On May 27, 11:12 pm, KØHB wrote:
On May 28, 3:03 am, N9OGL wrote:



That's the truth, here's what this dishonorable ISP (CTITECH) has in
their TOS

2. You may not post or transmit any message which is libelous
defamatory or which discloses private or personal matters concerning
any person. You may not post or transmit any message, data, image or
program which is indecent, obscene or pornographic.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow the posting of child pornography on
its facility? Do you think an ISP should allow the posting of
libelous defamatory material on its facility?

The problem with Child Porn is what the courts have stated it is and
what people think's it is, Pornography itself is not illegal, as a
matter of fact the US Supreme court has ruled that Pornography IS
protected by the first Amendment, unless it is deemed Obscene by the
courts. Child porn is illegal, not because of what it expressing, but
how it is created, by the harm of real children. Virtual Child porn
although many might find distasteful is protected by the first
Amendment unless it is deemed obscene, by the courts, has first
Amendment protection and is LEGAL. The Federal Courts has also stated
that the Internet Service provider does not have any control of what
is on their users computer, only what is on their (the ISP) server.

3. You may not post or transmit any message, data, image or program
that would violate the property rights of others, including
unauthorized copyrighted text, images or programs, trade secrets or
other confidential proprietary information, and trademarks or service
marks used in an infringing fashion.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow violation of the property rights on
others on its facility?


The problem with that is there is such a thing as fair use, and Some
Intellectual property owners view of what fair use is and what the
courts has stated what fair use is two different things. I hold a
number of copyrights and I'm a strong believer in fair-use. Groups
like the RIAA and the MPAA makes all intellectual property owners look
bad.


4. You may not interfere with other users use of the Service.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow you to interfere with the other users
of its facility?

The problem with that one is What is the definition of interfere with
other users, I have a little insight into how the internet works (I've
been on it since 1993) and the only way a person can "interfere with
someone's elses service is if the gobble up all the bandwith

5. You may not post or transmit any file which contains viruses,
worms, "Trojan horses" or any other contaminating or destructive
features.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow you to spread viruses or other
malware over their facility?


There are federal Laws and state and federal agencies that over see
that issue(ask the DOJ)


9. You may not use the facilities and capabilities of the Service to
conduct any activity or solicit the performance of any illegal
activity or other activity which infringes the rights of others.

Todd,

Do you think an ISP should allow you to use their facility to solicit
for a hit man to whack your neighbor ? Do you think an ISP should
allow you to sell child pornography using its facility?


No I don't, there are laws on the books now (federal laws) that make
that illegal to threaten people over the internet, cyberstalking and
selling real child porn, It should be the police and the federal
agencies, who is required by Law going after the bad guys, If a ISP
see child porn they should report it to the authorities. ISP's should
also be made aware by these agencies of what is Legal and what is
Illegal so not to pull material that is protected by the first
amendment, we don't need ISP's Supressing LEGAL FREE SPEECH

Todd,

Do you think.........

A lot better then some of these people


Todd N9OGL



With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB