Slashdot Mirror
Jerry Falwell Wins Dispute Over Fallwell.com
setzman writes "According to this article from CNN, conservative minister Jerry Falwell has succeeded in shutting down a web site run by a gay activist on the domain fallwell.com. The judge said it was 'nearly identical' to the registered trademark 'Jerry Falwell' name and was likely to be confusing to Web surfers." (This was a Federal case, held in the 4th Circuit Court.)
This is clear intent to use some one else's name to generate traffic and money for your site, which I believe is a clear violation of (the correct reading) copyright laws. I would say (and I know many on Slashdot will hate me for this) this is the correct ruling. It is like if I try to get slashdo.org, and put up a anti Slashdot site, I would be in violation of copyright laws, and the owners of Slashdot would be fully in their rights to sue me to take said site down. Not that I am a Falwell follower, he being a TV preacher, probably one of those decision theologies, and/or send me money to be saved, which I would say both are wrong.
Praise Jessus. (Not to be confused with Jesus)
I can't believe this even became a story on Slashdot, it isn't that big of a deal and will probably turn into a huge flame war with comments.
the Political Inquirer
www.fallwell.com
Sometimes it is quite unlear if the domain name is the same because of conisidence, but in this case, Lamparello's site criticizes Falwell's stance against homosexuality and includes a disclaimer that reads, "This Web site is not affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries.", the site using the "same name" even admits they did choose the name because of the resembelence. This is something very different from the kathy.com story where Pengiun is trying to steal another persons domain for no reason.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
and the 'helpful' 'little' snippet by the editor was 'nearly identical' to what the submitter already said in the original writeup.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
In related news Ben Jery's Ice Cream won a judgemnt aginst Jerry Falwell for infringing on theri trademark as being nearly identical..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
setzman writes "According to this article from CNN, conservative minister Jerry Falwell has succeeded in shutting down a web site run by a gay activist on the domain fallwell.com. The judge said it was "nearly identical" to the registered trademark "Jerry Falwell" name and was likely to be confusing to Web surfers. Considering Falwell's audience, the judge was probably right.
C:\>
Katie.com was the issue of a book publisher using someone else's domain name for a book years after someone else started using the domain, and then putting pressure on the owner of that domain to give it up.
This is the case of someone registering a domain that is confusingly similar to someone else's for the purpose of tricking browsers. It's not as if this gay activist's name was Fallwell, or this domain was clearly in protest, ie falwellhatesmebecauseimgay.com or whatever.
Funny how well known people often win in these kind of disputes, and anonymous ones always get screwed. I'm not disputing the ruling, as I do not have enough information to determine whether it was a fair one or not, I'm just quite puzzled at how domain name disputes are handled.
Yes, I'm putting aside the actual content, the intent to make profit out of said content and the profile of both persons, so please no flames on that :p
I think there is a difference here. The Katie.com domain was registered years before the title for the book was made; while, the Jerry Falwell domain was made to copy an already exisiting trademark.
Boxing Equipment Reviews
Sounds fair to me.
A gay activitst registered a domain name similar to the name of a promiant conservative, implied anti-gay.
The judge's choice was 100% morally correct, in addition to being in accordance with the letter of the law.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Headline : "Court rules religious websites illegal."
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Anyone remember the first lawsuits against from verizon against 2600 for verizonreallysucks.com ? I can't remember who won, but 2600s case was that the first amendment protected their right to make an anti-verizon website.
I suggest that the gay community registers fallwellsucks.com, a website dedicated to how much of a bigot fallwell is. Or, as www.fallwell.com previously was, a classy activists site void of name calling and libel...
-n
I agree that using another entity's name to divert traffic for your own means is a violation, what about the use of derivations that show a defined antagonistic slant? For example, what if someone hosts www.fallwellsucks.com?
I've heard of companies going after people that host www.<entity>sucks.com sites, but I think that they most definitely be allowed since the name is clear in its differentiation from, and bias against, the entity.
Here's an image that triggered an earlier Falwell lawsuit against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine:
f licts/print/falwell.html
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-con
Ironically enough, Falwell lost that one.
In a related incident, The Alliance for Feline-Americans was dismayed at the loss of the FallWell.com domain, with their spokesman Richard Manx stating, "In this day and age it is imperative that young FAs [kittens] across this world learn how to land on their feet, literally. With this news he lose our hopes for establishing a website to teach youngsters how to learn this skill." AFA has been unable to secure LandWell.com, AFA.com, AFA.org, CatLand.com, 9lives.info or any other number of domains. When advised by Dr. E. Thomas Lanzburg of the Feline Health Center at Cornell that the ability to land on four feet seems to be in fact, genetic, the eminent biologist was clawed in the face by three onlookers.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I think that this is a stupid ruling. If you look at the google cache, you can clearly see that it's stated both at the TOP and BOttom of the page that this site is NOT affiliated with Jerry Falwell.
Also, anyone looking for Jerry's site would clearly be able to tell the difference.
"Shut up about my driving. You're still alive."
