This open letter is my official response to the intense controversy that has erupted in cyberspace over the action I took against a defamatory/libelous article about me that had been up on the Internet since 2005.

 

The article, titled “A Pastor's Assessment of Richard Abanes” by Pastor Ken Silva (apprising.org) was filled with statements that I felt:

In response to the article, I contacted Mr. Silva’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) to inform them of my thoughts regarding its contents, pointing out that it seemed to violate their TOS, which prohibits "harassment, defamation, libel and hate speech or other offensive speech or content." I asked them to please have Mr. Silva remove the article before I contacted my attorneys. I did not, in that email, in any way express to the ISP what my reason for contacting the attorneys would be. Moreover, regarding such legal-speak, I actually gave it very little thought. It was a boilerplate, generalized, form-letter, all-purpose template I downloaded from the Internet years ago. I gave such language littel thought because, to be honest, I never thought it would cause such a ruckus.

I had used the template before in various instances since it was intended by its anonymous author to be a catch-all form covering all manner of complaints that can be sent to an ISP (e.g., illegal porn, use of unlicensed photographs, libel, anything covered in a TOS agreement). It was designed to only have its subject tweaked—as its instructions read. I was not going to go re-write what I  found to be a perfectly acceptable template when I could just send it off as is. It was never my overt intention to threaten a lawsuit because, TBH, it never entered my mind for this situation to ever go so far. Such complaints, it should be noted, are sent everyday far and wide accross the Internet. I never imagined that someone would respond by taking such a private matter to the world in opposition to all reason and care.  

After sending my complaint to IPOWER, Silva's ISP did their own investigated and apparently agreed with my assessment of the article. They in turn contacted Silva and asked him to please remove the article. Silva responded in a most ungracious, ungodly, unbiblical, and illegal way. He posted a highly sensational, inflammatory, and reactionary article declaring in big, bold letters: “RICHARD ABANES TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES OVER DEFAMATION-LIBEL?” (an utterly false account of the situation).

Silva's sensational outburst resulted in nothing less than a firestorm of false accusations, lies, condemnations, hate mail, erroneous assumptions, and outrageous rumors about me and the incident—the likes of which I had never before seen. For additional coverage of this controversy, see my three blog posts: 1) Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin; 2) More Arguments: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks; 3) Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda.

The following Open Letter is my responses to a widely-read pro-Silva article by Steve Camp. I not only outline my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva’s ISP, but also cover various issues relating to the controversy, including:

1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed (1 Cor. 6 and Matt. 18),
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.

This open letter should answer most questions and comments that have been posted online in response to Camp's article “Battles in the Blogsphere." Those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.

Dear Steve Camp,

I appreciate your article titled Battles in the Blogsphere. But I must disagree with you on a number of points. I hope that you take my observations as they are intended. And perhaps post this link on your own blog. Others have the right to hear both sides of of every issue.

Proverbs 18:13 reads: "He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame."

Proverbs 18:17 tells us: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."  

I will be posting this letter to you at my website, but not my blog. My blog is moving on to other issues that are far more important.

---

STEVE CAMP: What does the Word of God teach about this, especially when it comes to the arena of blogging?

Response#1: In my opinion, far more is said in God's Word about what is happening throughout cyberspace in general, than in connection to this one controversy. You make some very good points, but miss various issues that I see wrapped up in this particular controversy. But you do give some basic, overall, generalized guidelines. Such material, however, could have been presented by you without any reference to the "Silva vs. Abanes" issue, which is far more complex, in my opinion, than what you make it out to be. Some of your points apply to me and Silva, others do not. And some particulars of the case are not discussed by you at all—specifically, those particulars that would make Silva appear not-so-innocent. The arena of blogging in this situation is secondary to the arena of apologetics/discernemnt. That arena is at the heart of the matter (please see Response#10 for the wider scope of this issue).



STEVE CAMP: . . . . .a dear man of God, Ken Silva.

Response#2: You and I disagree here. I see Ken in a very different light. And my opinion of him is not relevant at this point.



STEVE CAMP: . . . and his website were forced to go dark because of one complaint lodged against him by another blogger.

Response#3: Absolutely UNTRUE. Silva's website went dark because he defiantly refused to follow his ISP's TOS agreement, which IPOWER seemed to think he had violated after they investigated my complaint about his article "A Pastor's Assessment of Richard Abanes." I believe this shows a bias in your article, as well as a limited number of facts you are willing to reveal.

