Subject: Re: Bob Allisat's Account on Internex *LOCKED*
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:38:06 GMT
Newsgroups: tor.general,tor.arts,ont.general,io.general

A couple of observations regarding this mess. My opinions only throughout.

After having verbally tangled with Bob from his first racist rant about
whites fleeing Toronto because of Caribana, I think I'm aware of his
abnormally high heat-to-light ratio. Still, I find myself in the strange
position of defending him.

DID BOB SAY ANYTHING THAT WARRANTED ACTION BY INTERNEX?

Based on what I've seen, no. It is still not yet a crime to be obnoxious,
even extremely so. I have not yet read any accusations of Bob engaging
in spams, totally out-of-the-norm use of resources, forgeries,
control-message wars, or any similar things which I would consider
actionable misuse of resources. Bob appears not to use more of IO's
own resources any more than any other individual with the time and
inclination to post the same number of postings as he has.

Bob's hasty Nazi comparisons are indeed offensive, and of little value
other than to get a rise out of readers. Still, they constitute little
actual crime other than to offend.

Yeah, the old "I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to
say it" stuff, still as valid today as ever. Even moreso, it seems.
The lines between offensiveness, harassment and assault have become so
blurred by political agendae that genuine criticism and satire is at risk.
The same protection offered to visionaries must be extended to loonies,
for only history will really know the difference between them.

Bob has offended many. According to any evidence I have seen, he has
harassed and assaulted none. Neither has he incited anyone else to
harass or assault.

At the very least, Bob Allisat has stood up for himself, not hiding
behind the aliases of the unsure or the sheer cowardice of anonymity.
He has stood to take the flak that follows his words, probably basking
in the knee-deep pile of insults (many of them deserved) that seem to
follow everything he says.

But that does not constitute reason for yanking an account from a system
that pretends to merely offer a resource.

2) DOES INTERNEX HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURGE ITSELF OF BOB ALLISAT?

Absolutely, though such action undermines any claims IO might have to
be an impartial common-carrier type operation.

Neither IO nor any other service provider owes Bob a soapbox, and to
suggest that the denial of such soapboxes constitutes censorship is
to throw up an inaccurate smoke-screen. Were Bob to print his rants,
nobody would call it censorship if the local print shop refused to
take the job to make copies of his drivel.

At the same time, though, IO's perception of its own responsibilities
lead one to a possibly-undesired conclusion. By dealing with a user
such as Allisat based on content, the administrators of IO seem to think
of their role as one of publisher, not mere provider of services.

In the muddy world of the information dirt road, IO's legal status is
uncertain; the direction the IO's keepers has charted, however, is not.
Any claim it wishes to establish in the future of being a "common
carrier", only to act upon its users when forced by law, has been
compromised. If anything, this route opens the door to *more* potential
liability for Internex than had it gone the other route. It has set the
precedent of booting someone based on content -- will others who are
offended by future IO users come to *expect* or even demand similar actions?

Frankly, I'm unnerved by IO's desire to *take on* more liability by
demonstrating a willingness -- if not desire -- to play content cop.
And, as I shop for an Internet service provider of my own, I must
consider the fact that something I say will some day offend somebody,
and that this somebody's complaint of my words would lead to my being
(at very least) investigated.

Internex's actions have protected nobody, least of all itself.

In a society which has become obsessed with (depending who you talk to)
either the spread or the elimination of what has come to be called
"political correctness", one becomes acutely aware of arbitrary controls
on one's ability to offend. There must be resistance against any
limitation of speech to that which offends nobody. Some of the greatest
ideas of mankind have at sometime been considered extremely offensive.
Not to say that any shred of Allisat's thought patterns could be
considered to have even a glimmer of greatness; yet, because of
circumstance, there he is, at the centre of it, just as he likes it.

In summary, I am saddened by the decision of Internex's keepers and
advisors, but it *is* theirs to make. I am all the more saddened to
know that such actions merely feed the attention-hungry, logic-free,
conspiracy-seeking psyches of the world's Bob Allisats.

