[The text that follows was written by Nyx Founder Andrew Burt. We still follow this today. All concerns may be addressed to admin@nyx.net -Nyx Administration] The following is the reply I send to people who complain about Nyx users causing problems related to freedom of speech issues. I put it here so users can read it and know where they stand in advance. I think what it says in here applies to those who intend to test the limits of Nyx's free speech policies. I don't encourage users to do this, of course; indeed, I don't really like getting into arguments over whether something you said is ok behavior or not. My hope in putting this up for you to read is that you'll think carefully before you post. That is, don't view it as "ah, I'm protected", but also look at it from the angles of "is what I'm doing really a benefit to humanity?" and "am I presenting myself in the best possibly light?". =========================================================================== In regards to your note, please accept my apologies at replying with this, well, form letter. Let me state up front that if you're not satisfied with my generic answer to your concern, I'd be happy to elaborate if you ask. Note that I have read your message, this is not any kind of automatic reply; I merely felt that I could reply in the most detail with this document I wrote up because I get many such messages (running a site of 10,000+ users has its downside; I try to keep them educated, but...). Anyway, problems relating to freedom of speech, censorship, breaches of netiquette, etc. arise often enough that I've found that I can solve the problems faster and more comprehensively with this approach, rather than typing in substantially the same information (though usually so much more tersely and hastily that content gets lost). So here's my verbose version, which, hopefully, will cover your concerns. With that in mind, here is my (Nyx's) policy regarding "content" issues from Nyx users. The assumption I make in writing this note is that you've written me saying "one of your users, J. Smith, has done the following thing, X, which I [and maybe lots of other people, by implication] find offensive, please talk to J. Smith [tell them to cease, take away the account, boil them in oil, etc.].", or something to that effect. In particular I'm thinking of the following types of cases: - User posts highly obnoxious material (e.g., has opinions you think nearly every sane person disagrees with, like Nazi propaganda) - User posts material not appropriate to a newsgroup (e.g., way off topic, inappropriate language, flame-baiting) - User posts material you consider libelous against yourself - User does "Followup-to: misc.test", causing you to get tons of auto-replies when you tried to follow up - User is (in your opinion) harassing you - User floods a newsgroup with garbage posts - User publicly posts information you'd rather they didn't (e.g., your home address, real name, e-mail you sent them, etc.) - User posts blatantly commercial material - User posts to a newsgroup you think should be removed - User creates a usergroup you don't think should exist - User insists on "pushing the envelope" with respect to netiquette - User ripped you off in an e-mail transaction selling something - Etc. Though perhaps not exactly what you are asking about, to my mind you were asking about something similar (or I wouldn't have sent this note). [Note, in some cases, e.g., a user does something "clearly" illegal (posts credit card numbers, for example), I take a different, tougher, stand (but you probably wouldn't get this letter if I thought it was "clearly" illegal). But, see below for more on what I mean by "clearly" illegal.] First, a few facts about Nyx... - Nyx is a public access site. Nyx is an Internet Service Provider; users have no affiliation with our organization or any organization we deal with (e.g., purchase our network services from). Users don't pay for accounts, they're free (we accept donations, but don't have a hard sell). So, we have no direct ties to Nyx users -- we can't fire them, etc. We could, at most, remove their account. Fortunately, we've peaceably resolved almost every instance of complaint against Nyx users without having to remove accounts. - I (Andrew Burt, founder of nyx) run Nyx as a hobby, and have various Nyx users who volunteer time to help out. Thus we don't have a phone number to call for support, we don't have an official organization, nobody's paid, etc. So if I've been a little slow to respond, for example, this is probably why. - The philosophy of Nyx is that all people should have an opportunity for access to the net (which originated as primarily only accessible to those fortunate enough to work/etc. somewhere that had net access) and at reasonable cost (unlike, say, compuserve, prodigy, etc.). This "diversity" thus includes people with many different opinions. - Nyx is in the United States, and the US Constitution has a strong paragraph protecting freedom of speech. Though this has been restricted by various Supreme Court rulings, for the most part, almost "anything goes" as far as being protected by law as free speech. - As I've examined the law (of course I'm not a lawyer), Nyx meets the criteria for "common carrier" status. This means that content issues on Nyx are treated like the telephone company would treat them. (Most BBS's & internet sites do _not_ meet this definition, and get treated as more restrictive entities, e.g., like newspapers (which have editors), bookstores/libraries, etc. The crucial test for common carrier status, as I understand it, is whether the alleged carrier is