"Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm"
. . . said Paul to Timothy, without fully appreciating the legal ramifications of such a potentially slanderous statement should Alexander object and take action.
Big conversation going on over the last few days regarding two men who are both occasional commenters here, Ken Silva and Richard Abanes. I had email discussions yesterday with both men who I consider friends but hard-headed friends on different sides on an argument. From what I can figure out, Ken posted an article about Richard that Richard thought was slanderous and so Richard complained to Ken's ISP and asked to to have the page taken down. Because Ken refused to take it down, his entire website was taken down by IPower, the same ISP that took Ingrid's Slice of Laodicea down last year.
Ken has since got a new ISP and some help rebuilding his site and the offending article, now three years old, is back in business. But the battle still rages. It was suggested Richard tried to sue Ken (which is false) but the question remains about whether Ken should keep the article online or not, and whether Richard did right by calling for action without talking to Ken. I think Ken should try to be critical without slanderous and he is probably stirring the hornets nest by overreacting. But whether Ken should remove that page is a tricky question with serious consequences for censorship in the blogosphere - which is why I am bringing it up here.
What do you think?
I was thinking about my own policy. Most of the time, I am responsive to requests to change, edit and sometimes delete material that people find damaging. Of course I try not to write it anyway but it sometimes appears in the comments. Once or twice, someone has left a comment that was in the form of a complaint about a person or their business/ministry and I have felt I should leave it there for the sake of truthfulness and correction. Other times I deleted it if I considered it slanderous. I guess each case has its own considerations.
But there are ten thoughts that come to mind:
1. Back up your entire site in case it happens to you. I have used an old program called Pagesucker that literally sucks ups all your pages and puts them on a file. There might be some new apps that are better.
2. If your blog does disappear, you can use the wayback machine to find it again.
3. Talk to bloggers directly if you have a problem and if they don't listen, bring a few others into the conversation. If they still don't listen, maybe you should take it higher but there is a process to respect. But Christians should not resort to legal pressure among other Christians. (and again, Richard did not do this)
4. If you are a controversial blogger, dont use iPowerweb.com as your ISP (oooh - is that slanderous?)
5. Bloggers should be contactable - put your email address on your blog.
6. If you are worried about censorship, download the Handbook from Reporters Without Borders
7. If you really have to delete something immediately, and go the extra step of purging it from the Google search engine cache, you will need Google Webmaster Tools just like I needed them. I did this once when some harmless info on my site proved dangerous to some friends in the Middle East.
8. Emails should not be published on blogs without prior permission
9 Attempts to stop or censor blog information will often result in heightened attention, more links and therefore more publicity than if just ignored in the first place.
10. Try being nice in the first place.
and 11. Allow comments! It lets two or three witnesses give an alternative view if they so choose and it lets two or three others confirm what they see as accurate.
ALSO:
Ally in the comments below points out that a similar spat is happening with Lambeth cartoonist Dave Walker and Mark Brewer regarding Dave's cartoons on the trials of the SPCK bookstores. The skinny is here. And a crash course on related legalese for bloggers is here at ministry of truth
[Image from Jon but can be found here unless you are a lawyer looking for a blogger to sue, in which case try this link]
Related: Where in the World is Slice of Laodicea?
Technorati Tags: blog, dave walker, ken silva, legal, richard abanes
This is a hot topic right now. YOu have seen the Dave Walker/Mark Brewer/spck debacle also?
I am at odds on it, and slightly worried about where the censorship of blogs is headed. Ken is very hard-headed as you say, i am not too familiar with the other dude but i read Apprising often and despite regularly being in strong disagreement with his articles i respect his complete right to speak on such issues.
Perhaps it just takes a little more wisdom when referring personally to another pastor/writer 'christian'? and Ken could do that whilst still making clear that he disagrees with their theology...............
