MindSpring sued for $250 million

The owner of the infamous anti-abortion website featuring the
"Nuremberg
Files," a list of doctors' names currently performing abortions
nationwide, is now suing his former Internet service provider,
MindSpring, for in excess of $250 million for removing his website
without any notification and allegedly destroying hundreds of e-mails.

Neal Horsley's website, which sought information that would bring the
named abortion doctors to trial "for crimes against humanity," gained
national and international attention after a group of pro-life advocates
from the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) were mistakenly
identified with the website in a lawsuit filed by Planned
Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood won the Oregon lawsuit. The ACLA has appealed the
decision.

In the MindSpring lawsuit, which was filed in the Superior Court of
Gwinnett County, Ga., Horsley is asking for $250 million in punitive
damages as well as $1 million in nominal and general damages for
MindSpring's alleged breach of contract.

TRENDING: Trump exposed the left's plan to cancel the right

Horsley argues that MindSpring breached a contract by not notifying
him about the company's plans to take down his website. Even if
MindSpring contends that Horsley's website violated the company's
written customer agreement, Horsley maintains MindSpring has no right to
destroy hundreds of his e-mails.

John Matteson, Horsley's attorney, agrees with his client that the
e-mails should have been left alone.

"(MindSpring has) a provision that says they can disconnect anybody
they want for almost anything they want to," Matteson said. "Assuming
they had a right to do it -- which they didn't -- what right do they
have to destroy his e-mail? What danger does communication from a group
of Christians to other
Christians pose to the public?"

Although Matteson said that the lawsuit currently concerned itself
only with the contract between his client and MindSpring, he believes
that the suit will go beyond the scope of the contract quickly.

"It's going to end up being political because of what (Horsley)
believes and what he stands for," said Matteson who added that the
MindSpring action had attacked his client's creed.

Regarding the allegations made by Horsley and his attorney, Ed
Hansen, a MindSpring spokesperson, told the press that he was confident
that Horsley was knowledgeable of company policy and procedures.
Concerning the website, he said that MindSpring executives have yet to
see Horsley's complaint.

Horsley told WorldNetDaily that it wasn't just MindSpring's action
against his website that concerns him. It's the whole attitude that
corporations on the Internet are taking toward personal civil liberties.

"It's not just MindSpring's actions," said Horsley. "It's the entire
atmosphere that's being created on the Internet where corporations are
presuming to take upon themselves the role of policeman and of
government by arbitrarily and independently enforcing laws that do not
exist at all on people who use the Internet."

"This really is a most perfect example of how the abuse of police
powers can literally destroy people who are using the Internet and who
have never been charged with any crime whatsoever," Horsley added.

It wasn't just Horsley who was affected by MindSpring's action,
however.
According to Horsley, the website was also the general public outlet for
The Creator's Rights Party, a duly registered party which Horsley said
speaks for a good number of people.

Although different reasons for the lawsuit exist, possibly the reason
with the most legal standing in favor of Horsley is the alleged
destruction of hundreds of his e-mails by MindSpring. According to
Horsley, his website was experiencing large growth prior to MindSpring's
shut down of the site Feb. 4.

In the month prior to the shutdown, Horsley said that his site had
received 7 million hits. During that time, the slowest day for e-mails
saw 700 come in. The busiest e-mail day saw approximately 5,000.
Judging by these figures, Horsley said that he could have easily lost
700 e-mails for the one and a half to two days in which MindSpring
allegedly destroyed them although the figure could be higher.

Matteson said that MindSpring can't defend the fact that it destroyed
his client's e-mails. However, even if the company does win on the
basis that they were only following company policies, Matteson said that
the fight won't be over.

"I don't mind losing," Matteson said reflecting on what he would do
if he lost the case. "If we lose, at least we got something to go to
Congress with."

Who wins and who loses, however, is still in the future. The
complaint was only written a few days ago, and as Hansen pointed out,
MindSpring hasn't even seen the complaint yet. After MindSpring has had
time to see the complaint and answer it, hearings must take place before
the lawsuit even sees one day of a trial.