their address. And, their content ends up receiving
: the tacit approval of my company, even though I myself find the
: content to be revolting in the extreme.
I find this last statement to be fallacious. Endorsing someone's right
to free speech does not equal endorsing the content of said speech. If
it did, I would drop all Rush Limbaugh groups from my news server now.
(And my customers would be rightfully irate with me!) As I see it, there
is no gray area here. Either you endorse free speech, or you do not.
: My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
: with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
: address on their site.
You contradict yourself. You must monitor all content in order to
find what is even "remotely controversial." Why not require *all*
users to provide a real name and mailing address?
To dig deeper, however: what is the benefit of suppressing or even
just quieting these groups? If their very existence is an alarming
thing for reasonable people, why suppress the evidence of their
existence? IMO, reasonable people NEED to know that these hate
groups exist. They NEED to know what kind of bile they spew. Ig-
norance may be bliss, but bliss isn't called for as long this kind
of ignorance persists.
Better uncomfortable than ignorant.
--Chris Bellomy
News Administrator
Globallink Technologies, Inc.
cbel...@globallink.net
David L. Cathey
>>I have recently received a letter from Abraham Cooper of the Simon
>>Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
>>recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
>>crimes.
>
> was written by one of the perpetrators of Nazi war crimes.
> The Nazis at least liked to use censorship.
It's real. If you take a look at news.admin.net-abuse.misc and
alt.support.loneliness (which some has been crossposted to n.a.n-a.m)
you'll see junk from a group called "CLOC". It's also made Newsweek or
Time (can't remember which one).
>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>address on their site.
>
> This is a mistake. Make that requirement of everyone or no one,
> regardless of content. Finger already provides real names, doesn't it?
Finger may not be supported (i.e. Montagar.com does not run a finger
server), and that information could be faked. Also, non-US servers could
be used, as well as the anonymous remailers.
However, I would rather these guys be out in the open where we can
watch them and discredit them, as opposed to them running around anonymously
hiding under sheets.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
Paul Schmehl
[snip]
>If newspapers started posting addresses of people writing editorials in
>their paper, all heck would break loose for the paper and fear of
>harassment would make people hesitant to write in. People would raise
>cain over it and boycott the paper and rightfully so.
FYI, the Dallas Morning News requires a full name, address and phone
number before they print an editorial. And I have received phone
calls and letters in response to things I've written.
>>
>> Also, it wouldn't hurt to require a disclaimer on all material,
>> divorcing yourself from its content.
>For customers? Why? Employees, sure. But customers?
What I meant was that IA is not responsible for the content of
material provided, by their customers, to the Internet community.
Sal
with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
address on their site.>>
I agree with the above, but as the others have suggested it should
be across the board.
Don't let anyone pressure you, or influence you toward censorship.
Sal
pete...@mail.zgnews.com
>>I have recently received a letter from Abraham Cooper of the Simon
>>Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
>>recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
>>crimes.
>
>Are you sure this letter is authentic? It sounds like it
>was written by one of the perpetrators of Nazi war crimes.
>The Nazis at least liked to use censorship.
The letter is authentic. I've seen a number of discussions of it
elsewhere, including some excellent articles in comp.society.cu-digest.
>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>address on their site.
I consider providing at least a real name at the site a most
appropriate step. I have a bit of trouble with requring a mailing
address, however. If the Web space is purchased by an organization, I
would expect to see at the very least the organization's USPS mailing
address. An organization should have no need to hide their contact
information.
>This is a mistake. Make that requirement of everyone or no one,
>regardless of content. Finger already provides real names, doesn't it?
I fully agree with this sentiment. Providers should never attempt to
classify customers based on content. I believe such classifications
lead to nothing but problems for the ISP.
> Gordon L. Burditt
Bob
--
Bob Peterson BBS Dialup: 214 403 9406 to 28800 V.34
pete...@mail.zgnews.com BBS Telnet: bbs.zgnews.com Web: www.zgnews.com
Kyle Hearn
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960124204730.8807A-100000@intex>, ky...@intex.net
> says...
>
> >If newspapers started posting addresses of people writing editorials in
> >their paper, all heck would break loose for the paper and fear of
> >harassment would make people hesitant to write in.
>
> On the other hand, newspapers typically won't print anonymous letters;
> they also typically check to make sure that it's the real name of a real
> person before the print the letter. I guess the newspapers feel that you
> don't deserve to be able to use their forum to express your opinions
> unless you have the guts to identify yourself, which seems reasonable --
> yet here on the Internet, many people feel that they have the right to
> express themselves *without* having to identify themselves, which also
> seems reasonable. Go figure.
Newspapers don't print the address of people who write in. If someone
wants to be anonymous on the net, send a provider a money order and mail
it from the other sid of dfw and give a fake name. You can't stop someone
from speaking their mind, although I'm sure some nut in the govt will
try to do something about that. Asking/forcing people to put their
address on messages or web pages won't work, is a pain in the neck, will
hurt business from the lost revenues of people not putting up web pages
because of the fear of harassment, and the folks it is intended to stop
will go elsewhere and post their information from another site....perhaps
from another country or state. I could be posting this through
anon.penet.fi or any other anonymous site if I wanted to, which is in
Finland.