Considering that about 50% of all posts are already flamebait not worth responding to, I have to go with a couple of the more intelligent posts in saying that intential use of common spelling errors to increase traffice to a website should be ruled against. Had this group had a real claim to the Fallwell name I'd see most people's disagreement with the ruling. But sadly it comes down the the bottom line that most who are against this ruling only due to a religious/political view instead of a fair assessment of the case.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This isn't censorship. The activist hasn't been told that he can't communicate his views, he just has to find a new domain name to do it with. Whether or not he should be legally required to find a new home is doubtable, it is hard to deny that he chose the domain to catch unwary Jeffy Fallwell fans.
that a simple google search for "Fallwell" will recommend that you try "Falwell" instead. Jeez people......
A quick search reveals that copies of this site are available at www.archive.org. Will the judgement apply to third party archives?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
This reminded me of it, of course that never went to trial...
One of the legal standards of trademark infringement is "likelihood of confusion." Clearly this site intended to capitalize on this very thing, and so violate Falwell's intellectual property. However, parody is acceptable under the copyright law, but one's parody still cannot violate trademarks and other IP. But trademark coverage only extends to certain categories, e.g. a trademark registration for a web site covers web site infringement. One does not automatically have a registration in all categories. I laughed years ago when Paramount unsuccessfully sued a music group called "The Romulans," who had a Roman-style motif. At the time, Paramount only had a TM for "Romulans" that protected a 70s-era Star Trek action figure. The judge in the case said there was no likelihood of confusion between a music group and a little toy. So you /. regulars are all anti-IP, what do you think?
However folks fall in the religion fueled debate on homosexuality issues (gay marriage, gay "normalcy", etc) this was a middle-of-the-road ruling from a court that appears that didn't side with either of the agendas being pushed.
Like cyber-squat efforts (registering domains like "pepsi.com" when you're not affiliated with Pepsi at all) overall, this was a targeted effort by someone with an agenda. The intent was to squat their agenda on any internet traffic by "hugging" search criteria and even simple mispellings in a url. Their agenda to do this was clearly spelled out.
I expect the people running Drudge Retort to be nervous over a ruling like this.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Even if some people like Jerry Falwell don't like gays, there are gays and lesbian christians out there.
Does Falwell think these are no christian? Why?
These gays and lesbians want to voice their opinion (=free speech) against the religious view of Falwell.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I believe that hosting an anti-Jerry-Falwell site identical to the one that was shut down on fallwell.org minus the amazon link would still be perfectly legal. Only those rich enough to pay for their bandwidth out of their own pocket get to speak loudly...
Eat at Joe's.
Jerry Falwell is a religious zealot thinly disguised as an ultra-conservative Christian.
This proves my point to a T. Falwell's religious and political practices have NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. What difference does it make what Falwell subscribes to religiously and politically? From the way this sounds it's as if certain members would have Falwell squelched in the name of free speech.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The right to free speech does not give you the right to speak when and where you want. No one is saying that the gay activists can't run a website, just that they can't run it on a domain chosen solely to be similar to a trademark.
Rev. Falwell's free speech? And his right to his own name?
Best Slashdot Co
Will www.godhatesfigs.com be shut down beacuse it is too similar to another site
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
9th Circuit court is just a circus parading for extreme liberal bastards everywhere.
This isn't a christian nation, despite all the fundie attempts to make it so. It was not founded by christians, it was founded by Deists (look it up if you are that ignorant). Further, we have a right to practice whatever religion we want here (or none at all), guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.
And you are hardly living in peace when G.W.Bush is waging war in the Middle East.
Its your god. Your rules. YOU go to hell!
He's selling his brand of Jesus. Been in business for a long time.
Now if somebody capitalizes on his name to lure people on a site that hurts his business, that's unfair competition.
JerrySucks.Com would be fine with me, as would JerryIsALoser.com. But not what the guy used. It's clearly outside the bounds.
A more interesting question would be: what if there were another person named Jerry Fallwell who, for instance, believed that Jesus came from a UFO? Could HE register the site? Wasn't there some guy, Mike Rowe, who registered MikeRoweSoft.com last year? Does the first public person with a name get it for all time?
It's a standard technique in political comment and satire to use a distorted version of the target's name. Falwell is trying to suppress the site because he knows that his bullshit cannot stand up to reasoned argument.
The judge is quite plainly in Falwell's pocket (and probably on crack as well). Any unprejudiced court will hold that Lamparello's site is fair comment.
So which law enforcement agency are you proposing to make the judgment about what the intent was for any given domain name? Or do we just wait for civil actions to be brought by the aggrieved?
How do you feel about www.untied.com -- the anti-United Airlines consumer site? Do we want to let United go after that site and keep it quiet based on their rights to their own name? Does it matter that "airlines" isn't in the domain name too? Or did you need them to include an adjective, or the word "sucks," in the domain?
There really is a substantive question here about whether speech should be vulnerable to legal action based on trademarks in this way.
Personally, in the shoes of this Web site owner I'd go to my local white pages, look up 25 people with the last name "Falwell," and start calling. Some Jim or Joe Falwell somewhere is going to agree to support your site -- and now Jerry F. is trying to use his trademark to take away his right to have his name on his own site. How satisfying is a trademark-based argument then?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Why is it that all of the sudden everything people don't like is a "terrorist act"? It seems that it has become the catch phrase of the 00's.
Oh I didn't realise my name was copyrighted to me. Well considering my name is John Lynch, I have a bone to pick with a certain actor and a certain football player.
I'd go after my grandfather but I think he may have prior art in that case actually.