The truth is that I sent a simple email to Mr. Silva's ISP requesting that they review this isolated article because I felt it had not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone. Based on that article's content, after an IPOWER investigation, the ISP's decision was to ask Mr. Silva to remove the article—or have his website deleted. Silva stubbornly refused to follow his ISP's—the same ISP with whom he had entered a TOS agreement. It was his choice.



STEVE CAMP: This other blogger claimed he was slandered by Ken; IMHO, after reading all the documents I could find, he wasn't.

Response#4: That is your opinion. Fine. I respect it. But that is not my opinion. Apparently, that also was not the opinion of the ISP. So we have personal opinion here by you—and that is all. I also had/have my personal opinion. And IPOWER agreed with me. An truth be told, your opinion about whether or not that article was slanderous doesn't really matter—you are not involved in the issue. Only three oiniosn mattered: Silva's, mine, and the opinion of Silva's ISP.

Now, as for specifics rgearding my opinion and why it formed, it is not my responsibility to justify my opinion to you or anyone else in the world. There is no biblical mandate calling me to do that. This is not an Internet tribunal; nor is it a global courtroom. I expressed my opinion to an ISP, and they took what they considered to be appropriate action.

It was a subjective call on my part, but I have in my possession an email from IPOWER telling me very clearly that when they are alerted to an ALLEGED infraction of their TOS agreement by a client, they "investigate promptly" and then they "take appropriate action." Well, they apparently did "investigate promptly" and subsequently took what they deemed to be "take appropriate action."

What this seems to mean is that Ken Silva actually had violated, to some degree, the TOS agreement he had entered with his ISP (at least, in their eyes). I simply called this fact to IPOWER's attention—and that is not against the Bible. Ken's ISP gave him a clear and simple choice: a) remove the offending article; or b) have the website shut down. Silva chose to have it shut down.



STEVE CAMP: This other blogger made a few mistakes: he never contacted Ken directly; he did not follow biblical guidelines for resolve; and he tried to deal with this by reporting Ken to an easily intimated web hosting company of his blog. The next thing you know, Ken's site is gone - sent to electron heaven.

Response#5: Here I believe your bias coming through loud and clear. I do not mean that in any malicious way, but you seem to be giving Ken Silva's arguments down the line, without mentioning some key facts and significant observations.






STEVE CAMP: I posted a comment about this on the blogger in question's website asking him to state specifically what the offense was and the words Ken used to describe him that he thought were slanderous. Not only did he not answer my polite and reasonable question, he deleted my comment. After a few other comments, he then closed comments on his thread.

Response#6: Go to my website, and you will see exactly what happened. You failed to mention why your questions didn't get answered, or why the threads were closed to comments. You failed to let everyone know that the reason this happened was because Chris Rosebrough (see this article) publicly threatened me with contacting his attorneys for legal action against me and contacting my ISP with a complaint for a few passing comments I made in the comments section! That information would have certainly put your report in a different light. You must have missed this bold statement at the end of the threads that I closed:


I can only wonder why Ken Silva, a “Pastor,” didn’t respond in the way I responded to Chris Rosebrough (see linked article). I considered Rosenrough's complaint, apologized, and took down the offending comments. Silva, on the other hand, responded by spinning this incident out of control via the Internet in some very ungodly directions. It’s so tragic to me.

It is also rather alarming to me is how no one seems to be raising a single word of criticisms about even worse attempts to silence me that have been made by others, including Lighthouse Trails (see this article) and Rick Warren critic Chris Rosebrough (see this article). In fact, an article on Ken Silva's own Christian Research Network titled "Those in Glass Houses," applauded Rosebrough's legal threats against me, describing them as Chris "not laying down and allowing Richard Abanes’ attack against Discernment blogs to go unchallenged."

It seems that no one is really all that concerned about being fair across the board on this issue. This shows me that the real hue and cry is NOT over what everyone is claiming—i.e., free speech, biblical commands, Christian conduct, etc. It's actually about taking sides, and being against any person Silva and his camp see as the "enemy." The rest is a smokescreen.

That is the truth, as I see it, given the fact that no one is objecting to the actions of Lighthouse Trails or Chris Rosebrough—which were far worse than anything I have done. Where is the ourage against Rosebrough? Where are the articles crucifying Lighthouse Trails? They are nowhere to be found. It seems there is a significant amount of picking/choosing facts to use in order to continue advancing false stories, mis-impressions, and more controversy. And it can all be traced to my stand on Rick Warren!



