🚀 go-pugleaf

Matthew Francey wrote:
> admiral@ilos.net (Arthur D. Mira) writes:
[snip] 
> >If the quotes attributed to the CNN executive, in the story by Lois
> >Legge are correct and accurate then there's a bigger problem with
> >clear thinking in Nova Scotia, than anything Barbara Amero could
> >ever dream up and post.

> >To have a member of the executive of the Freenet say that the
> >termination had nothing to do with content, but are as a result of the
> >volume of complaints is hypocritical, vile and offensive.

You're gawd dang right ... and CCN is to the right!
Last year a member of the Board of Directors of CCN
told me to be careful that when his term was over if
his position was filled by a right winger, Barbara
Amero would be history.
 
> Yes.  We know that you are of the position that the ISP should serve
> as an editor of content.  That this position is void of all rationality
> appears to be of no concern to you.  However we can be thankful the world
> is run by (somewhat) more enlightened souls.

If the ISP is going to serve as an editor of content, then 
wouldn't that make the ISP a "publisher" rather than a
"distributor"??  If so, what does that mean? That means
the ISP is liable. What does that mean? That means if
a person is libeled by an ASSHOLE without any money/assets,
then the person libeled can sue the ISP that presumably
has money/assets. 
 
> And when it comes to offensiveness, I can't really think of anything
> more disgusting that the mere existance of a bunch of net.blowhards who
> apparently don't know how to operate a killfile.

Well, I can... having men in these newsgroups publicly 
discuss the smell of my genitals and post pictures 
representing my genitals. I find that, and the fact
that they get away with it, more offensive. 

Those who find Barbara Amero offensive have failed to
address the issue of MEN in here being offensive.
Barbara Amero's most crude, offensive posts pale in
comparison to the disgusting, offensive posts made
by MEN in here!! And *rarely* does anyone complain.
In fact, when Barbara Amero posted men's offenisve
language in reference to WOMEN, a poster sent many
email complaints to her and to CCN about *her*
so-called profanity. Go figure!

Well, it's easily figured out. Aside from using
whatever they could to get Barbara Amero's 
account terminated, there is clearly a double
standard in here. Gender discrimination!!!

> >The freenet has a published TOS/AUP for it's members. To cite the
> >*EXCUSE OF EXPEDIENCY* that has been promulgated in the story,
> >rather than an application of that same TOS/AUP is hypocritical.
> 
> Earth to Mira:  had CCN made a content-based argument, their
> liability would have dramatically increased.  I'm not sure what you
> are blathering on about not "invoking" the TOS/AUP.  I haven't read
> the document in question, but it almost certainly contains the
> standard "oh yeah, and we can kick you off on a whim" clause.
 
> >That an executive board would not act, or seemingly be aware
> >that there was a problem until it accumulated 'hundreds' of complaints
> >is an acknowledgement that they run an organization in blissful
> >ignorance. Considering public money is involved to some degree,
> >that is vile.

What is the problem? The problem is NOT Barbara Amero. 
The problem lies with the people who want to CENSOR what 
she puts on her homepage and posts in newsgroups. AND
CCN has been aware of the problem, i.e. people who
want to censor, since Barbara Amero put up a homepage.
Apparently the complaints were manageable, since I was
only made aware of a few complaints. AND if Barbara 
Amero was such a big problem, then it is odd that CCN
renewed her account late last spring. In fact, for
months CCN had been sending reminders to Barbara Amero
that it was time to renew her account. Why didn't CCN
seize the opportunity at that time to not renew Barbara
Amero's account, if she was such a big problem, as
John Jenkins Sr. claims??? Jenkins doesn't want to
accept responsibility for fueling the fire to get
Barbara Amero's Freenet account terminated. Really,
it is very pathetic that men have to form TeamBronze
and be assimilated in order to deal with ONE woman.

> "Vile"?  Really?  About the only bad thing I can say about CCN is
> they appear to not know how to use procmail.  This suggests a certain
> level of technical incompetance.  