If this is all about name confusion, then explain why whitehouse.com is still in business? How many times have uninformed people mistakenly gone to whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov?
Then again, I am sure whitehouse.com is more interesting.
As for Spike Lee and Spike TV, my mileage varies.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Going on down the spectrum, there is bush2004.com, which satires Bush. Could Bush trademark his own name so as to shut this site down? At this particular moment of eroding free speech, probably not yet. Criticism of the president holds a special place when it comes to the First Amendment.
Now we step down spectrum another notch to fallwell.com. Jerry Falwell is a prominent religious and political figure -- perhaps not #1 like Bush, but certainly in the top thousand. He is able to squelch criticsm because he trademarked his name.
Falwell has intentionally blurred politics, religion, and business. Trademark was meant to protect consumers from sham products, not restrict discussion of politics and religion.
Here we have trademark law in conflict with the First Amendment regarding politics and religion. Trademark law was already being applied to block criticism of a business. Now it's being extended into politics and religion, the heart of the First Amendment.
Going further on down the spectrum, Robin Ficker, a political candidate of much less stature than Falwell, was unable to shut down robinficker.com. Why? Because he didn't trademark his name.
In the realm of criticizing Falwell, today it's domain names. Will it be blog content tomorrow, like the Ford case?
If Madonna gets to take her name away from a Catholic web site, why not here? The church was even using the name before she was born. The choice to use the term wasn't even related to the singer.
In this case, it sounds like the activist site chose the name because of him. Given Falwell's beliefs, this would be kind of like openning Mandella.org and making it a racist site.
Even if you didn't like her or her movies, it could be argued that this site was designed to take traffic away from another site, given the nature of the star.
Please tell me what you think of this.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
except that the katie.com domain was registered BEFORE the book existed, while falwell.com was registered AFTER jerryfalwell.com was created
/sorry about feeding the troll
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Someone has already mentioned the "katie.com" case, and there have been "slashdo" jokes.
But how about (nsfw) http://www.whitehouse.com/? Is this the precedent that makes it easier to take them down without looking like Big Brother?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You are right, this is a very different issue. In this case, they are trying to suppress a viewpoint that is not in line with theirs, even though the people of that view are clearly stating that they are in no way affiliated with Falwell Ministries.
So this is a freedom of speech issue. They chose a simliar name for their domain. But the fact that they are making it very clear that they aren't affiliated makes this a free speech issue. I think if they weren't making that clear, then Falwell would be right.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
A domain squatter is only liable to lose his domain when he makes or intends to make profit from it. This could be as simple as banner ads, or asking a high price to sell the domain to the person with the trademark. In addition, one is liable to lose the domain if one is just squatting, and not doing anything with it. However, fallwell.com was clearly used to further social discourse. It doesn't specify whether profit was ever associated with the domain, but if it wasn't, then this ruling contradicts others already made. For example, dustindiamond.com.
That should be setup as a community site that deals with people who have the unfortunate accident falling down a well or an open manhole, not to be confused with the former fallwell.com kind of manhole :-)
If Jerry decided to go after that one then he might not have a leg to stand on (especially if he had fallen down a well and lost a leg in the process).
;-)
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Someone has taken a previously existing name, and has been exploiting it for their own gain by trying to confuse the public. And got caught. The fact that it's Jerry Falwell is immaterial; it's the actions of the other guy that were wrong. This is exactly what was wrong with trying to extort away the Katie.com domain, too. I have my own domain name, and I don't want other people stealing it, or confusing people with subtle variations. This is a good ruling; it protects people everywhere from shams and scams.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
It's all well and good for Timothy to be soliciting pageviews with yet another whine about alleged rights violations. (Just more "I don't like it, so it must be wrong" nonsense.)
But, the OSTG legal staff would very likely cite this case if OSTG went after someone who took on one of their sites in the same way. Slashdot is trademarked, so is Sourceforge, Newsforge and a batch of the others.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Jerry Falwell is a religious zealot thinly disguised as an ultra-conservative Christian.
And this has anything to do with a domain name dispute because......
Finkployd
well, im sure www.jerryfalwellisanidiot.com isnt a violation. go for it, fellas.
This reminds me of the peta.org site - People for Eating Tasty Animals -that is!. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had peta.com. This guy registered peta.org and put up a site about eating meat and buying fur and stuff. A judge handed over the satire site to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It appears that the pendulum swings both ways.
So which law enforcement agency are you proposing to make the judgment about what the intent was for any given domain name?
Law enforcement doesn't make the judgment in any case. This is left to the courts and the courts did their duty.
Do we want to let United go after that site and keep it quiet based on their rights to their own name?
In the case of United it probably would be ruled that United is a common english word. But based on content it may be a question of infringement on a trademark.
There really is a substantive question here about whether speech should be vulnerable to legal action based on trademarks in this way.
It's not that I don't see your point but at the same time I think the argument is too thin. Falwell is not denying this groups freedom of expression but rather the form of promotion using a trademark. This really isn't much different than the Island Records/Negativland lawsuit over the use of the U2 trademark. Negativland wasn't really sued for using the "U2" but rather by the packaging of the content that could have misrepresented the product as a "U2" release. Now had the group, the fallwell.com people not Negativland, mentioned Falwell in a not so flattering light and Falwell had sued certainly that would be a question of freedom of speech.
now Jerry F. is trying to use his trademark to take away his right to have his name on his own site.