Though i still feel like the internet should afford us all to say pretty much what we like? UP until recently we were all getting away with it
Posted by: ally simpson | July 30, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I got bored very soon after starting to read all the blogging on the Ken/Richard dispute. Far better Godly things to do with my time. Grown men intellectually arguing. How tiresome. Stop it I say! We should be free to write what we like however, but if it is really hateful or incorrect, then expect some backlash. Blogging negative comments in the public domain is asking for trouble. They should both stop, apologise to each other and if need be discuss their differences in private. It gives Christians a bad name, raises the whole 'hypocritical' thing more and makes me so very glad I'm not following 'chrisitan leader man' any more. God must surely be banging his head against his brick wall up there.
Posted by: Helen | July 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM
yeah helen - and for that reason i kept quiet for a day or two when i read the controversy but i bring it up for more than theological reasons.
ally - thanks - i did not know about dave and mark but dave is a friend of mine. seems like a similar case.
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
It is interesting dilemma - I guess the real problem arises because both protagonists are Christians plying their views in much the same part of the sea of Christian opinion. I have been subject to three bouts of slanderous material and it is not a good or comfortable experience.
By the most difficult one was when another Christian was attributing views and actions me which were (deliberately?)either incorrect or subtle distortions. Now neither is us can afford the whole legal process. In the end he withdrew the comments following pressure from readers of his blog. The other was the Far-right's response to my theological work on the BNP - that was a different question with implications for my families safety and my ministry - I sought and gained the support of the writers ISP who were very co-operative and shut the site down. In the third I was content simply to state what was wrong and libellous since the writer was clearly doing more damage to his reputation than to mine - most people know him for his intemperate and (ill-informed) agenda. So different approaches are appropriate.
As a Christian I would ALWAYS remove/rewrite a page if some-one else contacted me saying that I was slandering them. There is good biblical precedent for this Ken, and I am sure that your refusal will damage your ministry and credibility on the internet. With freedom comes responsibility.
Posted by: Tom Allen | July 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Andrew
Sorry managed to post before correcting the poor grammar - and saying thanks for the Page Sucker tip
Posted by: Tom Allen | July 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Andrew
Thanks for addressing this important topic. As one who has had many untrue things said about him in the blogosphere and has taken on his share of controversial issues, this is an important matter.
"Slander" is a word carelessly used by so many today; and I believe done so by Richard Abanes in this scenario. From all that I have read, Richard never went personally to Ken to share specifically what the paragraphs were that he thought crossed the line and were damaging to his person and character. I posted a comment asking him on his blog last week and it was deleted.
Should Richard have reported this matter to iPower without first going to Ken? The clear answer biblically is no. If there was true slander and not just a strong differing of opinion, then Richard should grow some hair, suck it up, and play the man. If there was genuine slander, then Richard should have contacted Ken, put together a ministerial board of arbitration to help review and monitor this situation and work towards biblical resolve.
Unfortunately, this did not happen.
The blogosphere is not a place for the timid, theological thin-skinned, or those too sensitive about their person. You must learn not to hold ought against another quickly, keep short accounts with those who disagree with your writings, be quick to forgive and to work towards forgiveness, and to do all within biblical parameters to be at peace with all men.
On a personal note, I appreciate Ken and his ministry very much. Glad to see his site back up and running again. May the Lord continue to honor his ministry as he is faithful to God's Word.
In His grace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Posted by: SJ Camp | July 30, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Andrew - a few reflections from a religious satirist who has been accused (unfairly I might add) of slander and even had someone send me something that could be construed as a death threat. IF you choose to run a controversial blog:
1. Don't be a complete wuss by disabling comments. If you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it. If you find you're getting flammed repeatedly on your blog, then think about what you're putting on the fire. Along those lines, I find it's helpful for me to pray to make sure I am satirizing a subject and not slamming someone's soul. When I've gone "too far," it's been when I didn't pray enough first.
2. Having said that, a blog is the property of the blogger so they do have the right to delete comments as they please. But rather than delete comments willy-nilly perhaps a controversial blogger might want to set up a code of conduct for those wanting to comment on their blog so that way people know the parameters of the debate. Here the blogger should also abide by the same code of conduct they've set up for their commentators or else they can expect to be called on the carpet for being hypocrites.