Despite all the drivel, rantings and other incoherence that Bob has
produced in his time on the net, today it is Internex management's
collective turn to be even more offensive by this single act. But,
just like Bob, it has the right to be offensive, a right that cannot
be denied on a whim.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
                A happy traveller on the information sidewalk

Xref: utcsri ont.general:23161 tor.arts:856 tor.general:18690
Newsgroups: tor.general,tor.arts,ont.general,io.general
Path: utcsri!info.physics.utoronto.ca!utzoo!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Bob Allisat's Account on Internex *LOCKED*
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 14:34:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Brian Tao <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>, Evan Leibovitch <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>It is still not yet a crime to be obnoxious, even extremely so.

>If it were, Bob would have landed his keester in jail.  Instead,
>he lost only his account on Internex.  No one is accusing Bob of
>committing a crime.

Let me rephrase.

I do not consider anything Bob has done to be an "offense" against Internex.
Obviously the keepers of IO have perceived such an offence, since Bob's
being punished.

He didn't spam, cross-post beyond reason, forge anything or post into
inappropriate groups.

Think about it. You are freezing the account not because of what *he*
did, but because of what the complainers did. The complainers are not
all users on your system, but Allisat *is* (or was). To whom do you owe
(at least) the benefit of the doubt, those who pay you or those who don't?

Based upon your criteria, I could get together a bunch of chums, and
get *any* randomly-chosen IO user kicked off if we all complained long
and loud enough.

>Since people are so fond of compring ISP's to the "real world",
>would it be all that unusual to have the same thing happen outside the
>context of the Internet?  If you start making loud screaming and
>gurgling noises at night in your place of residence, would it not be
>reasonable for your neighbour to call the police and ask you to stop?

Absolutely wrong analogy. You compare apples (the *means* of expression)
to oranges (the content of what one expesses).

If I communicate outside the bounds of societal norms, than people may
have a complaint. That means if the *manner* I use to communicate, be it
spamming or yelling outside at night, is unsociable then complaints will
be taken seriously.

However, if I put up a lawn sign saying "the Holocaust was a hoax", I
will still attract complaints, not for the manner in which I communicate
but what I am saying. Such complaints would be ignored by the police and
politicians; though they may find what I say distasteful, they respect
my desire to say them.

See the difference? Both actions will generate complaints, but one set
of complaints is totally unreasonable.

>Locking out Allisat's account is clearly a drastic occurrence, but
>the circumstances were also drastic.

An opinion Brian and I certainly do not share.

>We are not talking about just
>*one* person complaining about his posts.  Or even four or five
>people.  Dozens have complained about the subject of his postings,
>both in public and in private.

So what? Christie Blatchford offends hundreds, maybe thousands of people
with the column she regularly writes in the Sun. Not only does the Sun
reply to the many letters of complaint by either ignoring or publicly
ridiculing them, but it even pays Blatchford to keep going!

There are people out there, some of them very learned and respected
people, who say things many would consider insulting. That they draw
response is merely an indication of their ability to provoke, and I
suggest that you should not yank people merely based on their ability
to pull the chains of others.

Say you gave Mordechai Richler an account, and he posted another of his
critique of Quebec's language laws. Surely you would be innundated
with complaints and demands to yank his account by angry francophones,
who routinely bitch about his comments every time he opens his mouth.

Would you lock Mordechai Richler's account? Based on the precedent set
with Allisat, you would be compelled to.

If IO can't be bothered to tell the difference between justified
complaints (breaches of netiquette, abuse of the informal structure of the
net, forgeries, security breaches or spam-like activity) and those who
would just silence someone with whom they disgaree, then IMO it can't
be trusted to guarantee *any* user's ability to truly speak his mind.
Sorry, but I don't want to be concerned when I write, about whether I
will cross some arbitrary threshold of numbers of people offended.

Good thing I didn't have to depend on an account on IO when I started
rec.arts.erotica. You would have had me booted off nanoseconds after
I began (judging by the complaints received by telly's admin account)!

>Don't be afraid to say something
>because you think it may offend one or two people.  No decent provider
>will cut your access because of that.  If you really want to stir up a
>hornet's nest, then you should be prepared for the consequences.

Interesting you would mention "being afraid", because the more I think
about it, the more I think that the term "cowardly" describes Internex's
actions in this regard. Indeed, to me this issue has never been one of
rights or censorship, rather one of courage and principles.