But that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? Meaning "HIS trademark". Jerry Falwell has rights by being the trademark owner. By saying his right to a trademark is invalid because he's not the only person with the name Falwell is like saying that AT&T shouldn't be a legal trademark because AT&T can stand for more than American Telephone and Telegraph. How many people are named Ford? Does that give them rights to infringe on a legal trademark? We could go on and on but trademark laws exists because of potential abuse such as fallwell.com.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
They would have had a strong cause but if the site was talking about how great it is to be guy then Jerry falwell would have been able to do anything about it. If it was a site saing that Jerry Falwall was a jerk then he still would have had a case.
What's this have to do with free speech? They guy can say whatever he wants.
He just can't pretend, or try to trick people, into thinking he's someone else saying those things.
With freedom comes responsibility. With freedom of speech comes responsibility for deciept, slander, libel, harassment, etc..
So let him register Fallwellsucks.com or something else. I hate sleazy little scams like this.
What if I registered stallman.com and started selling XP Pro and SCO licenses through it, and ranting about viral licenses and how open source is destroying the economy? Or trovalds.com and I can talk about how crappy linux is.
Even with a microprint disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying "I am not affiliated with blah blah all similarities are pure coincidence".
I wonder if slashdotters would jump to defend my "freedom to pretend I'm Linus and tell people how much linux sucks and how many patents I willingly infringed".
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I would think Slashdash
(ok I am a ham radio operator)
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Before I start, IANAL, but...
This is not a trademark infringement because they are not in the same industry. There is nothing in IP law as far as I know that says a person cannot make money using a parody. Parody is covered under fair use doctrine. The double-entendre signifies satire: fall is a verb, well is an adverb, they are constantly used in conjunction, and in its loose interpretation, it means that someone is very good at doing something very shitty. I don't know the author personally but I think that this was the desired effect, in which case this is clearly a pun, a satirical parody on the name, and is protected by IP law. This decision is wrong just as it would be wrong for Microsoft to shut down http://www.microsuck.com/ Please see http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
According to the article, "Lamparello's site criticizes Falwell's stance against homosexuality and includes a disclaimer that reads, 'This Web site is not affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries.'" This means that the decision that it would be confusing to visitors is a load of tripe. It is very clearly anti-Falwell and says there is no affiliation explicitly. If you would like to see the website, here's a snapshot from a year ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20030621061434/http://f allwell.com/ It was the latest one I could find.
This ruling is absolutely non-sensical and -- as far as I know -- without precedent.
It really irks me that people can trademark their names. Granted, a name like Jerry Falwell has a certain market value, but it just seems contrary to the original intent of trademark laws. Would he sue a family for naming a child after him? How about for having the same last name (or being named Fallwell)? To me this sounds a lot like when Spike Lee tried to prevent TNN from changing their name to Spike TV on the grounds that it infringed on his trademarked name. With the way current laws are going, soon enough everyone will have to come up with a unique name for their offspring.
"Well, Matthew may not be explicitly trademarked, but it is used in the Bible, and that's prior art. Sorry, we're going to have to fine you heavily for trademark infringement."
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
Not to mention their MACINTOSHES!
Best Buy can have you arrested
If we look at this the same way most of us looked at Katie.com, we would compare Falwell to Katie, and the Gay Rights Activist to the Book Company. Of course, the circumstances are different, and many people, including myself dislike Jerry Falwell, but I think it was worth noting. -ben
This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
www.fallwell.com Jun 21, 2003 backup
Yes, Republican State Funerals (which Falwell would not get anyway, since he's never held political office) are so very much worse than Democratic political rallies disguised as memorial services.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Looks like the Federal circuit is fractured on this issue.
Uzi Nissan, as we all know, didn't exactly lose nissan.com, but it's been converted to a placeholder site bereft of content.
Perhaps it's because his site served a purpose other than bashing Nissan Motors, the courts let him keep it.
Still, it's a mixed signal. Why didn't the court just give nissan.com to Nissan Motors? I get the feeling that's what the 4th Circuit would have done.
Conclusion: If you have the domain name that "belongs" to someone bigger than you, you can't step on their toes. You will either lose your domain outright, or lose the right to do anything useful with it.
I wonder what Justice thinks of all this, peering out from behind Ashcroft's curtain.
I submit that you could be absolutly right about this. I don't really have the time nor inclination to look it up at the moment. However, that does not invalidate the rest of my post, nor does it change the fact that, while this country and its citizens, in general, may adhere to certain values that christians hold dear, there is a guaranteed seperation of church (all churches, christian and otherwise) and state. This seperation means that we are not living in a christian nation, we are simply living in nation that has christians in it. Only a christian theocracy could truely be called a christian nation.
And, before anyone starts, my comment on GWB was only meant to point out the idiocy of the original poster's comment, it was not meant to make any kind of commentary on the war efforts.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Posting AC for obvious reasons...
I am ex-gay. At one time, I was completely homosexual, and was not attracted to women whatsoever. Now (four years later), I am completely heterosexual, and happily married. It has been a hard road, and change didn't come instantly, but I stuck with it because I became convicted in my belief that what I was doing was wrong.
