🚀 go-pugleaf

Jason Arron Black wrote:
> 
> The Vancouver community Net cut my account for posts I made to usenet
> I posted some articles that the VCN claimed was "Hate"
> but since they didn't have a rule against posting "hate"
> they had a quicky meeting then added a new rule to their user
> aggreement addressing so called hate speech.
> 
> Now, this is where it gets really Orwellian
> 
> After the new rule was added, I stopped using my VCN account
> and put my email on forwarding, no more posts were made to usenet
> nor did I send any email...nothing at all
> 
> Just a couple of days ago, I attemtpted to log onto my VCN account
> and was met with a message stating that my account was cut for
> posting articles that are agianst the VCN user agreement rules.
> 
> The problem is, the articles in question were posted *BEFORE*
> the new rule was added, and the VCN has decided to use it agianst me
> regardless of the fact that I heeded their warning that If I continued
> to post any questionable articles after the new rule was added
> I would have my account cut.
> 
> should VCN or any freenet for that matter be able to create new rules
> and use them against you for things that were done or said
> before the rule was created?
> \
> 
> For example:
> 
> Someone posts his/her phone number on usenet asking for people to call
> them for whatever reason.
> 
> Then the Freenet decides that they no longer want people to use the system
> to post phone numbers to usenet.
> 
> the Freenet issues a warning to the user that they don't want people
> doing that, even though there is nothing in the user agreement
> saying no posting of phone numbers allowed.
> 
> The user responds by telling the freenet that unless it's in the rules
> they will continue to post their phone number if they wish.
> 
> The Freenet responds by having a board meeting to discuss it
> then comes up with a new rule stating that the freenet users are now
> no longer allowed to post phone numbers.
> and sends out a mass mailing to all users stating the new rule.
> 
> The user hwo posted their phone number reads the new rule and stops
> posting any more phone numbers, thus obeying the freenet rules.
> 
> Then the user after a few weeks attempts to log onto the freenet
> only to find that their account was cut, because they posted their phone
> number in the past...evn though the rule against it never existed.
> 
> Is the Freenet right or was the users account wrongfully terminated?

Hi

Absolutely right.  

Private companies can take whatever actions they wish and impose terms
retroactively should they so wish subject to criminal sanctions, civil
liability or consumer protection legislation.  Most likely the original
subscription agreement allowed such action as most ISP agreements allow
for termination at the complete discretion of the ISP without the need
for cause.

If you believe that you are aggrieved for what is essentially a breach
of contract then the courts are open to you to file suit.  Assuming that
your fees were returned, your measure of damages are neglible.  In a
breach of contract suit the measure of damages is related to the money
which you are out of pocket or in other words you have the right to be
restored to the economic position which you would have been in but for
the breach.  Thus as long as your last installment payment was returned
or you were terminated and not charged for that period of time then
there are no damages.

You are free to contract with another ISP but the same thing may happen
so check out your ISP agreement.  However there would be nothing to
prevent that ISP from passing a retroactive term in the contract
prohibiting the posting of telephone numbers and deciding in its
absolute discretion on a case by case basis to terminate or not
terminate an individual subscriber.  

The freedom which you claim cuts both ways.  The ISP is free to
terminate your contract subject to damages.  That is the basis of
private commerce as companies can take whatever non-criminal actions
they desire as long as they are willing to assume the risk of liability
and possible damages for their actions.


Randy Wittchen