It takes courage to stand up to the would-be censors around the net, and
defend the interests of your own paying customers over those who do not
pay you but use up your time anyway. To give the complainers their victory
is the easy way out. In this case it's also the lazy way out, since the
target of this action is little more than a well-known crank.

>I don't think that IO's decision will affect an ISP's eventual
>inclusion into the "common carrier" definition.

Not ISPs in general, but certainly IO in particular. It, and no other
Toronto ISP, has bounced someone merely because what he wrote (staying
generally within netiquette and the bounds of the law) offended "enough"
people.

>You simply cannot
>compare an ISP with Canada Post or Bell Canada.  If you look at a
>typical news article, take note of three things:  the From address,
>the Organization line, and the signature.

Then change the news software so that it removes the Organization:
header, or allow users to have their own by default. Trivial to do.

>There is no noticeable
>association between the contents of someone's letter and Canada Post.
>This is certainly not true of e-mail or news.  Valid or not, people
>will think "Oh, it's another one of those users from Internex again".

This of course, goes to the heart of the matter. Internex IMO has
sacrificed some very important principles (not rights) in order to
achieve a 'polite' image within its community.

Consider this:

Valid or not, whenever I think of Internex from now on, I will think of
it as The Politically Correct ISP, the one from which users dare not
post anything that may piss off any significant number of people. (Hell,
it doesn't even have to be *significant*, if "dozens" of complaints from
within a net.population of hundreds of thousands are enough to get an
account locked.)

Judging by the amount of e-mail I have received in reply to my original
post, I am not alone in this sentiment. I suggest to you that this little
exercise of image-building has backfired.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
                A happy traveller on the information sidewalk

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
                A happy traveller on the information sidewalk

Xref: utcsri ont.general:23285 tor.arts:889 tor.general:18837
Newsgroups: tor.general,tor.arts,ont.general,io.general
Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Bob Allisat's Account on Internex *LOCKED*
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 07:24:14 GMT
Lines: 386

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Timothy D. Kuehn <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>>I do not consider anything Bob has done to be an "offense" against Internex.
>>Obviously the keepers of IO have perceived such an offence, since Bob's
>>being punished.

>You really got to hand it to people who equivalence "take your business 
>some place else" with "punishment." If a person is not a member of an 
>organization, then that organization has no/zero/zip power of that person. 
>Hence, there is no way they could 'punish' them. 

The maximum authority any organization has *is* to tell someone to
"take their business elsewhere". That *is* punishment, the ultimate
they can exact, though it may be referred to in other terms. Look up a
definition of "punish".

>This wording also brings up the image of a parent disciplining a child,
>and hence makes the 'punisher' out to be some kind of parochial figure,
>which we ALL know is 'evil.'

Well, we do have a situtaion where the account is locked *before*
Allisat was given a chance to plead his case. Guilty unless proven
innocent.  Sounds parochial to me...

>>He didn't spam, cross-post beyond reason, forge anything or post into
>>inappropriate groups.

>Gee....looks like content restrictions to me

Still can't make a distinction between what you say and how you say it?

If one is setting up an AUP, in such a manner as to be as air-tight and
un-arbitrary as possible, one can enumerate and specifically detail the
unallowed behavior. Spamming and forgeries can be explicitly prohibited.

The AUP, if you can call it that, that Allisat was booted for breaking
was so broad and wide open as to allow admins to arbitrarily boot off
anyone whose opinions they strongly disagreed with. What is necessary
is an AUP that avoids terms like "warranted" or "legitimate" or other
forms of arbitrary nature than can be manipulated against people because
of their opinions.

>...maybe 'free speech' isn't totally free after all?

I never said this was a free speech issue. Why drag it in?

>>Think about it. You are freezing the account not because of what *he*
>>did, but because of what the complainers did. 

>Bull #1. If he hadn't made those kinds of posts and provoked people like
>that, not to mention sully IO's reputation, then this probably never 
>would've happened.

"Sully IO's reputation"? Please. We're not talking about a girl at her
first school dance.

The "reputation" defence is a total smokescreen. IO did not post the
offensive stuff, one of its users did. *Unless* an ISP makes the pretense
of scanning everything its users produce, or make an effort to check
on their appropriateness, it can't be held accountable for the works of
its users, certainly not before the fact.

