An interesting post from gordo that shows he's well aware the accusations
he's making about threats and libel and harassment do not meet the
requierments set forth by the law. So he's knowingly presenting false and
misleading claims to the courts.

__________

From: notraymondx@juno.com (Ray G Smith)
Subject: Re: Ray Gordon Abusive Posting
Date: 1998/06/12
Message-ID: <19980612.101437.16118.4.NotRaymondx@juno.com>
X-Deja-AN: 362017482
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-12,14-21,25-40,45-53,55-63,72-78,80-92,95-107,
111-123,128-163,166-172,175-181,183-198
Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics

I'll quote Dave as well in this response:

===================================

His services will not be eliminated if we receive enough complaints.
He will be reported to his ISP for them to deal with him. Signing on
with your 5 aol screen names to send me complaints will do you no
good. keep up this kind of childish crap and I'll ignore you just like
you should be ignoring the idiot that started all of this.

Dave
====================================

<-----So whoever complains the loudest and the most often wins. Nice
tactic.

If the individual at the center of this controversy interprets your
message as I do, he might read into it the fact that he can use any
onramp service to "do his thing" as long as it transits Gridnet's
backbone.

<---------I believe that censorship has no place on the internet. That
doesn't mean I support illegal speech. It means I do not acknowledge the
right of any TOS to exist online anymore than it is tolerated over
telephone wires.

The few First Amendment decisions involving the internet ALL
stipulate proof of malice as basis for substantiating libel,
especially against public figures.

<--------Truth is an absolute defense against libel.

These decisions, however, do not offer safe haven to what the public
views as "online stalkers", a growing problem the industry is
beginning to admit exists, and the courts are now starting to address.
Internet hate crimes are becoming an increasingly hot election issue
for savvy politicians (see article below).

<--------Stalking refers to attempts to contact or harass people, and it
must involve threats to their safety. Existing stalking laws can also be
applied to online and have been. But keep in mind that anyone can block
e-mail and instant messages, and that they do not have to read USENET.
Libel even is not stalking, if it were even libel, which it is not.

The move, if anyone is following the developing edge of this, is that
there is a solid push to separate actual free speech issues involved
in controversial internet activity from genuine public concerns
involving child pornography, invasion of privacy, stalking, and online
hate crimes.

<--------Speaking of invasion of privacy, in this case hackers with
internal access to AOL were involved.

I have examined a large number of posts from this individual that, in
my opinion (and I believe I am as average as any citizen who might sit
on a jury- but still, it is only my opinion) have more than
substantiated a basis for a claim of malice in any court, in addition
to numerous threats of physical violence.

<-----------Be specific as to which threats. USENET is archived. Go
ahead, try to find a threat, please. According to the FBI, a threat has
to be a specific statement of intent to commit a specific harm against a
specific individual. WORDING IS VERY IMPORTANT. You also might want to
check out the many death threats posted against me while you are at it.
You are trying to argue a legal case in an unmoderated environment as
well, a case where you are not even directly involved and in which your
level of self-involvement with would disqualify you from sitting on any
jury.

The threats alone remove the matter from any free speech argument,
into one of possible government involvement. This is my primary
concern.

<---If they were threats, they would. But they aren't threats. The
posts against me, however, were.

As one with a substantial interest in a corporation we both identify
with, I am wary of what I perceive as a precarious position regarding
this particular situation, given the nature of the behavior (the
threats), and the increasing frequency of juries in damage litigation
to tie the size of awards to the "shock" factor, ...and despite my
military combat experience, this user's threats have shocked even me.
I agree with your response regarding message routing, etc. Many of
the user's earlier posts containing threats were, in fact headered
with Gridnet routing.

<------What corporation is that? Might explain your motive. Which posts
to which you are referring? Evidence is crucial in cases like this, and
you are being deliberately vague.

In total, I believe this person has provided any qualified
complainant with sufficient basis for a malice argument, and his
threats are not covered under any free speech case law.

<-----Which threats, posted when, and where? Be SPECIFIC.

In light of these factors, I would hope the decision to "render null"
any ISP agreements for backbone access, based on refusal to deny
service to this user, would be the clear and obvious choice.

<---------Of course if the ISP did that on the basis of bad information
they would open themselves up to actions by me. They know this and that
is one reason they are loathe to listen to people who complain with a
hidden agenda.

As per my earlier reference to internet hate crimes, here is just one
instance:
=========================================
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- University of Maine sophomore Casey Belanger
sat down at the computer in his dorm room and typed a nasty,
threatening message to a fellow student he had never met.
"I'm gonna shoot you in the back of the (expletive) head if I ever
see your faggot ass," he wrote last fall, inadvertently sending
it to campus computer bulletin boards.

<----A specific statement of intent to commit a specific harm against a
specific person. By the way, people threaten murder in many fistfights
all the time. The police view it in context, however, and do not
prosecute for that very often if at all. Latrell Spreewell admitted to
threatening to kill his coach and was not even charged with a crime.

A week later, the attorney general's office slapped the 19-year-old
Caribou student with a hate crime lawsuit, accusing him of
violating the civil rights of homosexuals.