Before 2005, there existed no tension between myself and the so-called Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) now littering the Internet. Such individuals had no problems with me whatsoever. In fact, thes very same people who are now attacking me, were carrying my apologetic/discernment books dealing with all kinds of issues: the New Age, Harry Potter, Mormonism, Near Death Experiences, false religions, cults, the occult, etc.

But then I wrote a book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him (using the same research techniques I had always used in writing about other issues) that discussed Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven teachings (see my web page for more info). I found him to be innocent of many of the charges being leveled against him by these so-called Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs). After its publication, I then posted some articles online, seeking to bring correction to some of the false statements, misinformation, and inaccurate reporting that was taking place regarding Rick Warren. (Here is where the story really begins with Ken Silva.)

One of the articles I posted discussed Ken Silva. It dealt with various statements that he had made about Warren, Saddleback, and Purpose Driven that, according to my research, were false, misleading, and damaging to the Body of Christ. My observations dealt with his research methods, accuracy in reporting facts, and conclusions of his that I found to be erroneous regarding Warren’s views. Such observations fell well inside the bounds of apologetics/discernment.

Silva was not happy. He responded to my observations by posting not one, but two articles. The first article was a kind of point-by-point refutation of what I had stated (I never complained, BTW, to IPOWER about this article). His second response was the article in question, “A Pastors Assessment of Richard Abanes,” which in my opinion, fell well outside the bounds of apologetic/discernment critique and into the area of personal attacks deliberately intended to harm my personal/professional reputation.

Soon after I published my article on Silva, I saw that things were not going as well as I had hoped concerning such interactions. So, I took down ALL of my articles that were critical of the online discerners, including Ken Silva. They remained gone from the Internet for 3 years! And yet Silva kept up his two "response" articles to me during all that time and up to the present day—even though his "responses" were to articles that no longer even existed (cached or any where else).

I eventually began discussing Warren again online in December 2007. And at that time noticed the continuing presence of Silva's articles in "response" to me. But during my three year absence from the Internet, those articles had gained a significant visibility on the Internet. And I also began receiving emails, specifically about Silva's "assessment" of my persona/professional integrty, morality, and Christian walk.

To my mind, something needed to be done—as long as I remained within my biblical parameters and within the law. Again, as long as I remained within my biblical parameters and within the law. Those guidelines allowed me to write a simple email to Silva’s ISP, asking them to take a look at the single article in question because I felt it was violating their TOS. They agreed. And the rest, as they say, is history.

As already noted, the 2005 critiques I wrote on Ken Silva (the very ones that he quotes and discusses in his so-called “response” articles against me) have not been online since 2005! The obvious question is: If those articles he is using as the bases of his critical attacks against me are no longer even online (and haven’t been for three years), then why are his "responses" to those long-dead articles still up on the Internet? No one seems to be asking this question of Silva. I can only wonder: Why?

This whole controversy, I believe, is far more about my support of Rick Warren, Purpose Dirven, and Saddleback Church, than anything else. THAT is what has caused the firestorm. This is being used to add more fuel to the Rick Warren witch hunt. And that is what it has been. The truth is that my actions and my perosnal views of Silva's SINGLE article have nothing to do with Rick Warren, or his stand on Rick Warren. He can say/feel whatever he wants to say/feel reagrding Rick Warren. But now he and his supporters are trying to turn this into some kind of Rick Warren/Purpose Driven issue. That is absurd.



STEVE CAMP: Go to your brother privately. If there is an offense between two people of a personal nature, the offended one or the one doing the offending has the biblical duty to go to each other and to do so without delay.

Response#7: This admonition, according to my understanding of it, is connected to personal/private sinning. It  is NOT in connection to:


This is why I have no regret, from a spiritual perspective, over the action I took. I see my email to Silva's ISP as hardly different from those times I've been forced to complain to a grocery store manager about how rude a stock boy might have been to my wife; or file a petition with the city about a neighbor's unseemly activities. Neither of these actions would in any way be viewed as unbiblical, even if the focus of my complaint was a "Christian." Christians are supposed to be accountable and responsible for their words/actions, especially when it comes to the laws of the land (see Romans 13:1-7) or agreements that are made (Matthew 5:37). But Silva, it seems, does not want to be accountable to anyone.