willing to provide service to absolutely anyone who asks, or if they reserve the right to refuse service to users who meet certain criteria. Nyx doesn't examine any user's "qualifications" to use Nyx.) By this analogy, Nyx deals with content of user messages much like the phone company deals with the content of phone messages -- pretty much "hands off". Which isn't to say we ignore problems and don't try to help resolve them: It means we try our best, but unless some law is broken, etc., we rarely revoke accounts. It does mean, absolutely, that we don't screen outgoing messages for acceptability. Note that even the court cases using the "usual" criteria mostly favor the newspaper/library/etc. In a similar vein, Nyx carries a full newsfeed. We don't restrict what groups are carried (ok, well, we don't carry most of the regional ones, but that's for lack of space). I don't feel it's my place to decide what groups are acceptable for users to see. There are many groups that carry material offensive to people; the problem is that not everyone agrees what's offensive -- indeed, I doubt there's any single group or viewpoint that everyone would agree is offensive. Further, some groups carry material of dubious legal nature. As much as I personally dislike that, the issue remains the same. Like a phone company, I am not in the business of scanning all data for legality, nor preventing its flow when it comes to light. Such problems are netwide anyway, and need to be addressed at that level, not site by site. - Nyx users do have to have their identity proven before they can post or send mail. The test for identity is fairly stiff: Either submitting (1) a notarized form and photocopy of a legal ID or (2) a pre-printed cashable, personal check. Not perfect, but more stringent than many sites on the net. This includes "semi-anonymous" accounts, i.e., usernames of the form anon9999 -- these users have proven their real identity and we have agreed not to divulge their identity except in cases of need to law enforcement, etc. (Which is extremely rare.) Note that until they are "validated", users are in a "preview" mode where they can do almost *nothing* -- they can read news (readonly), read some Nyx documents, and that's about it. No posting, no email (send OR receive), no irc, telnet, etc. As I usually put it, they can't even blow their own noses. You can probably already get a sense of what our policy is regarding what people do from Nyx. In short, Nyx users are accorded the advantage of freedom of speech as far as it can be stretched. I do not practice censorship. We've had cases that have tested this stance in the past, and the consensus of the net (by a huge margin) was that users on the net should be able to judge for themselves what is trash/annoying/etc. and what's not. My position upon receiving a complaint such as yours is to talk to the user about it, and see if they will voluntarily agree they've done something wrong and to cease, etc. I do my best to convince them that it's in their own best interest to do so. I usually succeed. (I've even eked out a public apology here and there, but that's rare.) I personally feel that censorship is a horrible thing, and if the price of freedom of speech is that there's some amount of garbage we have to suffer for it, it's well worth the price. (But letting each person decide what's "garbage" is a benefit in itself -- not everyone agrees with you, or me, about what's drivel or brilliant.) We all have the right to not read things; but only if they're available to us to read/not-read in the first place. I don't believe in having a sanitized view of the world -- since nobody will ever agree what needs to be censored, it's better to have it all uncensored than live with someone else's bias. Thus, in the case of your concern, my response is this: - If you haven't already, express your displeasure to the user directly. Don't assume that mailing to postmaster@site is the best thing to do first. Do that only after you've received no satisfaction from the user directly. I have little sympathy for people who whine to the sysadmin when they haven't even told the user "to their face" about their problem. - In case you're reading this before you've actually sent me mail, but you've reached a dead end with the user, go ahead and send me a note clearly explaining the problem. - I'll talk to the user about it. Their version of events may not match yours, so I want to hear their side. I'll try to convince them to act in a manner that is best for humanity as a whole. (Many users do things in a selfish way, so I try to educate them about the harmful effects of that. I usually use a semi-"golden rule" approach -- what if *everybody* did the same thing you did? Etc.) I'm getting fairly good at mediation. :-) - However, it's probably their right to say/do what they're doing. Usenet is a unique thing in the world, having no central government and generally encouraging users to do what they want (certainly not discouraging it). This is what makes it special, and is a thing to be valued, not casually destroyed. It may be better for them to continue (assuming they're really selfish and can't be convinced otherwise) than to start censoring them about it. - If they're doing something "possibly" illegal -- that is, you think it is, but it's not something obvious to anyone -- e.g., you say they've committed libel, but since I don't know you, or them, I can't tell if it's true or not, or damaging, etc., then I have to refer you to the US court system. Electronic messages are subject to the same libel laws as paper messages. But, *I* can't be the judge -- a JUDGE has to