The provider insisting on me placing my address in my .sig or web page
is going to do nothing but lose my buisiness and referrals.
Paul Schmehl
>On 25 Jan 1996, Hank Mishkoff wrote:
>> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960124204730.8807A-100000@intex>, ky...@intex.net
>> says...
>>
>> >If newspapers started posting addresses of people writing editorials in
>> >their paper, all heck would break loose for the paper and fear of
>> >harassment would make people hesitant to write in.
>>
>> On the other hand, newspapers typically won't print anonymous letters;
>> they also typically check to make sure that it's the real name of a real
>> person before the print the letter. I guess the newspapers feel that you
>> don't deserve to be able to use their forum to express your opinions
>> unless you have the guts to identify yourself, which seems reasonable --
>> yet here on the Internet, many people feel that they have the right to
>> express themselves *without* having to identify themselves, which also
>> seems reasonable. Go figure.
>Newspapers don't print the address of people who write in.
Au contraire, mon ami.
The Dallas Morning News prints your city and state directly beneath
your name. It's not a long leap from there to the phone book, where
you can get address and phone number.
I've had both calls and letters, both positive and negative as well as
threats, from letters I've had published in the DMN.
[snip]
Robert Maynard
>By the way, I suggest either requiring a real name and address on
>_all_ web pages that you host, or on none. Making special cases is
>both time consuming and slightly discriminating, which is what the
>hate-mongers do, not the rational people. Personally, I'd say that
>as long as the finger service returns real names, you are set.
>Requiring a link to a disclaimer similar to what the televisions
>stations show when they run one of those half-hour commercials might
>be a reasonable compromise. You could probably coerce your web server
>software to automatically append such a link to each user's root home
>page to make it all automatic.
After reading the discussion in this thread, this is the response I
have prepared to the Weisenthal Center. In it, I state Internet
America's position on this issue.
Hope this doesn't pi@# of too many people.
January 26, 1995
Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Associate Dean
Simon Weisenthal Center
9760 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90035-4792
Dear Rabbi Cooper:
Thank you for your recent letter outlining your concerns about the use
of the Internet to propagate the views of fringe hate groups
throughout the world. This has been an issue very near the top of my
mind for the past several months.
As a boy growing up, racism had no place in our home. I vividly
remember the stories my Grandfather told me recounting his horror and
shame of being one of the first infantrymen to liberate Buchenwald.
My Grandfather was Jewish and he never told the story without crying
and begging God’s forgiveness for his fear of catching a life
threatening disease from the camp’s victims; disease being as deadly
an enemy as any bullet to an infantryman during the war.
A distant cousin of mine, Elie Weisel, of course, had most poignant
commentary on the subject of racial violence and anti-semitism.
Dr. Harold Platt of Northern Arizona University, one of the world’s
leading authorities on the Holocaust, was my sponsor for the Harry
S.Truman Scholarship nomination I earned while in school. I remember
sitting through his classes physically sickened by the vivid depiction
of his lectures as he studied the history of the holocaust through the
lens of a gifted historian.
And, although I am not Jewish, I believe that you can see that the
views espoused by the Holocaust revisionists and various other
anti-semitic and hate groups around the world are particularly
revolting to me.
So, here I sit, the leader of a significant Internet service provider
in the United States, knowingly serving content and carrying traffic
for various neo-Nazi organizations and hate groups in my service area.
This is a difficult and distasteful dilemma.
Your letter states that the Internet is the ultimate democritazation
of information and I agree. Unfortunately, as disgusting as the
positions of the hate groups you mention, I cannot agree to your
request to censor their conent. Nor can I adopt the Internet
Provider’s Code of Ethics you suggest in your letter. My position is
based on my personal understanding of and belief in the First
Amendment to the Constitution, most poignantly paraphrased by Nathan
Hale.
What I can do, however, is insure that no person publishing from our
systems can hide behind a pseudonym. Our systems division insures
that the real name of each of our users is readily available through
the Finger function commonly available on the Internet.
In addition, if asked by any outside party, we will compel any
publisher of web content on our servers to publish their real name and
city and state of residence directly on the first page of their
website.
Finally, we enforce a simple, yet effective Acceptable Use Policy
regarding the transmission of illegal content and we have worked
several times in the past with local and federal authorities to
investigate illegal acts perpetrated on the Internet. You may review
our policies at http://www.airmail.net/acceptable_use.
I know that this position will prove disappointing to you and your
organization, but I find myself needing the wisdom of Solomon for this
issue. Unfortunately, God has not granted me such a gift and this is
the best I can do.
I would like to offer the free use of our systems for the development
and service of your group’s own web site. We do this routinely for
churches and religious organizations, regardless of denomination. You
may find the webchapel an interesting sitre that we host. It is a
complete, graphic version of the Bible. You can review this site at
http://web2.airmail.net/webchap/.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me directly.
Sincerely,
jo...@iex.com
> My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
> with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
> address on their site.
The problem is not with pseudonyms. Don't posters of rape/abuse support
groups need and deserve anonymity if they seek it? How do you handle
anonymous remailers(e.g. anon.penet.fi)?