3. Bone up on the censorship laws. There are laws governing perjury, slander, hate crimes, copyright infringement (e.g., Disney sued National Lampoon for putting pasties on Minnie Mouse and while the 'poon won, the legal battle was very taxing and expensive), and the like. Also, publishing people's private addresses, phone numbers and email addresses are major no-nos as is posting any email that has a confidentiality notice attached. There is a line that if you cross, you'll find yourself in court. Even if you win, you could very easily be financially bankrupt.
4. However, the laws are much more lenient when it comes to parody/satire - see Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell in which Hustler was allowed to publish a truly horrible cartoon depicting Falwell and his mother. (But see #1 - just because you "can" say it, doesn't mean you should - after all don't we answer to a higher power?)
5. Said laws apply to public figures not private citizens. Generally once you've published a book, promoted yourself as a speaker, run for political office, made a movie or somehow thrust yourself into the public eye, then you're considered fair game. (There are stalking laws but I'm referencing writers' rights to criticize public figures.) Here's the tricky bit - where do bloggers fit into this mix? At what point does a blogger go from being an aspiring church planter with a blog read by a few friends and family members to being considered a public figure?
Posted by: becky | July 30, 2008 at 04:15 PM
So Tom, you would ALWAYS remove an article simply because someone claimed slander? What if you and others did not agree that the article was slanderous? You think there is Biblical precedent for caving in to false claims. Perhaps you could cite some scripture for that.
Andrew - you are being a bit disengenuous when you claim Abanes never threatened to sue. He never explicitly said "I'm going to sue Ken Silva" but he clearly implied legal action in his letter to I-Power. He did this knowing full well that the company would take the easy way out rather than risk any legal action against them. You are giving Abanes too much credit. It was an underhanded attempt to silence a critic.
Posted by: Steve Lumbley | July 30, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Andrew,
Thanks for covering this issue. Allow me to express my thought here for everyone to read so that there are NO questions about where I stand.
___________________
1. Mr. Silva and his supporters have COMPLETELY blown this entire matter out of proportion, using it as an opportunity for Silva to play the martyr. Moreover, both he and they, have done so by not only misrepresenting me as a person (again), but also by misrepresenting the facts of the incident, my personal actions, and my intentions. For the record, I did NOT:
A. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
B. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
C. Contact an attorney about beginning a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
Given these facts, 1 Corinthians 6 (covering Christians suing each other) is not even an issue (in contrast to the cries of protest coming from Silva's camp). Furthermore, Matthew 18, covering PRIVATE/PERSONAL sins against another brother is also not an issue -- since what Silva did was not only very public, but was also a violation of an agreement he had entered into with yet another party (i.e., his ISP, IPOWER).
___________________
2. Silva and his supporters have utterly dismissed the responsibility that Silva ALONE bears for having his original website deleted. The truth is that I sent a simple email to Silva's ISP requesting that they review ONE of his news articles (out of hundreds, BTW) because I felt that it had not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone. Based on the article's content, the ISP's decision was to ask Mr. Silva to remove the article -- or else his website would be deleted. Silva stubbornly refused to follow that simple request from the ISP; the very same ISP with whom he had entered a TOS agreement. It was HIS OWN willful defiance of that TOS that caused his website to disappear. I had nothing to do with THAT ultimate turn of events.
___________________
3. As noted, all I really did was call attention to what I thought was a clear violation of IPOWER’S TOS agreement by Silva. And this is something that people are doing probably everyday regarding all manner of TOS disagreements and/or infractions. In fact, the email I sent was a basic template that covers all manner of complaints that can be sent to an ISP (e.g., illegal pornography, unlicensed photograph use, libel, anything that is covered in a TOS agreement). The bottom line message to IPOWER was to kindly review a single article on Ken Silva’s website that I found to be not only objectionable, but also a violation of their TOS agreement—according to my understanding of it.