be the judge. Like a phone company, I won't shut off service to someone because they used the phone to slander you. Or like the post office, who won't refuse service because someone libeled you by mail. Another example would be if they allegedly posted something copyrighted. I'm not in the position to judge if something is copyrighted by someone else or not -- that's for the copyright holder to act on. (But feel free to tell *them* about it. Though it might not hurt to inform the user about the problem first, in case it was accidental.) If you deliver me evidence that it *is* libel, etc. (such as a court judgment, restraining order, etc.) then I will be most cooperative in telling or forcing them to cease. Allegations of harassment sometimes fall into this category (but sometimes they're blatantly obvious to me, and fall into the next category below). In any instance where someone claims harassment I will most likely ask both you and the user to simply stop communicating with each other; if you're not doing anything to provoke the user, then you presumably will have no objection to this. On the other hand, there have been instances where one person knowingly baits a Nyx user into communicating with them, then claims harassment. I do my best in these cases, but sometimes even the Wisdom of Solomon wouldn't be enough. If both you and the other user are Nyx members, so I have "jurisdiction" over both, and I feel both of you are at fault, I may ask both of you to "cease fire". But, if I only have a say over one user, and it appears to me that both sides are at fault, I may only _suggest_ both parties cease hostilities -- it wouldn't be fair to penalize only one side in such a case (which has happened more than once, hence the explicit mention). Many instances of these "alleged" illegal or rude actions are so murky that I just have to do my best and realize I can't please everyone. Fortunately, there is still a "real world" court system, so if you feel I've not acted the way you'd like, and feel the need to handle the user differently, my advice (as much as I hate encouraging lawsuits) would be to take that person to court. One could argue that if you don't feel *that* strongly about what the user allegedly did (presumably did to _you_) then I would suggest it's not that big a deal in the first place. But the fact remains that if you don't like how I handle something, there are alternatives. I will try my best to resolve all difficulties nonetheless, but I can't please everyone; I just call them like I see them. - If they're doing something absolutely, knowingly, blatantly, "clearly", illegal, say, posting credit card numbers to be used for fraud, or posting "here's a site you can get pirated warez from", or post a copy of well known commercial software (something nearly anyone would recognize as such), or they crack passwords on your machine and break in -- then I'm much more likely to take direct action. In this case, what I do is send them back to "preview" (unproven identity) status, as I highly doubt anyone would use their real name to do something this clearly illegal (and stupid). I usually impose stricter identity checks at that point also. This has the net effect of removing their account, but not as punishment. - A special and recurring common case is commercialism. There is no law against commercial posts, but I will likely scold someone for it since it does go against common netiquette. However, unless they are being truly obnoxious about it, it may well fall within their right to free speech. I just take them case by case; most of them result in apologies, hopefully it will continue this way. - There seemingly should be some sort of "statute of limitations". I mean, if someone complains about a posting sent off a many weeks ago, it's probably not worth the effort at this late date -- it was either dealt with at the time if someone else felt upset about it, or you're the only one, and thousands of other people didn't have a problem with it. But if it's really old, you may be best off just dropping it and not dredging up what is likely to be a closed issue. The only obvious exception I can see would be private email to you that you feel is harassing/threatening and you didn't read it until just now (e.g. you were out of town). - I'm willing to act as a mediator in your dispute, and try to get you and the other side to come to terms. However, both you and they need to have a open mind. But, I'm game. - But, one thing I would never to, to anyone -- you, them, etc. -- is to just shut off their account because I disagree with what they've done. As much as you, or even I, might think they're an awful person, I won't sink below them by censoring them, and I will try to convince you likewise. Some other concerns I'd like to express: - Do you know for a FACT that the user you're accusing truly did what you say? It is very possible that a posting or e-mail message was forged. Forgery is extremely easy, and basically impossible to trace/prove. So easy that you really can't trust the name on any article or email. You can have more trust if it has a pgp signature on it, but even that's not 100%. I'd hate to jump all over someone who really didn't do what they're accused of. Remember, innocent until proven guilty makes sense on the net too. - Please understand that in many cases, what they've done isn't against any law, and it may not even be stretching what's acceptable behavior on the net. In some newsgroups, for example, it's competely acceptable to have "Followup-to: misc.test", just because that's the culture of the net. Many novices don't understand this (and I'm not saying _you're_ a novice, as I almost certainly don't know you), but many of the complaints I received that have led to the writing of this have been from users who just didn't understand that, well, Usenet is just this way. It's the purest form of free speech that's ever existed (to my knowledge), and often shocks people not expecting it. It's something to be valued. Likewise, Usenet allows users to create and delete groups themselves. Though this isn't absolutely common knowledge how to do this, it's not hard. I might scold users for invoking such magic, but, it's not a crime to do it. - Please make it clear whether you're complaining about the content of the message, or the style/format. In many cases, it's not so much *what* someone is saying that's offensive, but the manner in which they say it. I wish everyone would be polite and discuss things intelligently, without acrimony, but, it just won't happen. Sometimes people have a valid message to get out, but just phrase it extremely poorly. Sometimes all that's needed is a little education. For example, when it's a matter of style (e.g., loud obnoxious postings, frequently repeated, etc.) I try to convince the sender that *they're* better off if they make it a little softer "sell". People with unpopular opinions often feel a need to shout their opinions loudly, thinking this will gain them followers. I tend to believe that if they speak them softly and intelligently they'll carry much greater weight. (It's just common sense: If you offend the person you're trying to convert, you'll never convert them.) Matters of content alone are trickier. This is where the issue of censorship comes into play in full force. I.e., they say it nicely, it's just that you hate what they say. E.g., silver-tounged Nazi propaganda. Most people (myself included) find these type of views highly repugnant. However, I prefer to live in a world where people are free to express those views. The problem is that humanity, as a group, could never decide exactly where to draw the line between what's "acceptable" and what's "not acceptable". I'd rather let each person judge for themself. I believe evil views are better off withering in the public light than festering and growing in the dark. - I agree users have a responsibility to live with the consequences of their speech. I want to make it clear that I'm not saying users on Nyx can say any old thing and get away with it. We're not a pirate board, etc. We are, though, a very diverse group of users, and most of us are pretty tolerant of others. Again, note that anonymous users on Nyx are not 100% anonymous. Their identity is known, so they can't act with reckless abandon. - Remember that not everyone will agree with your position either. For example, if a user posted something offensive to usenet, and you want said user censored, try posting a note saying "I'm conducting a poll, how many people want username@nyx censored, vote yes/no", and I'm sure you'll find that you get both yes and no votes. And both the "yes"s and the "no"s will usually be very vehement in their position. - Tolerance. I guess the key word is Tolerance. Though I personally disagree with the views of many Nyx users, I tolerate their right to say/do things. I will often try to "educate" them that their views seem to lead to a poorer state for all humanity, but I won't *force* my views on them, and I ask that they not *force* their views on others. (But I won't force them not to force their views on people... etc.) So, where do we go from here? - If you haven't contacted the user directly, do so. - I'll talk to the user, though I don't have time to update everyone on the results; if you're really curious, write me back after a while and ask whatever happened. I won't just ignore it, though I may not produce any results either. - If you don't think I've addressed your concern, write me back, clarifying things. - If I've addressed it but you're just not happy with how I handle things, still write me back, maybe we can work things out. Or perhaps we can agree to differ, and leave it at that. - Nyx has a policy that users must stand behind their words, or lose their account. That is, I believe that users who post material not appropriate, etc., need to either justify their actions to their detractors, or apologize, or lose their account on Nyx. To this end, expect some correspondence from the instigator of this within a few days. I give users a week (after their next login), then their account is deactivated. ** If you haven't heard from them in a while after getting this (i.e., a week after a finger on them shows they logged in), please drop me a note so I can investigate if I got a copy, etc. ** A "punishment" deactivation like this may be permanent (if the user blatantly ignores the problem resolution process, for example) or for a set period of time, most commonly six months for the first deactivation, then one year, then two, doubling for each offense; all at my discretion of course, depending on mitigating factors, etc. I'll do what I feel is fair, you'll just have to trust me. - I discourage you from trying to take things higher, however. Sending to postmaster@nyx.net just goes back to me. Contacting the site we purchase our T1 line from is useless, they'll just bounce it to me. I'm as high as you can get with Nyx. (Complaining to my employer won't do any good, as they have no affiliation with Nyx. They know about it, and approve, but neither have nor want control.) - If you have a problem of a legal nature with a user, and we can't resolve it by talking, you do have recourse within the court system. I hate to say "you need to sue