How about this approach: An ISP should have well-defined terms of service
that cover the areas of net abuse such as spam, virus postings, inappropriate
text post to binaries groups, illegal acts, etc. These are often discussed in
news.admin.net-abuse.misc and seem to have broad backing among net citizens.
Customers who violate your TOS get booted off by you.
There are existing Federal and State laws to cover the areas that our
legislators have deemed to be illegal (child sex, etc.). Violators get the
appropriate legal consequences of their illegal actions. Instead of more
regulation and monitoring controversial content, just enforce a good TOS
policy and the existing laws that we have.
Your concerns should not be content-based, but rules-based. If you post spam,
you lose your account. If you post nude children and adults engaging in sex
acts, you get prosecuted. If some idiot wants to post protected opinions about
race, religion...the net has a way of making itself known with flames and...
well, you know about e-mail bombs and many more. But, the bottom line, is that
these opinions, however ignorant and hate-mongering, are now protected as
free speech. Don't venture into the area of censoring content.
Of course, an exception to that is someone who threatens another person with
harm. But, that's already covered under Federal statute and your TOS against a
person violating existing laws would allow you to cancel the posting...the
poster loses their account and the appropriate law agencies are called in to
bring the poster to account for the threat.
Kyle Hearn
> >I have recently received a letter from Abraham Cooper of the Simon
> >Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
> >recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
> >crimes.
>
> Are you sure this letter is authentic? It sounds like it
> was written by one of the perpetrators of Nazi war crimes.
> The Nazis at least liked to use censorship.
This actually happened. They sent out a letter to quite a number of
providers.
>
> This is a mistake. Make that requirement of everyone or no one,
> regardless of content. Finger already provides real names, doesn't it?
The isp uses whatever name the customer gives them. Many of the ones you
see here are fake. Many systems disable fingerd to keep others from
fingering their users.
Jerry M. Robinson
as to how such ethics are any different than that applied in any other
medium. (I do realize that there is a distinct difference in practice.)
As the *internet provider* one can have a direct control over what
passes through your service... At what level do you draw the line....
and what about messages that pass though your service... Do the phone
/cable companies have equal responsibilities or duties to limit what
passes through their lines and services?
When cable MODEMs make their appearance... I have trouble imagining
someone like TCI even making an attempt to curb the more troublesome
aspects of net communiation... How then is an Internet Provider so
different now?
Jerry M. Robinson
Hank Mishkoff
>
>After reading the discussion in this thread, this is the response I
VERY good work, Robert!
Kyle Hearn
> >Newspapers don't print the address of people who write in.
>
> Au contraire, mon ami.
>
> The Dallas Morning News prints your city and state directly beneath
> your name. It's not a long leap from there to the phone book, where
> you can get address and phone number.
Exactly why my number is unlisted. I had some problems with prank calls a
few years ago and have no desire to have the family woke up at 3 or 4 in
the morning by someone who doesn't like what I post on the net.
Considering the nuts out there who could come by and vandalize property
or worse, I hope folks would think about the potential disservice they
would be doing their customers...good way to get them put on competing
ISPs mailing lists as well.
>
> I've had both calls and letters, both positive and negative as well as
> threats, from letters I've had published in the DMN.
^^^^^^^^
Which is why this is a terrible idea.
Ric Naff
>Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics:
>would abuse it.
I think we need to define "abuse" first (could it bee that Weisenthal's
is tantamount to abuse?). Next, I'd have to question why the Net needs
to be protected? It's a bunch of wires, chips, drives, and electricity.
Why does the Net need to be protected? Will disk drives burn-up if too
much of this "abuse" is spread about? Or do they mean the _USERS_
of the Net, in which case, how _dare_ they presume to speak for me,
let alone the world, in their presumtion that we need protection.
>There are those who use this incredible power to
>promote violence, threaten women, denigrate minorities, promote
>homophobia, and conspire against democracy.
True enough. But why stop there? Let's list everything. Lessee...
Alcohoslism; Gambling; Foul Language; Denigrating "Jokes" about
ethnic minorities; Software Piracy; U.S.-restricted Technology
Exports; Spreading Software Viri; and the list is practically endless.
While their list is confined to _hurting_ people, what makes that
the litmus for what will be tolerated? I'd also have to question why
they singled-out democracies? Do they mean this in the generic
sense, or is that explicit? What about republics, such as the U.S?
And for those governments clearly not a democracy in any sense, is
it OK to conspire against them? Is it OK to work to pull-down
Castro? If so, then this seems like "The end justifies the means",
which is what Hitler and the former Soviet governments were all
about. This is the U.S., where the end does not in any way justify
the means; that's what makes us respected (generally) around the
globe. That's why we stuck it to the perpetrators of Iran-gate; we
do not condone that type of action no matter the cause, but Weisnthal
appears to not care too much about this; only that democracies are
exempt from conspiracy. Makes me wonder about their ethics...