I have received such complaints before. I have sent such complaints before. You, too, have received complaints, and responded appropriately, as you note above: "Most of the time, I am responsive to requests to change, edit and sometimes delete material that people find damaging." I have always responded just as you have responded. And others, like us, have experienced the same thing, and have responded by keeping it in perspective and making an appropriate decision.
But what has Ken Silva and his camp done? Behold, the Internet circus they have created using this incident!!
This incident, when viewed in the grand scope of things, is truly no big deal -- Ken Silva and his supporters have made it a big deal by raising the frightening specters of Liberalism, First Amendment rights, censorship, global domination, Christian persecution, Phariseeism, Purpose Driven control over the world, Rick Warren heresy run wild, and other subjects designed to inflame the emotions in a negative fashion.
___________________
4. Regarding Free Speech and the First Amendment in America, it is not a First Amendment write to slander people. Nor is it a First Amendment right to stand up in a crowded theater while the movie is playing and shout, “FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!”
Clearly, there are certain times when a person cannot say whatever they might want to say. And that, for example, is exactly why a TOS is written -- i.e., to protect me AND you AND Ken AND others.
Ken, according to the investigation done by IPOWER broke his TOS agreement by that article. But no one seems to be caring about that, which to me is both interesting and troubling. It must also be noted that, contrary to all the gnashing of teeth, this incident DOES NOT -- I repeat, DOES NOT -- have anything to do with First Amendment freedoms such as criticizing specific acts as sinful (e.g., fornication, homosexuality, etc.) and declarations about alternate religious belief systems being false (e.g., the New Age) are in no way being endangered. Such assessments are completely protected in the blogsphere by our Freedom of Speech.
The problem with the article in question was the personal nature of its attack on me. It was not about my theology or doctrinal views.
___________________
5. Just FYI, I received an email from IPOWER, wherein they stated that they DO NOT simply remove a website when a third party complains. IPOWER said that they respond by INVESTIGATING PROMPTLY and then take APPROPRIATE ACTION. They apparently did INVESTIGATE PROMPTLY, and given what they found, subsequently took APPROPRIATE ACTION.
They apparently felt that Silva had, at the very least, broke their TOS agreement. And that would imply the contents of their TOS, which lists: "defamation, libel and hate speech or other offensive speech or content." What this means is that Ken actually had violated their TOS agreement. I simply alerted them to it.
I would ask that your readers link to the following blog posts by me, which provide more in-depth information on the incident, including a very relevant report on when one of ken Silva's main backers -- i.e., Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry -- attempted to use threats and intimidation to silence me by getting my publisher to fear legal action! (This is not being talked about very much, and I can only wonder why.) Please see:
Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!
Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin
What we are actually seeing here, I believe, is how a significant number of "Christians" do not want to be accountable or responsible for what they do/say, even though they are the ones who have entered into a TOS agreement.
As I have stated online in my most recent blogs and answers to readers’ comments, what I did is NO DIFFERENT than lodging a complaint with a grocery store manager, voicing a problem to a company supervisor about a fellow employee, or calling the cops about a neighbor playing their stereo loud in the wee hours of the morning.
A TOS agreement is “a good thing,” as Martha Stewart would say. But some people, like Ken Silva, Lighthouse trails Research, and others, seem to not want to worry about their words or their accuracy of accusations. They want to continue having the free pass they have so far had, which has allowed them to slander/defame anyone and everyone.
The Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) have been allowed to run rampant -- attacking whom they wish, dividing the church, falsely accusing the brethren (including those in the Merging Church), spreading gossip/rumors, hurting those who are trusting them, etc. etc. etc. And they have remained accountable to NO ONE.
This, I believe, is the reason why so many of them are now totally freaking out. They are in a panic because this puts them on notice. They must be more careful about what they say, or else risk a complaint about one of their articles.