Many organizations which have employees or others posting from their
sites require disclaimers in the signatures of all posts (I've even seen
some disclaimers in headers) which make it clear that the user does not
speak for the organization. If the IO admins were so concerned about
reputation it would have required such a disclaimer from day one from
every user.

>>The complainers are not
>>all users on your system, but Allisat *is* (or was). To whom do you owe
>>(at least) the benefit of the doubt, those who pay you or those who don't?

>How about the ones who make them money. If an ISP customer is costing 
>more than they're worth in profit, then where's the point of keeping 
>them around?

And the complainers only "cost" IO as much as IO allows them to. A
capable admin can go through hundreds of messages in a matter of minutes
and sift the wheat from the chaff. In the instance of Allisat, Pax wrote
that IO admins received "dozens" of complaints -- they probably spent
more time wringing their hands then reading the complaints.

>Commerical enterprises don't exist to support your favorite 
>social engineering experiment, they're there to make $$$ by providing a 
>service or a product.

Seems like IO has engaged in its own social experiments by deeming
which opinions it considers too offensive to be posted from its site.
Certainly it is entitled to do so, as I am entitled to object publicly
to its actions.

>>Based upon your criteria, I could get together a bunch of chums, and
>>get *any* randomly-chosen IO user kicked off if we all complained long
>>and loud enough.

>Bull #2. Any reasonably intelligent ISP would take a look at the 
>complaints, and the activities of the person in question, and react
>accordingly, and not at just the complaints alone.

The reasonableness of the IO decision has yet to be proven, it certainly
has not by the evidence presented so far. Merely stating "bull" does not
offer much of a rebuttal.

>If the actions 
>of the complained-against user wasn't of the type and character that 
>the complainers were making noise about, then the ISP's only reasonable 
>response would be to tell the whiners to get a life someplace else and 
>leave the ISP alone.
>If the complaints are legit, then there's reason to do something about it. 

Then we come down the the issue of what is legit. Fair enough. Did
Allisat break any laws? Did he assault or harass anyone beyond stating
opinions some found offensive?

That's a very basic point. It has yet to be demonstrated that the
complaints were 'legit'. Is any complaint by someone who is offended
by a post 'legit'? Does it matter who makes the complaint? About what
content the offense was taken? What phase of the moon we're in?

>I really doubt any ISP worth their invoicing will kick someone off due 
>to some kind of organized, unwarrented campaign against a given user.

I don't believe that *any* "organized campaign against a given user" is
warranted. If the user does not break the law, or *specific* prohibitions
of the ISP, then it is not warranted. Period.

>>If I communicate outside the bounds of societal norms, than people may
>>have a complaint. That means if the *manner* I use to communicate, be it
>>spamming or yelling outside at night, is unsociable then complaints will
>>be taken seriously.

>Bull #3. This assumes that the manner of communication is totally 
>seperate from the message being communicated.

Yup, it is. Especially in Usenet, it's a *very* well-established
distinction. The manner of communication is described in the header,
the message is in the body.

>Ever hear of "tone of voice",

Oh, you mean like saying "bull" and "sowhat" and "bzzt" in place
of rational argument? Yes, I've seen people resort to that; quite
recently, in fact.

>>However, if I put up a lawn sign saying "the Holocaust was a hoax", I
>>will still attract complaints, not for the manner in which I communicate
>>but what I am saying. Such complaints would be ignored by the police and
>>politicians; though they may find what I say distasteful, they respect
>>my desire to say them.

>Bull #4. While they may respect your desire to say them, but if that 
>message was of a slanderous/libelous nature towards someone who took 
>exception, then someone will probably take extreme interest and move
>to have your 'message' removed.

And we have a nice and expensive system of courts through which to do
that. What court has required IO to freeze Allisat's account? Which
judge has considered Allisat's words libellous?

>Bull #4.5. Applying this to the "Alisat question", this would assume 
>you own the services required for the propagation of your message. 

Why? I certainly don't assume that.

>>Christie Blatchford offends hundreds, maybe thousands of people
>>with the column she regularly writes in the Sun. Not only does the Sun
>>reply to the many letters of complaint by either ignoring or publicly
>>ridiculing them, but it even pays Blatchford to keep going!