>Internet Providers have a
>first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
>groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
Yeah, and what Supreme Court decision noted _that_ ruling? Near as
I can tell, providers are like newspapers. You give space to one
advertiser promoting a view, you have to give space to those who
promote an opposite view. And let's see... the same admendment
that lets Weisenthal spew-forth this "opinion" is the same one that
lets those with opposing views spew-forth their hate.
>Given the unprecedented potential and scope of the Internet, we (read
>here as ISP's who agree to this code of ethics) consider it our civic
>duty to terminate service to any individual or group who exploits our
>services to incite mayhem or racist violence.
See above. I'm no lawyer, but I'd wager a court case would end-up
viewing providers as any other form of media publication. If you
let one political view out, then you have to let them all out.
>End of Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics
Good. And it didn't come too soon! <g>
>As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
>agree."
Bingo! Glad we have an education CEO running this thing!
>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
>of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
>What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
>domain name from their address. And, their content ends up receiving
>the tacit approval of my company, even though I myself find the
>content to be revolting in the extreme.
So do I. Though they are few in number, there are those who would
view "nice thoughts" messages as revolting, and since your domain
name shows on those messages too, you are telling those people that
you "approve" of such messages.
You are a media publisher. Just like magazines, newspapers, radio,
television, billboard owners, etc. It's not your job to approve or
disapprove. It's your job to see that messages are published, and that
equal time is provided to opposing views. It's _our_ job (the readers)
to [dis]approve, and if we disapprove, we can respond or simple press
the Enter key an move on.
>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>address on their site.
See above about those who view "gentle, mainstream topics" as
revolting. If you require this from people who post messages you
do not like the content of, then you should likewise require it from
people who post messages with which you agree. Just because
you approve a message's content doesn't mean everyone else will.
>What do you think?
I think the world would be better without neo-nazis, wife-beaters,
gay-bashers, denigrating jokes, social misconduct, etc. But they
are here, and there are methods and ways to address them. Having
a media publisher require something from a few people they disagree
with, but not from people they approve of, is seriously bordering on
a violation of the First Amendment. If you want to require real
names, then require them _all_ the time. From _everyone_.
Ric
Hank Mishkoff
>
>Near as
>I can tell, providers are like newspapers. You give space to one
>advertiser promoting a view, you have to give space to those who
>promote an opposite view.
While I agree with a lot of what you say, I think you're wrong on this
one. It's my understanding that newspapers can and do reject advertising
for any (or no) reason, and are under no obligation to give equal time to
opposing views. Whereas radio and TV are licensed by the government to use
a limited resource (the airwaves) and thus *are* required to give equal
time, *anybody* can publish a newspaper, and *no* newspaper is under any
legal obligation to print anything it doesn't want to print. I'm not a
lawyer, but that's my understanding.
unc...@alrmail.net
> Whereas radio and TV are licensed by the government to use
>a limited resource (the airwaves) and thus *are* required to give equal
>time,
Radio and TV are not required to give equal time on anything an
advertiser wants--radio and tv can reject ads for no reason at all
unless you're talking about political advertising. Hence the major
networks buckled under advertisers' threats and refused to air PSAs
for condoms in the early 1980s.
Jim Long
Ric Naff
>In article <4ehjk9$k...@news-f.iadfw.net>, ric...@iadfw.net says...
>>
>>I can tell, providers are like newspapers. You give space to one
>>advertiser promoting a view, you have to give space to those who
>>promote an opposite view.
>
>one. It's my understanding that newspapers can and do reject advertising
>for any (or no) reason,
OK, I won't split hairs with you. I chose the wrong term when I
said "advertisers". I meant specifically those purchasing space to
publish political/editorial/commentary documents (as opposed to
trying to sell a service or product). Perhaps newspapers are exempt
from this - I dunno. Radio and television are not. In any event,
the argument could be made and some lawyer somewhere is certain
to take the case. In the interest of avoiding the suit in the first
place, and in the interest of fair play vis-a-vis the First Amedment
(as referenced by Weisenthal as a basis of their argument to
suppress messages of a certain nature), seems to me that IADFW
should just require real names on everything that leaves their
Server. That way, no matter the message content, no one can claim
preferencial treatment and denial of First Amendment rights.
Everyone is treated the same, no one can claim singular damages...
Ric
Steven Benson
defense of unfettered expression. And, I want to encourage the
support of continued anonymous expression.
I would also hate to see IA adopt a policy that would require
identification of the writer. Newspapers may require identification
but generally they will not include this information along with the
letter if the writer requests anonymity. My U.S history is a tad
fuzzy this far removed from school classes in the subject, but I seem
to recall that many of the significant pamphlets/editorials leading up
to the Revolution were written under a psuedonym. Accept this fact
and you accept a democratic tradition of psuedonymous expression of
opinion.
And I see good reasons for continuing this. Not everyone is free to
publicly express their opinions under their own name. Their job may
place constraints, real or imagined, on the opinions that they can
publicly express. Some of the other people writing in this thread
have mentioned the problem of harassment.
As far as the opinions written - nobody should have to fear a bad
idea or an offensive opinion as long as there is the freedom to reply.