STEVE CAMP: Church discipline . . . Matthew 18:15-20

Response#8: Again, this verse is not applicable. This verse DOES NOT APPLY because in context it is referring to personal/private offenses that one brother has commtted against another.

For example, if Ken Silva had privately insulted me with an obscene gesture or called me a profanity (which, BTW, I could never see Ken doing), then that would be a private/personal matter to be resolved privately by me calling him. But his offense was a very public offense that fell under the jurisdiction of a company’s TOS agreement. Consequently, it was more than appropriate for me to simply approach his ISP. Ultimately, the ISP found that I was right. He had indeed violated their TOS agreement.

I am hardly alone in understanding Matt. 18 to be a reference to personal/private sins between brothers. I offer a supporting interpretation, ironically, from an Online Discernment Ministry:

“15: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18).

As we shall shortly examine and point out, “against thee” is missing in some Greek manuscripts and texts and is, therefore, omitted in some English translations, thus providing the impetus needed for false teachers to be able to confuse people and establish their lack of public accountability. . . .

What Matthew 18: 15-17 is teaching. Jesus knew that there would be occasions even involving Christians when one would sin against another. Hence, Jesus provided instruction pertaining to the one who has sinned against another and also for the one against whom he has sinned (Matt. 5: 23-26; 18: 15-17). . . .

There is a serious difference between public and private, personal sins. It is a difference that necessitates a difference in approach. Consider this example of personal, private sin: A brother out of anger slaps another in the face and there are no witnesses. He, the sinned against, has the responsibility to go to the brother and rebuke him (Luke 17: 3, 4). If that brother does not repent, the sinned against is to then take witnesses. He could obtain proof before witnesses by asking, “Did you slap me because ?,” and the brother might answer, “No, it was because .” The witnesses could then verify that the sin did take place. However, it would be disastrous for the brother to publicly charge another brother when the whole incident was private and providing no proof so others could make a correct determination (cp. John 8: 16-18; I Tim. 5: 19, 20). . . .

In closing, Matthew 18: 15-17 contains wonderful teaching that is specific in nature and scope and pertains to a specific circumstance, what the personally sinned against is to do. To attempt to force Matthew 18: 15-17 to be general and establish a universal protocol for the treatment of all sin, including the teaching of false doctrine and thus preclude public exposure is to make Paul, Jesus, and John sinners. 

We must not allow the abuse of Jesus teaching to be the ploy, stratagem, and deflection of false teachers (they are compounding their false teaching by so perverting Matthew 18: 15-17 and making a requirement that God never made).

In other words, public sins are a different realm than private sins against someone, which are to be handled privately because it is no one else’s business. And to make a private issue public, without first trying to resolve it privately, is a shame. We have this from another discernment website:

In Matthew 18:15, one brother sins against another brother. Here is private, personal sin occurring. What is the remedy? To begin with, a private, one on one meeting. Go privately to the person who sinned against you, point out his sin to him, and urge him to repent. Confession of sin is implied in the phrase, “If he hear you, you have gained your brother.” Nothing was ever made public about this sin, because there was no public knowledge of it. Only when the sinner refuses to confess his sin and repent of it is the sin made public. And even then, that publicity occurs gradually, until finally (in the absence of repentance) the whole church is made aware of it. Now, let’s suppose that instead of the sinner being persuaded to repent by the one-on-one meeting, two or three must be brought into the situation, but again the sinner refuses to repent (Matt. 18:16). Finally, the church is told about the sin and it tries to persuade the man to repent (Matt. 18:17).

So, you see, there is not a HINT of anything wrong having been done on my part against a “brother in Christ” by a simple notification an ISP. It’s  stretching things to say otherwise—almost to the point of bearing false witness.



STEVE CAMP: Protect the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace . . . Ephesians 4:1-3

Response#9: This is EXACTLY what I am trying to do, albeit in a way that is MOST offensive to the Online Discernment Ministries. The Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) have been allowed to run rampant—attacking whom they wish, dividing the church, falsely accusing the brethren, spreading gossip/rumors, hurting those who are trusting them, etc. etc. etc.

They have remained accountable to NO ONE. They have used slander, half-truths, misinformation, disinformation, flawed research, double standards, out-of-context quoting of their chosen "enemies," thought suppression, illegal activities, (e.g., violating copyright/privacy laws), concealment of facts, and character assassination to drive wedges between brothers and sisters in Christ. And it has all been done under the guise of "defending the truth," being a "watchman on the wall," so-called "apologetics," and "discernment."