>SoWhat #1: This is the Sun's choice, and they probably do it because 
>the very nature of the controversial writings and editorial ridicule 
>gives the Sun more publicity which translates into more sales, not to 
>mention affords the maschoists of the Sun's readership something to 
>be publicly abused by.

So, we agree that someone can be controversial and generate
complaints and yet *not* "sully the reputation" of her publisher?
Or, rather, does it mean that "reputation" is in the eye of the beholder?

>>There are people out there, some of them very learned and respected
>>people, who say things many would consider insulting. That they draw
>>response is merely an indication of their ability to provoke, and I
>>suggest that you should not yank people merely based on their ability
>>to pull the chains of others.

>So racism is now merely a 'chain' to pull on someone else?

Racism, too, can be in the eye of the beholder. I also happen to believe
that some forms of racism can be positive. Does the expression of that
belief make my opinions unwelcome at IO?

The word "racist" has been knocked around so many times, along with its
compatriots "homophobe" and "misogynist", so as to be useless.

Forget the pidgeonholes. Let the ideas come out, and either be trashed,
debated or accepted on their merits. Even our hate speech legislation,
which I now believe to be a Bad Thing, requires that legally hateful
speech muct incite hatred against a specific group.

Until Allisat's speech is legally determined to be prohibited,
it may indeed be no more than than a chain to pull. How is it more?

>What are 
>you going to come with next??? Will you label verbal/emotional abuse 
>as merely a form of expression as well?

Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to read what's posted here.
Someone who subscribes to alt.politics.nationalism.white and is
surprised to read racist beliefs is a fool. As Elenor Roosevelt said,
nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.

>Let's get real here! If all 
>Alisat was doing was yanking people's chains, then I daresay he would 
>probably still have an account on IO. But he wasn't 'just' yanking
>chains, and as a result has been told to take his business someplace
>else.

Please state the case, specifically, regarding what Allisat said that
constitutes abuse. At the same time, let's hear where one draws that
metaphysical line between opinion and verbal abuse.

>>Would you lock Mordechai Richler's account? Based on the precedent set
>>with Allisat, you would be compelled to.

>Bull #6: You are ascribing to IO a motive and diminished level of 
>maturity which I have yet to see them exhibit. The only risk by
>right of precedent that MR would have to fear having his account
>pulled would be if he acted in the same manner Alisat's acted in.
>If he didn't then there's nothing for him to fear wrt keeping his
>account around.

In the same manner? We've already established that Richler generates
large volumes of complaints; many believe him to be a racist and an
anti-French bigot. He has been blunt in his insults and specific in his
criticisms. Based on many criteria he *is* "acting in the same manner".

Where would one draw the line? Because Richler has a better writing
style? Because he's been published? Because they teach his novels in
English class?

This is *exactly* the bind IO creates for itself with the arbitrariness
of Allisat's expulsion.

>You guys seem bent on making IO out to be the epitome of censorship
>and patriarchial control -- all over the removal of ONE (1) user. 

Pardon? Where in anything I have said have I accused anyone of
censorship? As for control, IO certainly *has* done so by locking the
account. Patriarchial? Perhaps; as the defense of its position is
forced to refer to matters of "tone of voice" and "legitimacy", and
confuses offensive or insulting text on a screen with emotional abuse,
perhaps the term "patriarchal" (or did Wayne mean "parochial"?) is
not so ill-suited after all.

>There's no systematic opeation going on here. Multiple users have 
>NOT been given the boot. Hence you really are making a "lot ado 
>about nothing."

I see. So this becomes a problem only once multiple users *are* given
the boot? Perhaps the end-result of this discussion is that IO will
consider a non-arbitrary AUP so that this episode *cannot* be repeated.

Such actions such as IO's *must* be examined the first time, for they
set a precedent for future actions. If they go unchallenged now, IO
will have the false perception that its actions have the tacit approval
of the community. Since reputation appears so important to this whole
matter, I would suggest that such approval is greatly desired.

>>If IO can't be bothered to tell the difference between justified
>>complaints (breaches of netiquette, abuse of the informal structure of the
>>net, forgeries, security breaches or spam-like activity) and those who
>>would just silence someone with whom they disgaree, 

>Bull #7: Your definition of 'justified complaints' is just as arbitrary 
>as the alleged 'threshold level' you're accusing IO of having.