Once we begin to place restrictions on what we can write, what the
libraries can collect, then we can begin to be afraid. Most people
can see fallacy or offensiveness, if it's there, in what they read and
hear. And as long as they feel free to express their own
opinion/arguement, then reason will prevail and bad ideas will be
ignored or overcome.
ha...@WebFeats.com (Hank Mishkoff) wrote:
>On the other hand, newspapers typically won't print anonymous letters;
>they also typically check to make sure that it's the real name of a real
>person before the print the letter. I guess the newspapers feel that you
>don't deserve to be able to use their forum to express your opinions
>unless you have the guts to identify yourself, which seems reasonable --
>yet here on the Internet, many people feel that they have the right to
>express themselves *without* having to identify themselves, which also
>seems reasonable. Go figure.
>And Robert, if you're really considering adopting those rules for IA, I
>urge you to reconsider. There are many people with views that I think are
>disgusting, but they probably feel the same way about *my* views, and I
>don't think you want to put yourself in the position of deciding which one
>of us "really" is offensive. And frankly, if they really hold these views,
>I'd *much* rather have them expressed out in the open then let them
>germinate in the darkness.
Steven Benson
sbe...@onramp.net
Hank Mishkoff
>Radio and TV are not required to give equal time on anything an
>advertiser wants--radio and tv can reject ads for no reason at all
>unless you're talking about political advertising.
Yes, I was talking about political advertising, sorry for not making that
clear. The point I was trying to make was that it's my understanding that
newspapers, by comparison, are *not* under any compulsion to give equal
time even for *any* kind of advertsing, even political.
--
Kyle Hearn
> >Internet Providers have a
> >first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
> >groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
>
> Yeah, and what Supreme Court decision noted _that_ ruling? Near as
> I can tell, providers are like newspapers. You give space to one
> advertiser promoting a view, you have to give space to those who
> promote an opposite view. And let's see... the same admendment
> that lets Weisenthal spew-forth this "opinion" is the same one that
> lets those with opposing views spew-forth their hate.
You don't _have_ to give anyone space you don't want to. Newspapers don't
either. According to the supreme court, a company or organization can't be
forced to promote a view they don't want to, as this would violate their
first ammendment rights. One organization was having a parade in NY (I
think) and a certain organization wanted to be involved and the
organization having the parade said no. The second organization sued and
lost since this would be forcing the first organization to promote a
political view it didn't want to.
If an ISP decides to ban some type of material, it's their equipment and
property and it's their right to do darn well what they please with it as
long as they're not violating some law with it, and there's no law saying
you have to put up whatever someone want's you to. This would be like
telling this wiesenthall place they have to have a swastika on thier home
page to counter the anti-nazi propoganda, which you can't do.
> See above. I'm no lawyer, but I'd wager a court case would end-up
> viewing providers as any other form of media publication. If you
> let one political view out, then you have to let them all out.
Most publications present many views, but I'd very much like to see the
law telling them they have to do so. Look at any political publication
and see how many present both views equally.
ty...@flash.net
business. Try reading your email. And by the way, Hitler was the
largest provider of Nazism is Germany. Bigger is not always better,
Robert.
c...@airmail.net (Robert Maynard) wrote:
>Greetings -
>Last month we had an interesting discussion about the realities of
>Censorship or content limitations which are necessarily coming to the
>net. That discussion was instrumental in developing our Acceptable
>Use Policy which can be found at
>http://www.iadfw.net/acceptable_use.html
>I have recently received a letter from Abraham Cooper of the Simon
>Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
>recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
>crimes. I believe that their charter has changed somewhat and now
>they are dedicated to halting the spread of hate groups in general and
>anti-semitism in particular.
>With that said, Rabbi Cooper has suggested a Code of Ethics to the
>major internet providers in the country and has asked me to adopt it
>on behalf of Internet America. I have reproduced it below and I am
>interested in your thoughts on whether you think it appropriate to
>adopt as our official policy regarding objectionable material.
>I want to make it clear that Internet America has NOT officially
>adopted this code of ethics. I merely present it here for discussion
>purposes.
>Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics:
>The Internet is an unprecedented technological tool which for the
>first time in history has democratized communications throughout the
>world. It provides tens of millions of people with the tools to
>communicate freely and share their ideas to an audience whose size and
>diversity was previously unimagined. It is the embodiement of the
>concept of an international marketplace of ideas.
>As such, it deserves to be encouraged and protected from those who
>would abuse it. There are those who use this incredible power to
>promote violence, threaten women, denigrate minorities, promote
>homophobia, and conspire against democracy. Internet Providers have a
>first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
>groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
>Given the unprecedented potential and scope of the Internet, we (read
>here as ISP's who agree to this code of ethics) consider it our civic
>duty to terminate service to any individual or group who exploits our
>services to incite mayhem or racist violence.
>End of Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics
>As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
>agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
>defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
>abuse are myriad.
>However, we are no doubt embarking upon a new age of communication,
>one without universal controls, or even market controls. For
>instance, the market will likely not support a major magazine which
>espouses white supremacist ideals due to a dearth of advertisers
>willing to pay for space in such a publication and a paucity of
>individuals wiling to subscribe.
>There is no such market control in the case of the web because the
>distribution barriers to entry are so low.
