Most of you have probably missed the ongoing Internet sludge battle between someone named Ken Silva and another someone named Richard Abanes. For years Silva, as well as some other "watch-doggie" sites, as they are called, have targeted Abanes. According to these sites, Abanes seems to be a big promoter and proponent of everything Rick Warren and his church, Saddleback. However, Abanes isn't on Saddleback's staff and keeps saying this. In other words, Abanes seems to be expressing his own opinion of his support of Warren---I guess.
Anyway, onto the battle. In 2005 Ken Silva wrote at his website, Apprising Ministries, a post entitled, A Pastor's Assessment of Richard Abanes. Abanes, almost three years later (last week) decided he didn't like this post by Mr. Silva because Abanes felt it was libelous and slanderous of him personally. Now you might wonder why I am not giving either Silva's website or the link to that particular post. Well, I can't because his website is history (Late note(July 28)--you can find the link here]. And why? Well, Mr. Abanes sent a letter to Mr. Silva's ISP provider - the one who hosted his website - and said that he wanted that one post removed because of slander, etc. If they didn't remove it, then he (Abanes) would ask his lawyers to sue the ISP. So, the ISP told Mr. Silva that he needed to remove that post. Mr. Silva refused on matter of principle, and voila! Silva's Apprising Ministries website is history. You can read all about this in further detail at the sites below.*
Mr. Abanes did not contact Mr. Silva and ask him to remove the offensive post. Abanes gave the following reasons as to why he didn't contact Mr. Silva, but instead contacted Mr. Silva's ISP provider:
1. Ken Silva has repeatedly shown to me (and others) that he cannot be reasoned with.
2. Ken Silva has consistently voiced his opinion that I am not someone with whom he wishes to dialogue because I am a a lying, worldly, sinful, deceptive product of Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven madness. There’s not much talking to someone who sees you that way.
3. Ken Silva is desperately trying to make a tempest in a teapot. It is NOT unibiblical, ungodly, unethical, or immoral to simply write an Internet Service provider and alert them to a violation of Terms of Service by one of their customers. They saw the website article, read it, and made their own decision. Ken is trying to turn it into something it’s not — and he’s broken federal laws now in order to do it.
The above 3 points were taken from the comments section of Mr. Abanes' blog of July 25, 2008.
But getting past all of this stuff, why am I bringing this up? Whether or not you agree with Mr. Abanes or Mr. Silva, or nobody, is up to you. But there are some serious implications in this. In fact, some other bloggers are also writing about this implication. The larger implication for bloggers is someone going to our ISP or blog host (like Blogger which I'm on) and threatening to sue the blog host ISP if something isn't removed, or even worse, if the whole blog isn't shut down. Now of course I'm not talking about outright slander or filthy, threatening or hateful language. Since we cannot read the original post at Ken Silva's website, and Mr. Abanes, after replying to many posts (83 in all to his post describing this situation, including comments from him answering the other commenters), seems to refuse to answer the simple question that was asked by a few commenters, "What was on Mr. Silva's post that you considered slanderous?"; we'll probably never know what the ISP and Mr. Abanes considered slanderous. Neither the Lighthouse Trails blog or Mr. Silva's blog (he has a blog too)tells us what this slander was. We don't know if the ISP even looked at the offending post. Perhaps they just saw, "Lawsuit may be pending" and freaked.
I can see a future threat for all of us bloggers . The overarching question then is...will this occur more and more as ministries that are heretical will wish to shut up those questioning them and pointing out their heresy? By the way, I'm not intimating that Mr. Abanes is heretical. So, I'm not using Mr. Abanes as an example of that, just what was done by him. Will others in the future threaten lawsuits to the ISP's and blog hosts of those ministries and people pointing out people and movements that we believe are heretical and are destroying Christianity?
An interesting and sobering point to think about indeed.
*If you wish to read a summary of this situation, the best place is at Lighthouse Trails.
Mr. Abanes' blog where he discusses this is here. This is his main post about it but click on his website at the top to read other posts he's written about this situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
A very astute observation. What we have seen here is a form of 'cyber-bullying' and a form of 'cyber-extortion' where the threat of legal action is used as a pawn to justify the act.