In retrospect, I feel that I decieved myself into believing that I was unchangable because I believed that I was happy in my sin. In reality, I was completely dead inside, and my behaviour was driving me into deeper depression because it was absolutely impossible for me to find a meaningful relationship with another man. Reason? As I realize now, two men are just not compatible together in a romantic relationship (and I'm not even talking about the physical part). Now, four years later, I am completely crazy about my wife, and I can't even imagine ever being without her. Yes, I love the sex too (although I'll probably have to turn in my geek card for admitting I've been with a woman). I'm not saying that it's curable for everyone, or anything like that. All I know is what I was, and what I am now. Take it however you want. Mod me troll if you want, but this post is not intended as such, and is the truth of my experience.
If Falwell has his name trademarked, then he's engaged in "trade" and should not enjoy any
tax-exemption benefits, for himself, or his "church" companies.
He's getting his congregation to vote for Bush, so at this point in time he could get away with any
questionable activity he would care to undertake. I'm sure that even without coercion, the Church of Morons
would vote for the King of Morons. I do hope that Mr. Falwell dies soon.
I'm not defending Jerry Falwell (I don't even know who he is really), but I needed to speak up in compassion for those of you who are lost.
Being loud and obnoxious about your chosen Religious Service Provider does not mean that you are "speaking in compassion for [those who are] lost".
For a start, those people don't consider themselves lost. And some of us consider you to be the one who is completely lost - that is, you've lost the ability to reason, and you're running on the huffed fumes of faith alone.
Always dangerous for a human to do that - it makes you so easily manipulated. And that's what religion was invented for - to allow societies to be built around them, because it allowed the upper echelons to manipulate the sheeple. Such as yourself, oh great beacon of light in the darkness.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
If you think about it (and legal scholars have), your freedom of speech requires the state (acting on your behalf) to have the power to selectively silence others.
Take the proverbial soapbox in the park. Your "freedom of speech" is meaningless if you can't stop somebody else from standing next to you with a bullhorn shouting their own rhetoric. In this case it's appropriate to use the power of the state to say "here and now only one person may speak at a time." This is only censorship when the state decides to give preference to some speakers... or to fail to protect others from unnecessary disruption.
An online analogy is sci.religion.scientology. There may be some good posts there, but few people would see them when the newsgroup was (is?) flooded by thousands of posts serving no purpose other than to make it difficult to find the legitimate discussion.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Seems to me this speaks to a broader problem in which Corporate America, and Trademarks such as Jerry Falwell's become exempt from everyday citizens abilities to practice free speech. Where does one draw the line at protecting a company from unfair Trademark infringement that means to subvert business, and allowing anyone to Trademark their "cause" and undermine everyday citizens from speaking out.
What if George Bush where to trademarked his name? What percentage of Slashdot and other internet sites would fall under trademark infringement? That kind of case would be an obvious attempt to undermine free speech because it involved a member of the government. But in an era when corporations that own media dictate much of American attitude and voting decisions, how can we permit protection of "soapbox" trademarks.
But instead if continue a thread of stating the obvious, and venting our frustrations over the erosion of our civil rights, what can we as the Slashdot community do in these cases. Does anyone know whom we can collectively write or call in our government when we see such injustice? If for every one of these issues that gets posted on Slashdot, a Senator or Judge got a call or email from hundreds of upset people in their district, we might actually write some of these wrongs we all fume about...
A real world Slashdot effect!
Trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion, correct?
This ownder of this site doesn't purport himself to be Jerry Falwell, he's just critical of Falwell. You can see for yourself. If anyone gets confused on that site and thinks that Jerry Falwell has repented his anti-gay ways then they deserve to be confused, for they are stupid.
This proves my point to a T. Falwell's religious and political practices have NOTHING to do with the lawsuit.
Why not? Some people may think that a liberal would be more likely to shrug it off and say, "I wish I'd registered that name so people didn't make fun of me, but oh well." But maybe a conservative would be more likely to say, "I hate all other people, especially those that make fun of me or my beliefs, so I'll sue them and make their lives miserable because I'm an evil old bastard."
Of course, there are evil old bastards that are on both sides of the fence, but someone on one side may have a skewed view of the other and think that religious or political views were instrumental in filing the suit.
Learn to love Alaska
As to the folks who seem to think that domains such as jerryfalwellsucks.com doesn't infringe on anything, you're missing one of the points being made in this frontier of the law - Jerry Falwell is a person and domains like the above make a statement about a person.
Corporate non-entities might be fair targets for this, but you're walking a fine line with domains such as "www.HangMarthaStewart.com" since Martha Stewart isn't a corporate entity.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
However, this is a bad ruling because it confllicts with at least one other case where a domain name (Lucas Nursery) taken out to criticize someone using the name of the party being criticized is a valid First Amendment use and they have no right to stop you from using that domain name (with their name as part of it) to do so.
This is the sort of issue - courts in different circuits giving different results on identical issues - that makes the issue ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to take on the issue. That may happen. And if it does, I suspect that Falwell will lose. It wouldn't be the first time Falwell has lost in the Supreme Court over someone saying something about him that he didn't like.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
There is a disclaimer at the top (at least according to the caches I found) that made it impossible for a literate person to be confused. If the judge found them confusing, then he is a moron.
I was also unaware that trademarks applied to the trademark and all possible misspellings. When was that ruling? I must have missed it.