>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
>of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
>What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
>domain name from their address. And, their content ends up receiving
>the tacit approval of my company, even though I myself find the
>content to be revolting in the extreme.
>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>address on their site.
>What do you think?
>Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
>Robert Maynard
>CEO, Internet America
>Texas' Largest Provider
---------------------------------
"Let the Buyer BEWARE"
Internet America BITES
ty...@flash.net
John Stewart
>largest provider of Nazism is Germany. Bigger is not always better,
Don't you have a job to go to, or something?
James Young
>>business. Try reading your email. And by the way, Hitler was the
>>largest provider of Nazism is Germany. Bigger is not always better,
>
> Don't you have a job to go to, or something?
>
No kidding. I thought, (hoped) we had all heard the last from that guy
weeks ago.
James Young
and...@airmail.net
Visit my homepage:
http://www.lookup.com/Homepages/68537/home.html
Kyle Hearn
> I think you need to quit preaching and start running an honest
> business. Try reading your email. And by the way, Hitler was the
> largest provider of Nazism is Germany. Bigger is not always better,
> Robert.
Comparing someone to a mass murderer for making a billing error is
absolutely uncalled for. I can't say I'm any fan of IA's, but this is
an assinine statement if I ever saw one. You cheapen what the nazis did
and make yourself look like a complete idiot at the same time.
Go hop on aol where you belong.
Kyle Hearn
> Yeah Robert, wasn't Hitler the largest provider of Nazisim os Germany?
^^
You can't spell either.
bwy...@iadfw.net
>>>>I think you need to quit preaching and start running an honest
>>>>business. Try reading your email. And by the way, Hitler was the
>>>>largest provider of Nazism is Germany. Bigger is not always better,
Are you fer real? iadfw runs their business very well, and have hundreds
of satisfied customers.
You, on the other hand, have the dubious honor of being one of the few
people they ever had to boot. What does this tell us about you? You're a
dickhead, pure and simple. Getting booted is something you really have to
work at.. it's not given lightly. You're not a user, you're an ABuser.
You also get exactly what you asked for.
Want us to call the Whambulance you to take care of your pathetic
whinning? Why doin't you just crawl back into your hole, and pray
flash.net doesn't catch you doing the same thing over there, or else
you'll be out of luck entirely. You might even have to go to dfw.net for
access, if noone else will take you because of your own abusive ignorance.
If you're going to bother the rest of us with your whinning, you better at
least tell the W.H.O.L.E. story.. not just the condensed, edited version.
Besides, with your reputation, nobody is going to pay any attention to
you.
B.
Robert Maynard
>Are you fer real? iadfw runs their business very well, and have hundreds
>of satisfied customers.
Ahem... Over 18,000
>
>You, on the other hand, have the dubious honor of being one of the few
>people they ever had to boot. What does this tell us about you? You're a
>dickhead, pure and simple. Getting booted is something you really have to
>work at.. it's not given lightly. You're not a user, you're an ABuser.
>You also get exactly what you asked for.
>
Actually the real count is Five and two of those were probably a bad
call on my part --- not Tybee tho.
Robert Maynard
CEO, Internet America
Texas' Largest Provider
Cpt. Queeg
>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>address on their site.
>>What do you think?
>>Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
>>Robert Maynard
>>CEO, Internet America
>>Texas' Largest Provider
I would hope that no ISP anywhere starts to monitor content. The fact
that your address appears with some jerks rantings is a down side to
being in the ISP business I'm afraid. I think that if a poster is
afraid to list a real address with their post that would be a grounds
for termination of their account.
Steve Lester
Wes Stewart
>ty...@flash.net wrote:
>>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>>address on their site.
>>>What do you think?
>>>Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
>>>Robert Maynard
>>>CEO, Internet America
>>>Texas' Largest Provider
> I would hope that no ISP anywhere starts to monitor content. The fact
>that your address appears with some jerks rantings is a down side to
>being in the ISP business I'm afraid. I think that if a poster is
>afraid to list a real address with their post that would be a grounds
>for termination of their account.
>Steve Lester
I agree with Steve, if they cant't use a real address then they should
fly away somewhere else.
Wes Stewart
wste...@airmail.net
www.webcell.com/wstewart
kevin o'neill
>bwy...@iadfw.net wrote:
>>Are you fer real? iadfw runs their business very well, and have hundreds
>>of satisfied customers.
>Ahem... Over 18,000
>>
>>You, on the other hand, have the dubious honor of being one of the few
>>people they ever had to boot. What does this tell us about you? You're a
>>dickhead, pure and simple. Getting booted is something you really have to
>>work at.. it's not given lightly. You're not a user, you're an ABuser.
>>You also get exactly what you asked for.
>>
>Actually the real count is Five and two of those were probably a bad
>call on my part --- not Tybee tho.
>Robert Maynard
>CEO, Internet America
>Texas' Largest Provider
I'm a new ia customer, and pretty happy so far.
But you've piqued my curiosity. On what basis would you boot someone?