So far, from my side of the battle lines, I have received emails from Ken Silva’s “Christian” supporters threatening me, condemning me to hell, saying I am definitely not a Christian, and calling me actual obscenities. Is this the fruit of Ken Silva’s ministry and the Online Discernment Ministries (ODMS) in general? God help us all!!!
in Christ,
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 04:20 PM
ALLY: Perhaps it just takes a little more wisdom when referring personally to another pastor/writer 'christian'? and Ken could do that whilst still making clear that he disagrees with their theology
RA: This is the issue, NOTHING in that article in question had anything to do with my theology or doctrine. It was all personal. I have repeatedly issued a challenge all over the Internet to Ken Silva, and ANY of his supporters, as follows:
“If Ken Silva wishes to place another article up titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES,” which actually critiques my theology, then my all means, I welcome it.”
“I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms, observations, corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is not there. That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.”
As of this morning, NO ONE has accepted this challenge, including Silva. The only person who has taken the challenge -- someone who happens to be an avid Rick Warren critic, and would normally fall into Silva's camp -- responded as follows:
"I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive. And, the more time I took in reading it and looking for evidence, the more I found myself agreeing with you that the article bordered on being slanderous."
I think this says quite a lot.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 04:27 PM
SJ: The blogosphere is not a place for the timid, theological thin-skinned, or those too sensitive about their person. You must learn not to hold ought against another quickly, keep short accounts with those who disagree with your writings, be quick to forgive and to work towards forgiveness, and to do all within biblical parameters to be at peace with all men.
RA: This is not the issue -- at all. See my above posts.
RAbanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 04:30 PM
STEVE: He never explicitly said "I'm going to sue Ken Silva" but he clearly implied legal action in his letter to I-Power. . . . It was an underhanded attempt to silence a critic.
RA: Allow me to reiterate: ".....the email I sent to IPOWER was a basic template that covers ALL manner of complaints that can be sent to an ISP (e.g., illegal pornography, unlicensed photograph use, libel, anything that is covered in a TOS agreement). I am not going to go around re-writing templates when I can simply throw it up to use."
Now, that is the answer. And that is the truth.
But you say I implied a lawsuit? Well, for the sake of discussion — Cool! Let’s say I did. Who was that email addressed to? Answer: IPOWER. So if anyone was threatened with a lawsuit, it was IPOWER!!! It was not Ken Silva because that email was not to him! Please tell me, therefore, where 1 Corinthians 6 (or any other scripture) says that we, as Christians, cannot imply a lawsuit against a heathen, godless, worldly institutions when a wrong has been committed.
Richard Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Mr. Abanes once again you have failed to cite specifically what it was in Silva's article that you considered libelous. And now you add the term "offensive in tone" to your charge against him. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think "offensive in tone" is a legal term or actionable under any type of law.
You claim that I-Power did an investigation of the supposed offending material but there is no evidence of any "investigation" that I am aware of. If there was an investigation where is the evidence of a violation of TOS?
It looks to me like the company made a business decision. It was cheaper to lose one paying customer than to risk possible legal action against them from you.
This was all brought about by YOUR refusal to ignore a three year old article critical of you. Perhaps you should have taken Paul's advise and allowed the Lord to deal with any harm that may have been done to you.
2Tim 4:14
Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: THE LORD REWARD HIM ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS:
My question is this: will you now go after Silva's new ISP and who is next on your hit list?
Posted by: Steve Lumbley | July 30, 2008 at 04:46 PM
hey hey BOYS! calm down!
Richard - i just deleted one of your comments . . . but dont worry - it was a repeat of another.
Steve - when i first heard the word "legal" and "lawsuit" I sent off a harsh email to Richard suggesting he was overstepping his case and going too far. When Richard replied that there were no lawyers involved then I had to apologize to him for assuming there were. An email to a web provider is not the same as calling in the sharks . . i mean lawyers. Good thing i talked with Richard and Ken before I blogged anything.