Even if the trademark applies (which it doesn't) and the site was confusing (which it isn't) the speech involved is political/social commentary on a public figure. That type of speech is the most protected. If it were a commercial issue, then let them fight it out in courts. If it is a free-speech issue for political/personal views, then the court should *always* err on the side of making the speech available.
Learn to love Alaska
Imagine, if you will, a multi-millionare TV Evangelist. Saved from Korean combat duty by his father, a US Senator. Studied law, but is not qualified to practise it. Father of a love child who, in adulthood, hosts the remnants of papa's religious propaganda program. Claims not to be a faith healer, but has in the past dealt sternly with everything from hemorroids to hurricanes. Involved with funding for an undeclared war in central America. Claiming Ronald Regan and Oliver North as close friends. Involved in suspicious tax avoidance schemes, under investigation for 16 months by the IRS. Claims to be a "Man of God". Currently seeking the United States presidency, hoping we will all follow him into the...
Twilight Zone
Jerry Falwell's page is falwell.com, the page in question here is fallwell.com, it seems quite clear this is a deliberate attempt to bring in visitors who intended to visit falwell.com but made a fairly common misspelling, one which has been made numerous times in the comments though this is likely due in large part to people thinking that Fallwell was the correct spelling from the domain name in question.
I stole this Sig
No one would be confused by that.
Decision regarding dispute over dustindiamond.com.
That case seems to parallel this one quite nicely.
I'm guessing the ruling hinged on the subtle point that the activist was using his site to make money (by selling a book). If the site were strictly political speech (or a parody), I doubt he would have lost.
But intentionally infringing on someone's trademark (by using a confusingly similar mark) to sell a product is pretty clear cut. At least on the surface.
Why not? Some people may think that a liberal would be more likely to shrug it off and say, "I wish I'd registered that name so people didn't make fun of me, but oh well." But maybe a conservative would be more likely to say, "I hate all other people, especially those that make fun of me or my beliefs, so I'll sue them and make their lives miserable because I'm an evil old bastard."
Why not? Because the attitude of the parties in a lawsuit don't change the laws or the facts in the case. Perhaps if it was the question of 1st or 3rd degree murder sure, but I can't see it in a trademark lawsuit.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
http://www.ilikehookers.net or maybe http://www.iamalyingfornicatinghypocrate.com
F Falwell. He's a piece of shit.
... Which is fallwell.com is NOT falwell.com. If they were trying to profit from the mistype I might buy some claim of domain sniping. If Falwell (the man) wants to protect himself from lookalike domains/tradmarks/whatever, he can register every permutation of his name with Network Solutions/the trademark office. Otherwise he should be SOL.
I know the courts are swinging in the favor of broad interpretations of trademark (Witness the horrendous Uzi Nissan case, nowadays the bigger company wins the trademark, even if you were first and legit) This trend is wrong, shortsighted, and introduces far too much subjectivity in the area of trademarks. I bet the lawers love it!
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
would not have directly generated any book sales. If the person actually intended to visit Jerry Falwell's site, but visited a gay activist site by mistake, I seriously doubt he/she would probably not be likely to purchase the books advertised in the parody site.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That's.. gay!
Must-not-watch TV!
The right to free speech comes with responsability - ie take responsability for what you have just said, not run and hide behind the constitution in your name calling match
Christopher Lamparello, the guy on the other end of the Falwell suit, had it coming. Bad Karma so to speak.
He's a scammer of the first class. He ripped off a family member of mine with his book (should be called a pamphlet) "$1,000 a week for life", where basically he tells you to start a business. He doesn't tell you how, but he pontificates on very many other subjects besides money. $25 for a product that an 8th grader could have come up with.
He's a known Spammer too. Here's the whois for mailordergold.com Domain Name: MAILORDERGOLD.COM
Administrative Contact:
Christopher Lamparello (HISVIQDHMO) chrislamparello@aol.com
875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 1700
New York, NY 10001
US
212.736.1238 fax: 212.736.1181
Technical Contact:
Domain Reg CWS (ILJVDIGYVO) hostmaster@cws.net
829 3rd Ave SE
Suite 225
Rochester, MN 55904
US
507-289-2229 fax: 507-289-0349
He also has 18 unresolved complaints against him per the Better Business Bureau of New York.
How many people are named Ford? Does that give them rights to infringe on a legal trademark?
Funny you should choose such a high-profile example that actually disproves your argument. Or perhaps you've never heard of the Ford Modeling Agency?
Surnames are not fair game for trademarking, except under the most identical of circumstances. For example, I cannot call my underwear company "Hanes", but I can call my apple orchard "Hanes." Heck, I could even call it "Fruit of the Hanes." Not a darn thing anyone could do about it.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Because the attitude of the parties in a lawsuit don't change the laws or the facts in the case. Perhaps if it was the question of 1st or 3rd degree murder sure, but I can't see it in a trademark lawsuit.
Trademarks apply to the trademarked items. If someone made a "cola is bad, drink juce" site and named it cococolo.com, I'd say that they are not violating the trademark on Coca-Cola. In this case, it was evidently ruled that trademarks cover not only the trademark, but all possible misspellings of that trademark. So, we have to look further into the case.