"I can see a future threat for all of us bloggers . The overarching question then is...will this occur more and more as ministries that are heretical will wish to shut up those questioning them and pointing out their heresy?"
It is a threat, I am a blogger and the reason why I chose 'anonymous' as my response name is because if someone will go after a person who he disagrees with and threaten to use the legal system as a form of 'cyber-bullying' and a form of 'cyber-extortion', that person will more than likely also go after those who support the 'cyber-bullied' and the 'cyber-extorted' to bully them knowing he has taken down the 'main guy', how much easier will it be to take down the average joe who commented.
Lighthouse Trails is not a "best place" for anything, unless you set out looking for hate.
Abanes made it perfectly clear to Silva over the years that he considered the post to be libelous. There's NOW way that Silva simply didn't know.
Anonymous wrote:
>if someone will go after a person who he disagrees with< 'cyber-bullying' and a form of 'cyber-extortion' <
That's precisely what folks like Silva, LT, CRS, and others do.
There's a difference between heresy hunters and people who've got honest questions and concerns. I talk about that over at my blog, if you're curious.
Um. That's PRECISELY what the heresy hunters (Silva, Lighthouse Trails, etc.) do to people.
I won't post anonymously - but it'll be interesting to see if this gets censored or censured along the way.
This is exactly something taken from the Left's playbook, especially the Saul Alinsky playbook.
Liberals are planning for the Fairness Doctrine to ban any opposing speech from the airwaves, or even the Web. This has the marks of something similar. Abanes thinks he is the Chinese Communist government, censoring anything he opposes.
The more we see of this, truth will be abolished and government lapdogs will have total control -- something that is extramely dangerous.
Bobby, would you concede that there's a difference between free speech and defamation of character, or between telling the truth as you see it, and lies?
Diane,
This is one reason why I host my site with an Australian company:
1. Much harder for a disgruntled party to deal with laws in another country.
2. If the Aussies--one of the last bastions of genuine manhood--cave, then everyone else caved before they did, so what's the point?
OP: The overarching question then is...will this occur more and more as ministries that are heretical will wish to shut up those questioning them and pointing out their heresy?
RA: No, no, no -- a thousand times no.
First of all, it is not a First Amendment write to slander people. It is not 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.
Second, issues dealing 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.
____________________
OP: Will others in the future threaten lawsuits to the ISP's and blog hosts of those ministries and people pointing out people and movements that we believe are heretical and are destroying Christianity?
RA: Again, NO!!!!! See above. This was not in ANY way an issue of dealing with someone's doctrinal views: e.g., theology, eschatology, biblical interpretation, thanatology, or soteriology. All of that kind of commentary is COMPLETELY protected.
Interestingly, your comment raises the crux of the issue. What was the nature of that article. I have repeatedly posted a challenge to not only Ken Silva, but 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.”
So far, only one person has chosen to take up this challenge. Here is what he concluded:
"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. . . . With this good explanation of things and my examination of the article, I agree that you were in the right. Even though I believe you are wrong on things like supporting Rick Warren, and perhaps a large number of other areas, I have to say that you did a good job, sir." (see MONDAY MORNING INSIGHTS).
This is what people would see if they were as honest as this person.
OP: We don't know if the ISP even looked at the offending post.
RA: They did look at it. 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 always respond by first INVESTIGATING PROMPTLY, and then taking APPROPRIATE ACTION. They apparently did INVESTIGATE PROMPTLY, and given what they found, subsequently took APPROPRIATE ACTION. All I really did was call attention to what I thought was, to me, 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.
______________________
OP: I can see a future threat for all of us bloggers .
RA: There is NO threat to you. This has been blown WAY out of proportion by Silva and his people. Such complaints have been shooting around the Internet for years. No big deal. Everything that was protected, and always has been protected, is still protected. I have received such complaints before. And I have sent such complaints before. There's been no uproar until now -- and it's based on all kinds of faulty information. For my perspective and far more information, please read:
Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!
Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin
R. Abanes
ANON: What we have seen here is a form of 'cyber-bullying' and a form of 'cyber-extortion' where the threat of legal action is used as a pawn to justify the act.
RA: Incorrect. What we have here is someone (i.e., me) alerting an ISP (i.e., IPOWER) to someone else (i.e., Ken Silva) who I thought had violated his TOS agreement. The ISP investigated and agreed. Simple as that.
___________________________
BOBBY: This has the marks of something similar. Abanes thinks he is the Chinese Communist government, censoring anything he opposes.
RA: Really? Odd then, that Silva had up more than one article on his website that spoke about me negatively and I didn’t agree with any of them. But you know what? I only complained about ONE of them. Clearly, you’re above assumption is wrong.
R. Abanes
PS - REMEMBER, I am a blogger too!! (my blog posts on Eckhart Tolle where I discuss my views on New Ager Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey).
R. Abanes
My next post tells you all that I am not taking sides as I see merits on both sides. I simply thought this was an interesting and relevant question to ask in the bolgosphere--that is, will other people do this to bloggers? In other words, has a "gate" been opened?
I hope I will not have to worry about this predicament as I try not to make personal attacks. If I get something wrong, of course I correct it. I've only gotten one complaint. It was from someone in the emergent camp because I talked about something in a book he wrote. A portion of what I reported was soemwhat vague. He correctly pointed this out to me, I corrected it, and he wrote back and thanked me. That is what should happen but it does take "two to tango" or it will dissolve into what is happening between Mr. Albanes and Mr. Silva.
I won't take sides on who won't tango--maybe one of the parties; perhaps both.....LOL
This Open Letter to Steve Camp outlines my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva's ISP. It also covers various issues relating to the "Ken Silva vs. Richard Abanes" controversy, including:
1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed,
2. the actual contents of my email to Silva's ISP,
3. observations about the current state of the church,
4. an indictment of today's so-called Online Discernment Ministries, and
5. documentation of Ken Silva’s violation of federal copyright/privacy laws, and other issues.
The open letter should answer most questions and addressed the widely-read article by Steve Camp titled "Battles in the Blogsphere."
This is my final word on the issue. Those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.
Richard Abanes
Pop Culture Mix
This post was made by a message board administrator in charge of moderating the forums at crosswalk.com and christianity.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++ BEGIN
From an Admin stand point I usually encourage people to use the report feature when they see someone violating our Terms of Service. One thing I have found is that the anonymity of the Internet fosters hotheadedness. Therefore, one never knows how terribly the recipient of a warning will respond. This is not to say that Mr. Silva has a tendency to that sort of behavior. (However, his response certainly does seem to indicate that it is in the realm of possibility that it would be so.)
We provide a service with a Terms of Service to which everyone agrees to abide by. Outlined in that service is how we will deal with violations of our Terms of Service. Rather than our members having to deal with this sort of unpleasantness we offer to deal with the situation privately.
In my opinion, a person does the right thing when he/she reports what is perceived to be a violation of our rules so that the situation can be reviewed and the appropriate action taken.
I doubt that the service provider in this case lost any sleep over any perceived threats of a law suit from Mr. Abanes. Such a suit standing up in court would be near impossible.
I believe, rather, that they did much the same thing I do. Look at the content and determine if it violated their rules. They found that it indeed did break their rules and sent a notice to Mr. Silva requesting that the content be removed for violations of the Terms of Service. (This is actually more than what we do in that we remove the content ourselves and notify the offender of the action taken.)
In this Admin's view Mr. Abanes did the right thing. . . .
Mr. Silva should have reviewed the Terms of Service and determined if they were rules by which he wished to be governed. . . . When asked to remove the content for violations of the Terms of Service Mr. Silva should have complied as per his agreement and then considered finding a site more suitable for his style.
+++++++++++++++++++++ END
This sums up the incident fairly well. I have nothing to add, except my 100% agreement with this administrator. As I have noted before, those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will both see and hear the truth.
See his full post at my website, under Thoughts of a Web Forum Administrator: A Look At Ken Silva's Actions
R. Abanes
Pop Culture Mix Website
Post a Comment