This, I believe, is the reason why so many of these online "discernment" people are responding with such intensity. They are in a panic because my action put them on notice. They must be more careful about what they say, or else risk a complaint about one of their articles. Everyone is so upset, I believe, because such an incident threatens their ability to  say/do whatever they want to say/do no matter how hateful or hurtful (or inaccurate) it might be to others and to the Body of Christ. And far too many of the "discerners" are now trying to hide by abusing passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18.

It is time for these people to stop: 1) causing unnecessary division, 2) abusing God's word; 3) making a mockery out of, and bringing shame down upon, the noble calling of apologetics/discernment.



STEVE CAMP: Lastly, why not rather be wronged? . . . 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Response#10: First, this issue goes FAR, FAR, FAR beyond just me being wronged. That is only one aspect within the controversy. This is one reason I have been talking about it online so much.

What we are actually seeing here is situation that involves accountability, responsibility, the proper mode of apologetics/discernment, our conduct as Christians, what it means to strike our hand to an agreement (e.g., a TOS agreement), needless division in the Body of Christ. These issues are huge. And that is what I am trying to also call attention to.

The violent response from Silva and his supporters is telling me that the Body of Christ is very, very ill. The time has come for these so-called "discerners" and "watchman on the wall" to be held accountable and responsible for the unnecessary, unbiblical, and ungodly division in the Body of Christ that they have been causing. My email to Ken Silva's ISP was as attempt to help bring about at least a modicum of accountability/responsibility. You see the reaction. What does that tell us all?

Second, like Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 6 does not apply to this situation. FOR THE RECORD,  I did not:


The truth is that I sent an email to Mr. Silva's ISP requesting that they review ONE of his news articles because I felt that it not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone (see Response#3). 1 Corinthians 6:1-8—which in context directly refers to believers taking other believers to court—clearly has NOTHING to do with the situation. Why? Most obviously, because I did not taken Ken Silva to court. Nor did I filed a lawsuit. Nor did I even contacted an attorney to threaten a lawsuit. I merely contacted an ISP and voiced to them my personal concerns over an isolated article I found objectionable. They agreed and responded.

Anyone who tries to force my email to IPOWER into 1 Corinthians 6 is misapply/abusing scripture. In 1 Corinthians 6 the Greek word used in that passage is KRITERION, which according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, means: “primarily a means of judging (akin to KRINO, to judge: English criterion), then a tribunal, law-court, or lawsuit, 1 Cor. 6:2 (last clause), for which see JUDGE, B, No. 3, Note (1)” (Vine’s, p. 623).

As for the referenced word “JUDGE,” it is the other Greek term used in 1 Corinthians—KRINO. Vine’s Expository Dictionary reads: “(f) to be involved in a LAWSUIT, whether as a plaintiff, Matt 5:40; 1 Cor. 6:1; or as a defendant, Acts 23:6” (Vine’s, p. 620). This is all reflected in various commentaries on the passage:

Now, it has been alleged that my email to IPOWER did, in fact, at least imply, or hint, at a possible lawsuit against THEM. Such an implication was never my overt intention (see above "Introduction"). Moreover, look at what my email to IPOWER actually says. I'll ask again, LOOK AT WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.

The first statement ACTUALLY states "before" I contact attorneys. The obvious question is: Contact them for what purpose? Attorneys can give advice, too. Remember? They don't just have to run out and file a lawsuit. Ever consider that a possibility? 

Perhaps in my mind I was thinking, if I get no where here, then I'll make a phone call like this: "Good morning, Charlie, my attorney. Listen, what do you think I should do about this situation? I've already asked the ISP to look at the article and got nowhere. I can't really call him personally because I already know what the outcome of that will be based on his opinion of me. So what do you think I should do? Any other recourse?" That is NOT a lawsuit, my friend. But it is indeed talking to an attorney.

The second statement is a simple expression of exactly what I was feeling: "I HAVE NO WISH to name IPOWER in a legal suit." That was, and continues to be, MY WISH. Who wants to do something like file a lawsuit? Remember, I did not write this template. I am not an attorney. So, I was reading it as the person I am. In fact, that very same sentence goes on to say that I "hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible." That was not threatening a lawsuit to me, it was saying that I actually have no wish to threaten a lawsuit and want to resolve it. That is what it was saying to my mind.