I do agree that Richard should have talked with Ken [as Steve said] and in fact I have emailed Ken on a number of occasions when i felt his information was incorrect and he has been gracious enough to change things. or at least put up a good argument why they are there. actually, what i appreciate about Ken is that he actually responds to emails and discusses things with a sense of accountability, even though he and I often end up on the disparate sides of certain disputes.
but i am hoping this discussion will focus more on blog best practices and a discussion of censorship
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Andrew - that's why I posted the comments that I did because this is a subject that comes up ALL the time for religious satirists. There's three issues - straight reporting, parody/satire and what it means to be a follower of Christ and a blogger.
Posted by: becky | July 30, 2008 at 05:06 PM
STEVE: .... and who is next on your hit list?
RA: Well, given the number of lies and slanderous statements out there, it might be hard to make a choice, but I'm narrowing things down. :-)
RA
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Andrew: I do agree that Richard should have talked with Ken [as Steve said] and in fact I have emailed Ken on a number of occasions when i felt his information was incorrect and he has been gracious enough to change things.
RA: But you, Andrew, are not a Purpose Driven puppet, wallowing in carnality and blinded by the evil one to defend all things Warren. I'm hardly the type of person that any man of God, who is called by Lord to the lofty office of "PASTOR" and mentored by Walter Martin (not), would listen to.
But seriously, as I've said elsewhere, this is not a Matthew 18 issue (not by a long shot). And what has happened in cyberspace over the incident is ALL about Ken Silva -- and what he and his devotees have chosen to create.
RA
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Mmm... how sad this is all becoming. Who is going to stop first? Who is going to be humble? Who is going to be the more Christ-like? Who really wants the last word?
I hope my kids never grow up to write to and about other people in the manner of what I've had to read today. If any one who follows Jesus wants to write in the public domain, please get it proof read first by Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Helen | July 30, 2008 at 05:19 PM
well, it would be nice if everything was always correct and congenial but the question is . . . what happens when it is not?
i am sure we will not solve the richard vs. ken issue here (and i am not trying to) but it is valuable to land on some best practices for bloggers so that Helen's kids have a full and accurate account of we were thinking and saying and even better, the rules of self-publishing that Helen's kids employ will quite likely be evolved from the kinds of things we are now discussing.
if you cant stand the heat . . . .
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2008 at 05:33 PM
I'm just curious how we forget the necessity or desire to love. When we slander or throw accusations that are false, aren't we breaking ourselves in the process as well?
Posted by: Jonathan Brink | July 30, 2008 at 05:39 PM
My experience has been to notice that blogging is just a mirror. If somebody is offensive out here, it's because they are offensive.
There are many blogs I've eventually had to just quit reading because I just can't find anything beneficial in reading the way that they persist in argument after argument.
It's as if the truth got lost a long time ago, and the discussion became more centered around who's right instead of what is right.
Anyway, if someone is rude here on the internet, it's because that is what they are - rude.
Thanks for your post.
-Greg Allen
Posted by: Greg Allen | July 30, 2008 at 05:41 PM
and with all that, i just wanted to be a typical blogger & say ahem Andrew is it possible for you to make the reference to me in the post into a link to my blog?
Yes i know, thats hardly the issue here but a blogger has to do what a blogger has to do!
ally!
Posted by: ally simpson | July 30, 2008 at 05:43 PM
I want to thank Mr. Abanes for clearing up his position.
He would never bring a lawsuit against a brother in the Lord but he doesn't mind using a threat of legal action against a secular company in order to force a brother to comply with his wishes. Now I understand
One last question for Mr. Abanes, does the term "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" mean anything to you.
Posted by: Steve Lumbley | July 30, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Ally - done!
Steve - chill!
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2008 at 05:49 PM
STEVE: .... but he doesn't mind using a threat of legal action against a secular company in order to force a brother to comply with his wishes.
RA: MY wishes??? Hmm, how about the wishes of the ISP who had discovered, thanks to my alert, that Silva had violated their TOS with him. You overlooked that small factoid.
RAbanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | July 30, 2008 at 06:00 PM