Slashdot Mirror
Domain-Name Protest Is Protected Speech
Lunartik links to this Detroit Free Press report, writing "The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled Friday that Michelle Grosse did not violate the law when she used the name of Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc. for a Web site she created to complain about the Canton, MI nursery. 'This is a very important case,' said Paul Levy, staff attorney with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. 'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'"
Too bad it wasn't in time for these guys
It seems to me that there are more than enough exceptions to free speech already. Glad to see this allowed, let's go a little farther.
It concerns me that this even got this far ... are we going to be validated for everything we say or write - sound's Orwellian.
having spent twenty thousand dollars, I think this lady ought to receive some donations to offset her legal costs..
by selling the domain name back to the Nursery, or another Lucas Nursery, for that matter. :/
hopefully, they'd give her a little more for the domain considering the hassle it has been for her to go up against the company and the legal system.
No, because then you would be acting in bad faith, which the quote you selected specifically says she was not. Troll harder next time.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
If you read the article, you'll see that she didn't register something like lucasnurserysucks.com, but lucasnursery.com. I'm suprised that it wasn't decided that she was using their name to trick potential customers into going to her site, since many people assume companyname.com will work. It'd be similar to someone registering slashdot.com (if it wasn't already registered) to make an anti-Slashdot site.
Its nice that under this administration we are actually seeing an expansion of free speech rather than the reverse. I can see both sides of the argument. I basically I see it a lot like celebrity. If a lot of people know about you there will invariably be people that don't like you and as long as they don't print or otherwise spread lies then it all falls within the spirit and lettering of bill of rights.
From a devil's-advocate perspective, I suppose the real-world equivalent of protest via domain names would be like buying a store, putting up the golden arches, and when someone comes in looking for cheeseburgers you give them anti-McDonalds pamphlets instead. That would be a clear-cut case of trademark infringment, causing customer confusion, and so on. This case is no different from other domain name complaints, except that the little guy won.
Isn't it always the case though, crap companies have to do a lot to 'protect' their image, they shove out so much crap and then when someone takes the time and effort to stand up and tell other people about it, they use their ill gotten gains to attempt to shut said person down. What they don't seem to understand is that the publicity this causes through media attention then lets everyone know just how crap that company really is.
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
Got any ideas for content? If so, email them to the domain owner.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Money, when isn't it about money.
This case, however, goes one further. It doesn't require that "sucks" or any other negative word be part of the domain name of a complaining site. If Bally.com was unregistered, then somebody who wants to complain about them can grab that domain name first and use it for a complaint site about Bally... they can order that site down, and the offical site of the company would just have to pick another domain name.
That's a blow to those who think trademarks trump the I-registered-it-first system of domains. It's not typosquatting if you post a site that's on-topic to the name, even if it's a negative site.
I wish this ruling had been around about five years ago, when I was fighting with American Express.
They stuck me with $12K of bogus balance transfers on a brand new "Blue" card, and refused to believe they weren't mine despite my attempts to rectify the situation over a period of almost a year.
They were amazingly quick to sic the lawyers on me, though, when bought amexblew.com and created a site detailing their indifference to my problem.
It's about time some company got smacked down for trying to silence an online critic with a legitimate beef.
~Philly
'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'
Notice that Levy felt obliged to point out that this ruling came from a mainstream circuit court, rather than from one of the fringe circuit courts whose opinions regularly get trashed by courts further up the food chain. It is a sad statement about the legal system in the US that the opinions comming from some courts are so wrong, so often, that their rulings don't count until they are confirmed by a higher court.
It is an "absolute defense" against libel. However, simply because it's true does not mean you can prove it, or that you didn't twist the truth to some extent to harm someone's reputation.
I was thinking specifically about the post I replied to; he used the example "child molester", and It seemed to me that "the truth" might not indemnify him in that case.
"Child molester" can mean many things; it doesn't have to refer specifically to sexual assault. Many people, however, see it and come to a single, unambiguous conclusion.
"Annoy continually or chronically" is one definition of "molest", and it may well be true an individual did so but did not commit a sexual offense.
You could claim that was the meaning of your statement, and that in that definition of "molest" it's perfectly true; but you will find the " tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule" come back to bite you, or the context of your statement means the courts reject your argument.
Similarly, there are many cases where the absolute truth is superseded by the false; often by the courts themselves. If a lie, for whatever reason, is legitimized by the court or government in a ruling or verdict (and this is not rare in libel cases by any means) it won't be an effective defense.
Libel cases are are some of the most sensational cases that come before a court and often hinge on definitions, intent, and consequences; "the truth" defense won't always save you.
It's far more common to find libel accusations in the UK than in North America; if you're interested that would be the place to look for case examples.
That's why I cautioned to choose your words carefully, avoid inflammatory language, and stick to things that can be easily proven. It will help defend you against the malicious/ridicule part necessary to convict, should they reject your "truth" defense.
We can spend all picking out pieces of the good and bad. I'm talking about the general demeanor of the country. In my life the slide started when Kennedy was killed (there went camelot) The sheer ugliness of the Johnson and Nixon years is still prominent in my memories. The lies about Vietnam and Nixon's political enemies list are there for all to see, but it's still business as usual. Before the 80's a one income family with 70 percent(!) of one's paycheck going to the IRS could still keep a very nice house out in the 'burbs. That's all gone now. Clinton was just a bad reaction to Bush Sr. And now with 9/11 the march towards fascism is moving double time. Please don't think for even the briefest second that Bush Lite(Kerry) is going to make any meaningful changes.
What?
I hired a contracting firm to level my house. They screwed it all up and cracked the slab. This was a well-known national company. They said it wasn't their fault and they weren't going to pay to fix it. I had pictures before and after and gave them 48 hours to agree to help fix the situation. They blew me off.
So I acquired the domain (companyname)sucks.com and put up a before-and-after set of pictures along with my side of the story.
24 hours later, they agreed to settle with me. I paid them $6000 for their work. They gave me over $14,000 as part of the settlement and maintained the guarantee on their work.
I know these days people think that "nobody cares" and for the most part, I agree. But part of this has to do with many companies who have factored customer laziness and unwillingness to protest into their business model. I refuse to let crappy contractors or other businesses get the better of me, and if more people did this, these companies wouldn't get away with the stuff they do.
So if someone screws you over, give them every chance to fix the situation. If they still don't, feel free to tell everyone that you think they suck. Which reminds me, I got screwed over by this company in Arkansas: Big Impressions - and I will never do business with them again. And until they resolve my situation, I'll make it public I think they're sleazebags until the end of time.