(Sorry if I'm airing old news, but this seems like a relavent time for
such a discussion)
Kevin O'Neill
one...@airmail.com
kevin o'neill
>sle...@computek.net (Cpt. Queeg) wrote:
>>ty...@flash.net wrote:
>>>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>>>address on their site.
>>>>What do you think?
>>>>Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
>>>>Robert Maynard
>>>>CEO, Internet America
>>>>Texas' Largest Provider
>> I would hope that no ISP anywhere starts to monitor content. The fact
>>that your address appears with some jerks rantings is a down side to
>>being in the ISP business I'm afraid. I think that if a poster is
>>afraid to list a real address with their post that would be a grounds
>>for termination of their account.
>>Steve Lester
>I agree with Steve, if they cant't use a real address then they should
>fly away somewhere else.
>Wes Stewart
>wste...@airmail.net
>www.webcell.com/wstewart
I am in the most part down with this, but is this really a basis we
want to establish for self censorship? Are there no circumstances
where anon. postings might have merit? Consiter how easy it is to
flame the poster of an unpopular view.
Kevin O'Neill
one...@airmail.com
Kyle Hearn
> I would hope that no ISP anywhere starts to monitor content. The fact
> that your address appears with some jerks rantings is a down side to
> being in the ISP business I'm afraid. I think that if a poster is
> afraid to list a real address with their post that would be a grounds
> for termination of their account.
So start placing your address in your .signature. Someone will look you
up in the phone book or the operator and bug you when you post something
someone else doesn't like. Protecting your privacy is hardly reason to
have your account cut.
My family is currently being called several times a day by someone in the
515 area code and we can't stop him/her from harassing us without the
Texas state attorney general filing charges (which we _are_ going to pursue.
You obviously haven't had some idiot irritate you night and day like
this. Why any provider would want to demand people lose their privacy (or
why think think people would stay with them after being sold out) is
beyond me. I would hope any isp doing this in the future would also force
the employees to do this as well to get a good taste of what its like. I
have a feeling they would go through employees rather quickly (and
customers).
Wes Stewart
>wste...@airmail.net (Wes Stewart) wrote:
>>sle...@computek.net (Cpt. Queeg) wrote:
>>>ty...@flash.net wrote:
>>>>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>>>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>>>>address on their site.
>>>>>What do you think?
>>>>>Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
>>>>>Robert Maynard
>>>>>CEO, Internet America
>>>>>Texas' Largest Provider
>>> I would hope that no ISP anywhere starts to monitor content. The fact
>>>that your address appears with some jerks rantings is a down side to
>>>being in the ISP business I'm afraid. I think that if a poster is
>>>afraid to list a real address with their post that would be a grounds
>>>for termination of their account.
>>>Steve Lester
>>I agree with Steve, if they cant't use a real address then they should
>>fly away somewhere else.
>>Wes Stewart
>>wste...@airmail.net
>>www.webcell.com/wstewart
>I am in the most part down with this, but is this really a basis we
>want to establish for self censorship? Are there no circumstances
>where anon. postings might have merit? Consiter how easy it is to
>flame the poster of an unpopular view.
>Kevin O'Neill
>one...@airmail.com
Post all you want in the newsgroups, but if you send me e-mail then
if you are man or woman enough to say it then you sure the hell should
tell me where to contact you. If you send me e-mail like tybee did
and use much profanity and be very colorful with what I could do with
it then I deserve to be able to respond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a wonderful day
Wes Stewart
E-Mail : wste...@airmail.net
WWW site: www.webcell.com/wstewart
Doug Davis
>
> But you've piqued my curiosity. On what basis would you boot someone?
> (Sorry if I'm airing old news, but this seems like a relavent time for
> such a discussion)
Violation of our acceptable use policy.
http://www.airmail.net/acceptable_use.html
LQuest
Robert Maynard wrote:
>>Greetings -
>>Last month we had an interesting discussion about the realities of
>>Censorship or content limitations which are necessarily coming to the
Necessarily??? NECESSARILY???!!! I can already see it coming Robert. Are
you softening us up for a policy that is already carved in stone, or are you
really looking for help in making up your own mind on the issue of censorship?
>>net. That discussion was instrumental in developing our Acceptable
>>Use Policy which can be found at
>>http://www.iadfw.net/acceptable_use.html
>>I have recently received a letter from Abraham Cooper of the Simon
>>Weisenthal Center, a very highly regarded organization which until
>>recently was dedicated to tracking down perpetrators of Nazi war
>>crimes. I believe that their charter has changed somewhat and now
>>they are dedicated to halting the spread of hate groups in general and
>>anti-semitism in particular.
The ONLY effective way to defeat a stupid or dangerous idea is with a BETTER
idea. Anything more is initiatory force and thus is absolutely antithetical
to civilized society!
>>With that said, Rabbi Cooper has suggested a Code of Ethics to the
>>major internet providers in the country and has asked me to adopt it
>>on behalf of Internet America. I have reproduced it below and I am
>>interested in your thoughts on whether you think it appropriate to
>>adopt as our official policy regarding objectionable material.
>>I want to make it clear that Internet America has NOT officially
>>adopted this code of ethics. I merely present it here for discussion
>>purposes.
