What Go Daddy policies has Tim Bolen NOT violated?

[David Brown]

As of about twenty minutes ago, a letter is in the mail which orders
Tim Bolen's service provider, Go Daddy, with an order to take down his
July 30 post libeling me for violation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. I did negotiate with Bolen in good faith to resolve
the most immediate cause of complaint, but then he turned around and
flushed the deal by continuing to harass me with material he agreed to
remove.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/738bf4b2280d0255/1970bfe1e05ffe96

I also decided to present arguments for taking down the offending and
offensive "report" based on godaddy.com's own terms of use. I think
these deserve to be aired publicly, as proof that Go Daddy has
absolutely NO excuse for tolerating Bolen's conduct. If they do not
grant my request, they will expose their detailed policies as a sham,
and themselves as hypocrites. So, without further ado, here are my
"terms of use" complaints:

“You will not impersonate another User or any other person or entity,
or submit content on behalf of another User or any other person or
entity, without their express prior written consent.”
In the exchanges leading up to and recounted in this post, Bolen made
the following threat: “Did this David Brown, who appears to be about
sixteen years old, ever give you an indication where he might have
parked his `nine pages?' I will be glad to pass his `published'
statements on to Doctor's Data's legal team so that they can `discuss'
his statements in a more structured environment - like a Summons after
a `Second Amended Complaint...' " By this and many similar
statements, he has not only attempted to suppress my exercise of
speech with legal threats, but claimed or implied that he has, or
could have, authority to speak for or influence Doctor's Data, Inc.
and/or their counsel, Jeffrey Levens. While I consider Bolen's
relationship, if any, with DDI and Levens a matter for ongoing
inquiry, I consider it beyond reasonable doubt that he was never hired
or consulted in any formal capacity. Hence, his presumption to make
legal threats on DDI's “behalf” are undoubtedly an “impersonation” of
authority he does not possess.

“You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or
harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or
personally identifiable information about another User or any other
person or entity without their express prior written consent.”
Mr. Bolen published personal information about me without my consent,
or consulting me in any way, or even fully and accurately reproducing
said information.

“You will not use this Site or the Services found at this Site in a
manner... that: Promotes, encourages or engages in defamatory,
harassing, abusive or otherwise objectionable behavior...”
I maintain that, by qualifying details of my biography to indicate
doubts he did not sincerely hold, Mr. Bolen libeled me.

“Promotes, encourages or engages in hate speech, hate crime,
terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property, or
intolerance of or against any protected class...”
As someone diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, I have reasonable claim
to “protection”. This post also abuses James Randi, who has
absolutely NO involvement in the case under discussion, for being gay
and allegedly being a pedophile. The only justification offered is an
extended quotation from a strikngly incoherent article which at one
point describes “ telephone conversations, of explicit sexual content,
with teenage boys” and at another “speaking to a small boy about sex
and how much it would cost”. Other accounts make it clear that all
conversations were with males who were, or claimed to be, underage
prostitutes. Hence, while concern and criticism over this tape would
be amply justified, the author's obvious conflation of “legal minor”
with “small boy” is clearly inaccurate and prejudicial. At worst, it
lends itself to the stereotyping of gays in general as compulsive
pedophiles.

“Violates the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of
2008 or similar legislation, or promotes, encourages or engages in the
sale or distribution of prescription medication without a valid
prescription.”
The subject of the suit is the testing and ensuing treatment of
“mercury poisoning” under circumstances where the vast majority of
medical professionals deem it unnecessary. By promoting the suit,
Bolen is effectively promoting these practices, particularly by trying
to SILENCE critics of said practices by claiming that they will be
made defendants.

“Promotes, encourages or engages in any spam or other unsolicited bulk
email, or computer or network hacking or cracking.”
Bolen sent a link and partial text for this and several other posts by
unsolicited emails to me, at an account which is now (for unrelated
reasons) inactive. This continued despite repeated warnings to cease
and desist, and also an offered “compromise” by which he would have
been free to send emails that did NOT have links promoting his posts.
This appears to be part of a long and ongoing pattern of unsolicited
and unwanted emails promoting his site. See also:
http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/30d9288e09018e3d/337044dedd3c21f4

“Violates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other
person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe
to another User or any other person or entity.”
By publishing my photograph and biographical details, for the purposes
of abuse, Bolen further violated my wishes and longstanding practices
about how to distribute such materials. In many circles where I
participate, some participants (like Mr. Bolen) respond to
disagreement by making an issue of motives and identity. I have
judged it best neither to make it appear that I have anything to hide,
nor to dignify such questioners with an answer. To that end, I post
under my own name or an “avatar” I have identified as my own; I make
my biographical information available where it can be easily found;
and if I am questioned about it, I simply direct the questioner to
look up my name (or pseudonym) for themselves. Thus, it does not suit
my purposes to have even an accurate version of my own biography
posted by someone else.