> 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: notraymo...@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: mail2n...@nym.alias.net
> Mail-To-News-Contact: postmas...@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.
>
> <----------Did it win?
>
> �"I don't even know the guy," said Belanger, a student on the campus
> in Orono, 2� hours north of Portland. "I was just mouthing off."
> �The incident at the University of Maine started when Belanger said he
> "disliked fags" on his "resume" on a student bulletin board. That
> prompted a barrage of anonymous e-mail, he said.
>
> <----Provocation....
>
> �He sent the threatening message to the person he thought was sending
> the anonymous messages. But his message ended up going to 10 other
> students as well as the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual public conference folder
> and three other computer folders.
>
> <-----Lack of intent....
>
> Soon after, students alerted campus security, who then forwarded the
> matter to police and the attorney general's office. "It all just got
> blown out of proportion," Belanger said.
>
> <-----Sure did.
>
> �Belanger was ordered to serve 30 hours of community service by the
> university, which suspended his computer account. The state waived a
> $5,000 fine and had Belanger sign an injunction promising he would not
> harass or threaten others.
>
> <-----------Simple enough. �If anyone feels stalked or threatened, a
> restraining order is the correct first step. �It is when the restraining
> order is violated that the stalking laws kick in.
>
> �Belanger said he would never have said in-person what he wrote hidden
> behind his screen name. "It was just a spur of the moment thing. Given
> the opportunity, I would definitely go back and reword it."
>
> <----------It was an illegal statement made under extenuating
> circumstances. �You have built your whole post on the premise that you
> have accurate information. �You do not.
>
> �Maine Attorney General Andrew Ketterer said there's an easy way to
> know when certain speech is inappropriate, and possibly illegal: No
> one should be placed in fear or scared by a message they receive
> through their computer.
>
> <-----I suppose I should have gotten a warm fuzzy feeling upon seeing
> posts that outlined a covert military operation to end my life.
>
> "I think that people may say, 'Hey, I got a First Amendment right to
> say whatever I want.' But what they've got to realize it
> does not include the right to threaten," he said.
>
> <----Obviously not.
>
> Earl Warren
>
> EarlW...@aol.com
> ---------------------------------------------------
> WarrOnline Inc.
>
> <----Care to give an address to that company?
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno athttp://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]