Not necessarily. One could make header-tampering a punishable action,
while refusing to act on anything said in a message body that does not
contravene the law.

Done in greater detail, such an AUP could state specifically what is
acceptable and what is not, without leaning on the arbitrariness crutch
of words like "legitimate" or "reasonable" or "unwarranted".

>there must be reasonable cause for IO to dump Alisat 
>for the kind of posts he's been making which violated IO's threshold of 
>what they would tolerate in the name of free speech vs their growing 
>reputation as a harbor of racist bigots.

As I've stated, the negative reputation IO has received by dumping Allisat
may be even worse than the bad publicity for harbouring racist bigots.

The choice of actions is in IO's hands. How the community/market perceives
such actions is not.

>>then IMO it can't
>>be trusted to guarantee *any* user's ability to truly speak his mind.

>Would you raise the same spectre if some rapist psycho got an 
>Internet account on IO and started posting their dark desires of what 
>they'd like to do to some poor innocent? Or what if they started posting 
>classified material which could threaten the security of this country?

If such speech breaks the law of the land, then it is actionable, and
the complaint would/could take the form of a Court Order. Otherwise,
let 'em talk. I don't trust your judgement (or mine, or anyone else's),
to determine if this "rapist psycho" is just an innocent fantasy or the
real thing.

>>Good thing I didn't have to depend on an account on IO when I started
>>rec.arts.erotica. You would have had me booted off nanoseconds after
>>I began (judging by the complaints received by telly's admin account)!

>If posting of erotica was restricted under the AUP which you were 
>granted service under, then probably so.

As it is, the existing IO AUP is ambiguous. One admin might consider it
restricted, another might not. But stating that even under *some*
circumstances my actions would be enough to get my account yanked says
plenty about IO's suitability as an ISP for anyone whose postings
generate any controversy.

>>Interesting you would mention "being afraid", because the more I think
>>about it, the more I think that the term "cowardly" describes Internex's
>>actions in this regard. Indeed, to me this issue has never been one of
>>rights or censorship, rather one of courage and principles.

>Bzzzt #1: It could just as well be a matter of keeping their house clean 
>and not gaining a further reputation as a harbor of racist bigots. 
>Reputation is part of growing a commerical enterprise, and like Intel 
>discovered recently with their arrogant and parochial handling of the 
>Pentium Problem (tm), associating a name with something detestible
>is NOT a way to Make Friends and Influence People, much less make a 
>profit. 

Fair enough. Based upon what I have seen so far, I have already
considered IO an unacceptable ISP for myself and anyone I am asked
to recommend service for. I do not deem IO an acceptable ISP based
on the reputation they have established in my opinion.

What is the poorer reputation today? Harbouring racists or being
politically correct? Neither is truly fair, but the actions IO
takes will determine which way it is seen.

>>This of course, goes to the heart of the matter. Internex IMO has
>>sacrificed some very important principles (not rights) in order to
>>achieve a 'polite' image within its community.

>>Consider this:

>>Valid or not, whenever I think of Internex from now on, I will think of
>>it as The Politically Correct ISP, the one from which users dare not
>>post anything that may piss off any significant number of people. (Hell,
>>it doesn't even have to be *significant*, if "dozens" of complaints from
>>within a net.population of hundreds of thousands are enough to get an
>>account locked.)

>This assumes that that's the only reason that Alisat got booted. I 
>seriously doubt that this is the full reasoning behind the decision, 

I work with the evidence at hand. If IO wished to establish a
"reputation" for fairness or evenhandedness of its AUP application,
it certainly hasn't demonstrated it publicly.

>and for you to say that that was the only reasoning behind why Alisat 
>got nuked, then I'd like a pointer to your telepathy helmet so I can
>use it too.

That's the bugaboo of reputations and images, they never truly reflect
reality. Just as one painting of IO as a festering den of rapists and
racists is nowhere near the truth, neither is a perception of it as
looking over everyone's postings. The two are extremes, but they are
the ones that will stick. The same actions that make IO valuable to you
make it worthless to me. The market will decide whether IO's admins
made the right tradeoffs. I happen to believe that the situation might
have been handled better from the start, and *neither* bad reputation
would be incurred. Is it too late?

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
                A happy traveller on the information sidewalk