So this is how I interpreted these few passing words that were at the bottom of a generalized, all-purpose template I downloaded years ago—and that I have used before when dealing with all kinds of issues from: 1) copyright infringement, to 2) illegally uploaded music, to 3) a complaint I once made about a website that posted pornography with no guards for children! Why would I bother looking at that template any more closely than before, or bother deleting two short phrases that semed to be just fine to me?

At this point a word must be said about Ken Silva's apparent willingness to violate the laws of the land in DIRECT disobedience of Romans 13, when he decided to blow it up into an issue of astronomical proportions by illegally pasting that PRIVATE email to IPOWER online in violation of federal copyright/privacy laws. Why is no one complaining about him? Let me reiterate that point, Ken Silva violated federal copyright/privacy laws by publicly posting my PRIVATE email to IPOWER, which in turn has cause no small amount of confusion and animosity. That email clearly stated: 

This email remains the sole property of its creator, Richard Abanes, c 2008, and is meant only for the recipient. It is not to be transmitted to any other person(s) for any reason without the expressed written consent of Richard Abanes. As unpublished material, it is also not to be reproduced privately or publicly for the viewing of others via any electronic or print format. Any reproduction of this email, in its entirety, or in part, will be considered a criminal act under Federal Copyright laws, which reserves all rights of distribution and publication to the creator and copyright holder, Richard Abanes.

In response to this clear copyright notice, Ken Silva NOT ONLY published it online, but he forwarded it to several third parties, which is yet another violation of federal privacy/copyright laws! He forwarded it to other parties, including Mike Ratliff, who posted the following on his blog:

I received an email yesterday from my friend and dear brother in Christ Ken Silva. In it he explained, “…Richard Abanes has threatened a lawsuit against IPower . . . Ken included the letter from Abanes to IPower in his email. In that letter Abanes accused Ken of engaging in, “posting libelous, defamatory statements on his website about me—i.e., Richard Abanes" (Mike Ratliff, Pride Arrogance and Humility).

This reveals a defiant violation by Silva of my copyright notice, as well as established legal protections that are in place by the government to protect ALL OF US. 

The notice that I used appears at the bottom of emails sent by all kinds of people: authors, journalists, literary agents, attonrneys, publishers, editors, physicians, and many other professionals. It is there for a reason! Silva defiantly dismissed it, which puts at risk the privacy of everyone. 

What would happen if everyone else, like Silva, just started ignoring such notices? You, me, all of us would be in danger of our provacy being violated. By blatantly disregarding the copyright notice on my private email to IPOWER, Silva violated everyone's right to privacy protection—including any professional who might be doing business with you and sending personal information about you to someone else who might decide that such information made them angry and so they post it online! 

Think about it. NO ONE is safe, at least not safe when it comes to Silva, or anyone who, like Silva, is willing to not only disregard the laws of the land,  but also ignore copyright notices in black and white. Be very careful, my friend, who you email from now on. If anyone has set a precedent here, it's Silva. Be afraid of THAT precedent, not my having sent an email of complaint about some public statements. 

I call your attention to the following documentation that resoundingly condemns Silva's actions of: a) forwarding my private email on to others; and b) publishing my private email online:

"The mere act of forwarding an email or posting an exchange to a website is grounds for legal action, according to University of Arkansas law professor Ned Snow. In a paper to be published in the Kansas Law Review this summer, Snow contends that one of the most common acts of the digital age is a violation of privacy and warns that our courts are running headlong into this issue." Forward an email, get sued? 

"[I]f you are forwarding a private email that was sent to you, you must get the sender's permission to forward it on to others (or post it publicly). Emails are copyright protected by their authors. Not only that, common courtesy dictates that you should ask the author first if the email sent for your eyes only can be forwarded to strangers or others for which it was not originally intended."
5 Rules of Forwarding Emails

"Beginning over two-hundred-fifty years ago, courts recognized that authors of personal correspondence hold property rights in their expression. Under common-law copyright, authors held a right to control whether their correspondence was published to third parties. This common-law protection of private expression was nearly absolute, immune from any defense of “fair use.” Accordingly, the routine practice of email forwarding would violate principles of common-law copyright."
A Copyright Conundrum: Protecting Email Privacy

"E-mail is a written work that once created is copyright protected by the author. This means you cannot post publicly an e-mail sent to you privately. You cannot post private e-mails to your site, to message boards or to your blog without the author’s specific permission to do so. Just because an e-mail was sent to you as a private communication does not mean you then own it and can do with it what you like. In addition, e-mail that is posted to a group of people, on a mailing list or Newsgroup does not make the e-mail available for reposting, copying, or any other use - not without the express and written consent of the author."
Online Copyright Myths