them", but, if you feel strongly, that's an option open to you. I don't encourage you to name Nyx in such a suit, as it's highly likely the stand we take as explained above will hold up in court. It makes a much sense as suing the post office because you don't like the mail you received, for example. I try to run a philosophically consistent ship, i.e., one that values people's views at an occasional price of minor offense. If the mathematics existed for it, one could probably prove that these kinds of problems have *no* solution; the best one can hope for is some kind of overall maximum. I do what I think is best toward that goal, i.e., best for humanity as a whole and each individual. I hope I've explained my actions and reasoning so you understand where I'm coming from. If you have any more comments, I'm admin@nyx.net. Appended here is a copy of the text sent to the poster: ========== [Form letter, but don't let that fool you.] By getting this letter, someone on the net has written me expressing a grievance about something you posted to usenet, or a similar complaint. Typically this means you posted something they considered "rude" or to a group that has little or nothing to do with your subject matter. I have sent them a copy of Nyx's free speech policy, which you should also read (it's in the menus in the info menu, or just read the file /nyx/info/free.speech). As it says, I believe users who post things should stand behind their words. My philosophical reasons for this are that the net (and human relations in general) are fragile, and need each one of us to tend to them. When one person selfishly acts like a twit for no good reason, it acts to tear down what's good about humanity (and things like the net). Yet, if you have equally strong philosophical feelings justifying your actions, then I think they need to be heard by all concerned. In other words, stand up for what you said, or retract it (with apologies and promises of not doing it again). Hence, Nyx's policy on this sort of behavior is: YOU contact each person who has "accused" you of bad behavior AND "cc" your discussion to me so I know you have replied and what was said. The content of said message should be one of: 1) Thorough and iron-clad defense of why you believe what you said was correct, appropriate, not rude, etc. etc.; or 2) An apology and statement that you won't do it again. (In the case of a news posting, you must post an apology to the same groups as the offending post, in addition to replying by email to each person.) Failure to send email to both me and each user whose message I forward to you, within one week of next login after it's forwarded, will result in your Nyx account being unvalidated (reverting to preview mode). [My assumption being that you don't care enough to deal with it.] Of course, if you invoke #2, and DO do it again, you'll lose your account for being insincere. Think of it as a "two strikes and you're out" rule. Also, making frivolous and totally irrational justifications will count as neither #1 or #2, and result in account termination. That is, if you're going to argue your point, you have to be rational and logical about it, not just blabbering. Account terminations may be permanent or for some fixed period of time, depending on mitigating factors. For example, a first offense may result in six month's deactivation, a second in a year's, then two year's, etc. As sysadmin I retain full decision in "sentencing", but these are the guidelines I'm likely to follow. Also recall that to obtain your Nyx account you signed a contract which included the point that you will not violate usenet etiquette. If you have a problem with netiquette (which has evolved basically along the same philosophical principles I adhere to), then -- leave the net. Please remember when you post that you're not alone in the world, nor does the world revolve around you. Put a better way, apply the "What if everybody did this?" test to your actions. For example, if everybody posted to newsgroups that weren't relevant (as a joke, to get attention, whatever), we'd have no need for newsgroups, we could just lump all the tens of thousands of messages together in one pile. And hey, no need for subject headers, let's just have everyone read the text of ALL the messages to see if they're interested. As for courtesy, why, if folks aren't nice to me, that means I don't have to be nice to anyone else, right? So let's just all be really nasty and rude to each other. If you like that idea, let's just carry it to its natural conclusion and all kill each other; let's leave the planet to the ants and dolphins. Yeah, right. So just remember, when you take action X, you're setting a precedent that it's ok for ANYBODY to do action X, in fact, you're encouraging that X be done by everybody and often. Is that *really* the kind of world you want to live in? If you really think about the ultimate consequences of it, I'm sure you'll say no. Please remember that unless we bring back slavery or encourage dictatorships, the only way humans can build civilizations is by cooperation, which requires courtesy and common sense. Oh, by the way, if we do bring back slavery, figure you'll be one of the slaves :-) I'm not trying to censor anyone, just ensure that they support their beliefs. I hope to encourage people to see past their own self-interests and lack of concern for others. This policy allows you to have any view you want, and express any opinion you want, in any reasonable way you want -- as long as you're willing to defend your position. Message you need to deal with is: [Your (sender's complaint) mail included here] ==========