>>Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics:
>>The Internet is an unprecedented technological tool which for the
>>first time in history has democratized communications throughout the
>>world. It provides tens of millions of people with the tools to
>>communicate freely and share their ideas to an audience whose size and
>>diversity was previously unimagined. It is the embodiement of the
>>concept of an international marketplace of ideas.
>>As such, it deserves to be encouraged and protected from those who
>>would abuse it. There are those who use this incredible power to
>>promote violence, threaten women, denigrate minorities, promote
>>homophobia, and conspire against democracy.
It is NOT, I repeat NOT possible to induce fundamentally non-violent humans to
commit violence by just using words! Those who are so mentally ill as to be
thus induced, will be revealed when they act on such inducement -- until they
do, we can shame them, ridicule them, laugh at them or flame them but we MUST
not prevent them from revealing their true feelings through censorship of ANY
kind! If the good Weisenthal Center is suggesting anything more coercive than
public ridicule and surveillance, then they are purveyors of the very evil
they oppose.
> Internet Providers have a first Amendment right and a moral obligation not to provide these
>>groups with a platform for their destructive propaganda.
Say WHAT??? This is an astounding assertion! The RIGHT to free
speech/expression is a concept of negative authority for government! Only the
most bizarre and twisted logic could possibly shape it into an obligation for
overt action AGAINST someone else who's only crime is the dissemination of
stupid ideas! Whoever wrote this is utterly clueless about the whole concept
of natural rights!
>>Given the unprecedented potential and scope of the Internet, we (read
>>here as ISP's who agree to this code of ethics) consider it our civic
>>duty to terminate service to any individual or group who exploits our
>>services to incite mayhem or racist violence.
OK here is an example: I hereby incite everyone who reads this to go out and
beat up the first person they see. If you, dear reader, follow this
preposterous advice, you, not me, will be 100% responsible for the
consequences.
>>End of Weisenthal Center's Proposed ISP Code of Ethics
>>As I read it, it kinda smacks of: "Say whatever you want, as long as I
>>agree." Rather than "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
>>defend to the death your right to say it." And the prospects for
>>abuse are myriad.
>>However, we are no doubt embarking upon a new age of communication,
>>one without universal controls, or even market controls.
Thank God! We can only pray that it stays this way!
> For
>>instance, the market will likely not support a major magazine which
>>espouses white supremacist ideals due to a dearth of advertisers
>>willing to pay for space in such a publication and a paucity of
>>individuals wiling to subscribe.
>>There is no such market control in the case of the web because the
>>distribution barriers to entry are so low.
And this is the VERY attribute of the net that MUST be protected. The moment
we cancel someone's account JUST because they posted some WORDS, we will be
as guilty as are they. We must restrict our struggle against bad ideas to the
dissemination of better ones. Otherwise we open the door to censorship of
free thought!
>>So what do we do about the people who want to foster racial violence.
>>Rape, violence against children, etc... My experience with this type
>>of content provider is that they want to hide behind a pseudonym.
>>What they may not realize is that while they can hide, I can't hide my
>>domain name from their address.
>And, their content ends up receiving the tacit approval of my company,
Now here is a dangerous idea Robert! By what system of logic do you arrive at
such a conclusion? If I receive junk mail from a hate group, is it rational
for me to assume the Postmaster General has tacitly "approved" of its content?
Get real Robert -- this sounds like you are setting us all up for the day when
you finally capitulate to the forces of Statist censorship. I suspect you
have aalready made up your mind. True?
>even though I myself find the content to be revolting in the extreme.
As well you should. But toleration of stupid ideas is NOT approval -- tacit
or otherwise!
>>My inclination is to not monitor content at all, but require anyone
>>with remotely controversial content to provide a real name and mailing
>>address on their site.
>>What do you think?
>>Hope this starts another spirited discussion.
Me too. Thanks for the effort. I just hope you have the courage to avoid the
trend toward censorship.
--Mike
ty...@flash.net
be..just give them time...every dog has his day....
Doug Davis <do...@airmail.net> wrote:
>kevin o'neill wrote:
---------------------------------
E.J. James
>be..just give them time...every dog has his day....
Can't you come up with something more original. For example...when the rest of
us refer to you, we use "every idiot has his cliche".
Get a life, grow up, chill out. These 3 things alone will help you lead a more
enjoyable life.
Be warned...if you feel the need to flame, all messages from you will be
appropiately filed. A real simple process will handle all message from you. The
syntax is "mailfrom: dipshit*@.*.*, forward to trash" <FLUSH heard in the
background>.
Have a nice day,
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
=| E.J. James |=
-=| The InfiniTECH Consortium |=-
*-=| All opinions expressed belong solely to me. If you agree.. |=-*
-=| good! if not...ain't that what makes America GREAT!? ;-) |=-
=| Mail To: e...@airmail.net |=
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Cpt. Queeg
address I was referring to a real e-mail address. As far as I'm
concerned in the world of the internet that is my address.
I think there is a place for everyone on the Net. The net is a
representation of the world and in the world everyone has a place even
the people we don't care for. Like tybee for example. Yes there is a
place for tybee out there somewhere.
Steve Lester