"Email. Notice on individual email messages (if blanket notice is not provided, say, in a welcome message) may also be useful. Something as straight-forward as "Please do not forward this message without permission" should be legally adequate as well as honored by most recipients. It is hard to see much advantage to traditional notices".
Copyright on the Internet

But Ken Silva's illegal activities aside, let us just say, for the sake of mere discussion ONLY, that I did indeed threaten/intimate a lawsuit in that email (which in my mind, I did NOT do), then I am still in no violation of 1 Cor. 6! Who was that email addressed to? Answer: IPOWER. 

So if anyone would have been threatened by a lawsuit (which they were not) or had a lawsuit implied against them (which they did not), then it would have been IPOWER—not Ken Silva, because the email was not sent to Ken Silva. Even in his PRIVATE email sent to Mike Ratliff, Silva himself states: "I received an email yesterday from my friend and dear brother in Christ Ken Silva. In it he explained, “…Richard Abanes has threatened a lawsuit against IPower" (see Pride Arrogance Humility).

My Christian critics, therefore, are left with trying to show where in the text of 1 Corinthians 6, it says that we, as Christians, cannot sue "heathen," "godless," "secular," "worldly" institutions when a wrong has been committed. Answer: Nowhere.

CONCLUSION

STEVE CAMP: Some tips to help guard against slander and libel:

    1. Speak the truth
    2. Do your homework and research well; don't just vent, study to be approved
    3. Document well and link accurately to corroborate your views
    4. Develop your post and conclusions from the Word of God
    5. Don't make it personal, stay on message
    6. Check motives and be willing to immediately correct any wrongs
    7. Debate, discuss, and dialogue; don't defame

Response#11:: Excellent points. If Ken Silva would have stuck to these solid guidelines in the first place, then I never would have sent an email of complaint to his ISP. The FACTS, as they now stand, are as follows:


In a message I posted online to Ken Silva, after he had visited a blog, I stated the following:


Those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.




The 2005 critiques I wrote on Ken Silva (the very ones that he quotes and discusses in his so-called "response" articles against me) have not been online since 2005!

The obvious question is: If those articles he is using as the bases of his critical attacks against me are no longer online (and haven't been for three years), then why are his responses to those long-dead articles by me still up on the Internet?

No one seems to be asking this question. I can only wonder: Why?




It has now been alleged online by Chris Rosebrough that my original statements to IPOWER about Ken Silva's offensive article (see above) are without merit. This is the very same individual who, despite his condemnation of my actions regarding Silva, actually threatened me online with legal action (see above reference to Rosebrough in Response #6. Rosebrough is declaring with great conviction:


First, people who are neither attorneys specializing in such issues, nor professionals in the business of understanding various issues associated with journalism, need to stop trying to fill the role of amateur lawyer. It means nothing if Rosebrough, or anyone else off the street says, "I read Silva's article, and I don't see anything wrong with it." Rosebrough himself admits, "Although I am not an attorney, I have taken several graduate level law courses." More accurate words were never spoken. He, in fact, is clearly not an attorney, and if he wants to act like one, needs to go take more courses, and then the Bar Exam. And others making similar judgments have probably studied law even less than Rosebrough.

Second, Rosebrough asserts, "far too many people have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to the issue of libel." This is true again, and Rosebrough is one such person, as we shall now see.



1) As for as me not emailing to iPower anything to substantiate my allegation of libel, which is prohibited by their TOS, I certainly would have done so if IPOWER had merely asked me to do so. But they didn't. After my initial complaint, IPOWER investigated "promptly," and based on their observations of the article, took what they determined was "appropriate" action—i.e., they asked Silva to remove the article. If Rosebrough had been the IPOWER employee who had received that email from me, but remained unconvinced of my complaint, then he could have emailed me asking for specifics. As it stands, however, Rosebrough is neither an attorney, nor an IPOWER employee. And that is the end of that.

2) I haven't defiantly refused to do anything. Those who need to know exactly what I found to be problematic in Silva's article already know the specifics. I am not bound by anything/anyone to do anything more than what I have already done.