Really? Are you saying that you agree with CCN engaging in censorship?
Peter Morgan, Chair of CCN Board of Directors, said on the ATV news
report that CCN is not into censorship. That is a falsehood. CCN is
into censorship. In the past, CCN has censored me and tried on other
*occasions* to censor me. If a complaint was sent to for e.g. DBIS or 
Cable Atlantic (Jenkins ISP) about the link FUCK The Communications
Deceny Act (linked from the WWW) on Barbara Amero's homepage or
anyone else's, I seriously doubt such would be brought before any
committee for discussion, as it was at CCN. The complaint would go 
in the bin!!! Granted, according to a Board member the complaint 
generated little discussion and was dismissed. BUT the fact is
that such was brought before a committee and discussed!

> In any other environment, the gang
> of idiots doing the mailbombing would have been directed to /dev/null;
> any other ISP would have realized *it* was now under attack, and not
> just one of their clients.

Yes, I've heard similar from other ISPs. But, CCN is not just any
other ISP; CCN is a Freenet, which is "publicly funded". That's a
whole different kettle of Nova Scotia fish!
 
> >In dealing with the matter in the way that they have, the executive
> >has acted as judge jury and executioner, without recourse, or appeal
> >process. In a medium where free speech and freedom of expression is
> >it's only saving grace, unilateral censorship is the greatest offense
> >that can be foisted on the usenet community.

That's not entirely so. There was recourse, an appeal process. 
I was too shocked to even think of an appeal. I called Hugh
Wright who is a lawyer on the CCN Board of Directors to say
CCN can't terminate my account when the Chair of the Policy
Committee stated that I did not break any rules of the User
Agreement. I'd emailed CCN and asked to be directed to where
there is information which states that CCN can break a contract
for service when the user has not broken the rules of the
User Agreement. My request was IGNORED. I take that to mean
that there is no "where". I'd also asked about the complaints
which I've not seen, who are they coming from, hotmail addresses?
I go no reply. Whatever, Hugh Wright told me to appeal, to send 
an email (as long as I wanted) to the Board of Directors. 
I'd been talking to lawyers here and was trying to connect 
with a Toronto lawyer, but this all happened too quickly for 
me to set up what I wanted. The deadline for termination was 
almost upon me. So, I did not have a lawyer to act on my behalf 
IRT the appeal and did not think to ask if I could be present 
for the appeal. Given the action CCN took, do you think CCN 
would have allowed me to be present for the appeal? Also, I 
didn't think the appeal would be considered so quickly, in
terms of date. Well, the appeal was considered quickly in
terms of date and not doubt in terms of time. How long would
you guess that it took the Board to consider my appeal and
make a decision?? I suggest the decision was reached before
the meeting to consider my appeal.

> Ah.  I see.  So when "beergut" and company mailbomb the admins of an ISP,
> with the the expressed and implied mission is to "cut off" someone's
> voice, this is not in any way a form of "unilateral censorship".  And
> furthermore, by posting calls for people to participate in this campaign
> they were not acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and that at all
> times an "appeal process" was in place.

Having said what I did above, there really wasn't an "appeal process".
The campaign started by John Jenkins Sr. with the expressed mission
to "cut off", silence Barbara Amero's voice, to get her Freenet
account terminated is disgusting, deplorable, while he is free to
post his misogyny, free to make light of rape, free to make rape
a joke.

Historically women's voices have been silenced. CCN silenced
the voice of a woman, generally the only woman in ns.general, 
who speaks out against men like Jenkins. The action CCN took 
is unconscionable.

> Poor Mira.  He *knows* that the reason his side "won" this battle was
> due to a successful denial-of-service attack against CCN.  He knows
> somehow this was wrong, but can't bring himself to admit it.  Hence
> his being unaware of the hypocrisy that drips from virtually every
> sentence in his missive...
> 
> >[... media ...]
> 
> Well, what are you waiting for?  Why not a letter campaign to get
> the reporter fired?  Or are you all too cheap to afford the $0.50
> for a stamp?

I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but I think it
is in reference to the first newspaper article, that the
reporter's article was biased, favoured my side, didn't
know all the facts. Well, what are all the facts, fellas?
The reporter's article was edited, IOW "censored", because
it was too graphic to print in a newspaper, the description
of the public posts about Barbara Amero, of her violent
murder and sexual harassment was "too graphic" for the 
newspaper to print, "too graphic" for the public to read.
What does that tell you fellas -- other than newspapers
are censored??

Now, all you ASSHOLES go jerk off in earl's garbage can!