Maureen, I reccommend that you CC this entire post to the powers that be
over at AOL.  Might be interesting to see what they have to say for
themselves...

Glenn

Maureen wrote:

><[log in to unmask]> Eric Thomas wrote:
>
>>Trying to use Internet methods to address physical abuse issues just does
>>not work. People will get hotmail accounts, write anonymously, find a new
>>ISP, etc.  I wouldn't even bother  to get the account  closed. Before you
>>think I am pontificating, check:
>>
>
>First off: My Sympathies. What a mess. You are handling it
>very well. (I'm sure I'd simply be wildly gesturing at the screen
>at this point... )
>
>Consider what follows to be a sort of wild gesturing at the screen ...
>
>>I could probably get  his account closed for X days,  but what would this
>>accomplish? Right now he is just being a major pain in the butt, although
>
>It would inconvenience the jerk. That's better than nothing.
>
>Online, there's really no "penalty" of consequence, other than
>to terminate service.
>
>I think this person crossed a line and should be inconvenienced
>by having to get a new account somewhere else. If (s)he does the
>same thing at another account, then that account ought to be
>pulled too.
>
>
>*********************************************************
>This happens to spammers all the time. Their accounts get
>pulled repeatedly for spamming.
>*********************************************************
>
>
>Since she's not a subscriber, I can't unsubscribe her. Since
>all posts from non-subscribers are moderated, her posts *can* be
>dumped easily. My list header is set up as securely as possible
>for a self-moderated, gated list, due to the methods I've learned
>from people here on lstown-l and in the manual.
>
>Taking out the gateway isn't an option. It doesn't even cross my
>mind anymore, although I understand and *appreciate* why people
>suggest it.
>The gateway to and from usenet is what makes the list work. Some
>of our best posters post from rec.music.dylan and aren't
>subscribers.
>
>Yet, I'm left feeling very uneasy that somehow I'm being forced
>into accepting something that I'd never accept In Real Life:
>having to say, "Oh alright ... I'll be a *good sport* and
>let people talk about hitting me as a fun topic." I have nowhere
>else online but right here to go to say: IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT.
>
>Why should I have to (in order to do the list that I do by choice)
>be in the same online space as this creep? This creep may have
>been the person who hit me, or she may know the person who hit
>me. In any case, it seems that she made a clear choice to align
>herself with that violence when she made her post. She should live
>with the consequences.
>
>What I'm hearing though is that there aren't any consequences for
>her.
>
>BTW, This person has posted an RFD for a new newsgroup. So,
>where does this leave me? Usenet sets up a vote for a newsgroup
>proposed by this jerk? This jerk becomes a solid netizen and her
>"only problem" was that time that she suggested someone hit me
>again at a concert?
>
>This is _crazy_. This is *nuts*.
>
>I've been told a number of things. (Not here.) Among them ... that
>because I moderate posts from non-subscribers I should be prepared to
>take this. (I disagree.)
>That listowners are "public figures" who are fair game for this
>kind of post. (I disagree.)
>
>aol.com can't require its membership to have ... *taste* or
>*good judgement* or whatever your favorite term for what this person
>lacks might be, but can't it require its members to be legal? Isn't
>there something illegal about suggesting that someone take another
>physical hit in real life?  Doesn't speech have to be legal in
>order to be protected?
>
>Where is the outrage (or is it common sense?) that would allow a
>provider like aol to say: "You've gone too far. We don't *want* you
>as a customer, because we don't want to be involved in this."
>
>Where are aol's terms of service written out so that I can read them?
>Does anyone know? Is it *illegal* for aol to dump her as a customer?
>Is *that* the real problem? Or... Is it something more along the lines
>of the Terms of Service stating, "For the first physical threat against
>another user, the customer shall be denied usenet access for 24 hours."
>(I just made that up, but will bet that it's close.)
>
>>Anyway, what you  need to do is find  out the name of this  person who is
>>making the  threats, and  this is  what you should  press AOL  for, which
>>probably requires filing a complaint  with the police first. If something
>>happens to you and they did not  cooperate with the police, they may very
>>well be liable, so I think they would cooperate.
>>
>>  Eric
>>
>
>My county court clerk wanted $185 for the subpeona to require aol to
>give me her identity. Yes, I'm worth it, but by far less expensive means
>I have her name, a street name and city and state.
>
>She's not geographically close to me, which doesn't mean much at a
>Dylan concert. (People come from around the world.) Right now though,
>it's definitely a good thing. I was pretty da*ned shocked to see her
>posting again last night. This person should be *gone*. That screen
>character be *history*. I honestly believe that considering what she
>posted, and the circumstances, that this is not a lot to ask, and
>wonder why I have to ask for it again and again.
>
>At least my husband and I know who to go after if I'm hit again
>and the person who did it gets away again: This person and aol.
>
>Thanks for bearing with me. Thanks for the space to get this out.
>It's been tough. What happened was very tough. Letting this go
>by seems to be saying that it was all somehow ok, and I wish that
>aol would "get" that part of it all.
>
>
>These aren't simple issues, and I'll bet that I'm not the last guy
>who'll have to confront them.
>
>
>Peace
>
>Maureen
>
>"have you seen dignity?" bd