That anyone would think I owe anything to parties not directly involved in the disagreement is both shocking and absurd. And tyhe parties involved here are: Ken Silva, me, and IPOWER (Silva's ISP). I attempted to keep this private, while "Pastor" Silva—in a bold violation of Matthew 18 (see above)—decided to take this issue (which allegedly was a private sin that I had committed against him) to the entire church and the world. That is what has casued the problem. Moreover, as stated above, he broke federal copyright/privacy regulations (so much for Romans 13:1-7).

3) Anyone believing that a statement is NOT libelous as long as it is "true," shows a woeful ignorance of the law. There are actually several different kinds of libel, sub-divided into various definitionsand categories. The following material shows only a few partial aspects of a very complicated area of law:


Clearly, libel is not always based on the frighteningly simplistic notion that it can be decided based solely on whether or not something is true or not.

As for Chris Rosebrough, for whatever reason, has taken up this cause as his own—going so far as to publicly and boldly threaten me with legal action (see Response #6 above). I confess that his actions baffle me, but they are certainly not as baffling as the widespread acceptance of his public threats of legal action against me, which truth be told, were far worse than anything I have done thusfar:


Rosebrough notes in his article defending Silva, "I am also convinced that the reason why Abanes isn’t substantiating his claims of libel is because HE CANNOT substantiate them."

Well, that is an opinion. I respect it. But since Rosebrough is not really involved at all in the issue, I am not required to prove anything to him or anyone else.

Finally, in his defense of Silva, Rosebrough writes: "But Abanes refuses to see that there are laws that govern this land that are higher than the rules laid out in an ISP’s Terms of Service. Those laws protect freedom of speech and are greater and more important than an ISP’s TOS."

The truth is that I not only see such a higher law, but I would go even further, declaring: "Too many Christians refuse to see that there are laws from God that govern our Christian hearts. And that these laws are higher than not only the rules laid out in an ISP’s Terms of Service, but also are higher than the government's laws covering free speech. These higher laws, rooted in God's Word, lay out for us what to do:

1) when we see sin in the camp;
2) when we recognize divisive persons within the church;
3) when we are confronted by those using the name of God to shield their unholy activities;
4) when we are faced with those who would use the noble callling of ministry to accuse the brethren;
5) when we realize that a stand must be made against those who would justufy sin by twisting scripture.

And here, my friends, is we all find ouselves. And those who would not want the truth to be told are gnashing their teeth. I will not be silent. The truth will come out and be told:






As an addendum to the above update, I must address yet another Ken Silva/Chris Rosebrough attack statement (see Not So Fast Abanes, Did Ken Silva Really Break Federal Law?). It seeks to justify Silva's illegal activities, claiming that it is not so clear whether or not he broke federal copyright/privacy laws. This article declares, for example:


But this shows, yet again, how Silva and his supporters are selectively choosing  facts and treading into areas where they do not know legal issues. It is true that fair use might, in some special cases, be used as a defense to publish private emails. However, privacy laws always trump fair use. Of paramount importance is always person's privacy, according to established precedent (see Kansas Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 501, 2007). The abstract from "A Copyright Conundrum: Protecting Email Privacy" reads:


And from the Franklin Pierce Law Center, we learn that when it comes to FAIR USE, it is indeed true that "[u]ses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored—particularly if little of another's work is copied."

But notice that "Fair Use" is only applicable when it comes to "criticism, education or scholarship." These goals, however, were in no way the focus of Silva's post that contained my email. That article was a clear attempt to just expose to the public, what had been stated to another party in private. That is not Fair Use, that is invasion of privacy.

Note, too, how this statement from the law center also declares that Fair Use is more readily applicable when "little of another's work is copied." Silva, however, published that entire email.

The Franklin Pierce Law Center additionally states: "Email. Notice on individual email messages (if blanket notice is not provided, say, in a welcome message) may also be useful. Something as straight-forward as "Please do not forward this message without permission" should be legally adequate as well as honored by most recipients."

So, for several reasons, Silva would be very hard-pressed to porve that publishing that pirvate email had anything to do with Fair Use. It is, in my opinion, another attempt Silva is making to justify himself and put the fires that are now beginning to burn at his door. As for me, I haev received numerous emails and seen multiple posts all over the Internet thanking me for finally exposing what should have been exposed long ago—i.e., the true nature of these so-called online discernment ministries. I rejoice that the truth is finally being made evident as never before.


Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin

More Arguments: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!

Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda

Two Discernment Websites Cease Publication

Lawsuit Response: Abanes to Chris Rosebrough