To violate a trademark, it must be able to be confused with the original. If you went to cococolo.com and it was obvious that it was not related to Coca-Cola and that it was commentary on Coca-Cola, then it is not a trademark infringement. Yes, it may be somewhat deceitful to use mispellings in such a manner, but since it is not creating confusion, it is not a violation. The site in question had an explicit disclaimer and a link for anyone that wanted to leave. If someone can read an explicit disclaimer and be confused, they are either a moron or a federal judge.
Now, on to the last point (the one that gets back to political speech). Even if it were to use the trademarked name (which it doesn't) and be confusing with the trademark (which it is not), it is a commentary on a political view. Our system protects political speech above all others. We are one of the few places where there is nothing political (short of actual threats to a specific person or organization) that is illegal. Yeah, I know, they are being eroded, but in France, you can get in trouble by writing a book that has some lines in it referencing a political party in a specific manner. You can't march for the Nazis in Germany, but you can in D.C. American is the birth of the statement "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" (or something like that). Because I'd classify this as political speech, I'd protect it more than commercial or other speech.
Politics are the big thing because I think that if the subjects of the sites were reversed, the judgement would have been reversed as well. I can't know for sure, but growing up in the south, this strikes me as the regular censorship there. One rule for everyone (applied differently if you aren't a conservative white male).
Learn to love Alaska
For the same reason that I'm against software patents, I'm against someone having to register permutations of their own names to protect themselves.
The domain name system is way too limited, for that matter, but this seems like an obvious case of trying to make money off someone else's popularity.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
However, by this same logic, if I go and copyright my name - James Elliott - then David James Elliott, star of JAG, should pay me money or stop using my name since it is so similar! What's next? Jerry Falwell files injunctions against other Jerry Falwells?
Jerry Falwell is a religious zealot thinly disguised as an ultra-conservative Christian.
Even religious zealots are entitled to equal protection under the law. I have a feeling that even the 9th Circus would have to acknowledge that.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
The guy who owned the fallwell.com site did so with the intent to:
.org would be more suitible they discovered to their dismay that PETA.org was already occupied by a parody site called People Eating Tasty Animals. The site clearly stated it was a parody and had a link to peta.com (the "real" PeTA). At that point I don't think it was selling merchandise, but it was clearly anti-PeTA. Even if it was a for-profit site (doing both A and B above) it should've been allowed because:
.org because it had already secured .com
a) deceive those who intended to visit the evangelist's site using a similar address
b) profit from the deception by selling literature critical of Mr. Falwell
I think that B alone should be legal. However, A is questionable--unless there is a valid defence for using the domain name or trademark.
That said, since the intent was both A and B the ruling was absolutely correct. It doesn't impede on free speech--the same exact content could be put online at falwellsucks.com.
I figure the case should've been ruled the other way if:
* The site clearly stated it was AGAINST Jerry Falwel, or was an obvious parody (and perhaps a link to the site most visitors probably intended to visit)
* If the owner of the site actually WAS Fallwell (regardless of the content), or was a business with that name but in an unrelated industry (first come first serve in cases of conflict I'd say)
There are some cases that went the WRONG way. MikeRoweSoft.com was one of them. The owner was named Mike Rowe and the name was clearly a parody of the Microsoft name. Although software was the subject of both, they were clearly different entities and could not be confused (it isn't easy to mistakenly type or be confused by MikeRoweSoft as is the case with Fallwell vs Falwell).
There was also the case of PETA.org vs PETA.com -- the legitimate site for some reason was the latter, and when they decided
* It was clearly a parody site and directed those deceived to the "real" site.
* There was a real reason to have the domain--PETA matches for both organisations.
* First come first served--The "real" PeTA drgeed its feet on
So yes...first come first served--IF you have a convincing argument to retain the name and it wasn't a blatant, greedy example of sqatting.
C:\>
Judicial Review was an idea that had been discussed some in the Federalist Papers before John Marshall used it in M vs M. It was supported mostly by the Federalists. Part of what made Marshall's solution elegant was that the Anti-Federalists won a round with Marbury's loss, but the Federalists got what they really wanted, Judicial Review.
They could also constitute a Court of Constitutional Intrepretation directly under the Supreme Court, using the power granted in Article I section 8.
I take it you mean I.8.9: "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". Yes they can make tribunals, and they can delegate any congressional powers to them, but they would not function as a check on Congress, as they would be appointed by Congress. And such a tribunal would still be under the Supreme Court, so it would not be an improvement.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Hilton said the site's operator, Christopher Lamparello, intended to divert people from the Jerry Falwell Ministries' Web site "with the direct intent to tarnish or disparage" Falwell.
You mean some guy who blames Americans for the September 11 terrorist attacks and condemns the Teletubbies needs help in tarnishing or disparaging his own image?
jerryfallwellsucks.com doesn't appear to be taken.
Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones . . . From our website you will learn about homosexuality and how by developing an interior life of chastity, the universal call to all Christians, one can move beyond the confines of the homosexual identity to a more complete one in Christ . . ."
Courage Apostolate
IC XC NIKA
As to the folks who seem to think that domains such as jerryfalwellsucks.com doesn't infringe on anything, you're missing one of the points being made in this frontier of the law - Jerry Falwell is a person and domains like the above make a statement about a person.
Jerry Falwell's not just a person, he's a very public figure. A website named after an average guy, listing all the reasons why he "sucks" is clearly out-of-line. (I always thought Steve Bartman could've had a field day suing all the sites like this, as well as media outlets who broadcast his name and address across the world.)
But politicians and celebrities (especially those who are very vocal with polarizing viewpoints and who hold a lot of sway and influence over a large group of people) are fair game for public criticism. Falwell.com is misleading and actionable, but "Falwellsucks.com" would very much have a right to exist.
From the google cache of the site:
"Throughout history, fundamentalist theology has contradicted science a vast number of times. There has never been a single instance in which they were not only proven to be wrong, but drastically so."
I think what he meant to say was, "There has never been a single instance in which they were not proven not only to be wrong, but drastically so", or something to that effect. As it stands, it says the opposite of the point he was trying to make.
Do we not have just as much a right to our beliefs as anybody else? If part of our beliefs is that we are to spread the message of the gospel, then you trying to shout me down, mod me down, put me down, does in fact show intolerance of my beliefs?
Something about a pot and kettle come to mind.
Does he have to give up "fallwell.com" or does he merely have to stop using a similar name to promote products that are related to the products offered by "falwell.com".
If so, the correct thing to do is to form a company like "Fallwells Rubber Dildoes" and sell them from Fallwell.com.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Because one makes money and one makes *more* money. The law is an ass. It depends on those who are entrenched to enforce it.
Here's a related question: why is killing a police office a worse crime than killing a mother? You probably won't like the honest answer to that.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Is Santorum next? The issues sound superficially similar.
Although more people probably know Santorum as a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex than a homophobic senator, Rick Santorum might still try to shut the Santorum site down.
fallwell.com is still up and running as of 5:20 PM EST.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
"Of course, the wrong choice has consequences."
If something can be so easily divided into right and wrong, then there is no choice.
Do you want to burn in hellfire for an eternity?--If not give me a quarter.
Where's the choice there? Would you really feel that avoiding eternal damnation is not worth a quarter? What sane person would really call that a choice?
Choices are made between options that are either approximately equally beneficial or equally harmful. If God really wanted us to choose, then he wouldn't have left a mountain of brimstone hanging over our head from behind and a carrot in front of our nose.
In fairness, from what I've read of the Bible, it doesn't place nearly as much emphasis on this aspect as Christians--especially Christians trying to convert someone.
Of course I have too much pride for this tactic to work on me--I'd rather suffer for eternity (if I believed in it anyway) for believing what I think is right than give up control of my life.
Quote from CNN article:
Lamparello's site criticizes Falwell's stance against homosexuality and includes a disclaimer that reads, "This Web site is not affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries."
THEREFORE THIS WAS CLEARLY FREE SPEECH
Perhaps the Judge is ignorant old duffer - or may be he is of the same opinion as Falwell.
Please read lucasnursery.com decision of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - it ruled that this domain did not violate the law. The female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.
Link
Or this quote from trendmakerhome.com court decision:
"Concluding that Maxwell's site, as a non-commercial gripe site, violates none of these statutes, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Maxwell."
Link
Please visit my complaint site to find out more of this subject.
N.B. It is not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
He's selling his brand of Jesus. Been in business for a long time.
Now if somebody capitalizes on his name to lure people on a site that hurts his business, that's unfair competition.
I'm with you! Jesus should totally pursue legal action against Falwell for hurting his business!
That might set some extreme precedence, though. What would Jesus sue?
Death to America.
I completely agree with you on your post. Especially this:
If the owner of the site actually WAS Fallwell (regardless of the content), or was a business with that name but in an unrelated industry (first come first serve in cases of conflict I'd say)
However, not always the case. One should only look as far as www.nissan.com.
Uzi Nissan has run self-named businesses in the United States for decades. When Mr. Nissan started Nissan International, Nissan Motors was known in the US as "Datsun". From the success of Nissan International, he created Nissan Computers. In 1994, he registered the domain name "www.nissan.com".
You can probably guess what happened. SIX years later, Nissan Motors sued Mr. Nissan for $10 million. But, the Nissan is the guy's name and the name of his business. He used the name in the US longer than Nissan Motors did. He is in a completely unrelated industry. He registered a trademark with the Nissan name a decade ago, years before the lawsuit. Slam dunk for Mr. Nissan, right?
Wrong.
While Nissan Motors didn't get their $10 million and lost most of their claims, there's no question that Nissan Motors won the case in every sense of the word. You can read more about it here
The
http://www.ishipress.com/circuit4.htm
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/courts/courtlo ng.cfm?CourtID=8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43571-20 04Apr1?language=printer
One simple rule for its versus it's
Cool, Jerry Falwell is a Christian. Take a look:
http://www.jerryfalwell.com/
Praise the Lord.. Amen.
I'd like to point out that you specifically mention the way something is "packaged" as determining the basis for trademark infringement.
Have you looked at the site? Nobody could mistake that for Falwell's site. Right at the top is a link to Falwell's site with a note saying the site [fallwell.com] is not Jerry Falwell's. Any possible confusion is de minimus.
Trademark infringement occurs when a trademark is used to deceive (for whatever reason, financial or not). There is no deception in this case. Any possible perceived deception is put to rest with the very first sentence on the page.
>now Jerry F. is trying to use his trademark to take away his right to have his name on his own site.
>But that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? Meaning "HIS trademark". Jerry Falwell has rights by being the trademark owner.
These are two separate issues. A trademark does not preclude the right of others to mention you, flattering or unflattering, so long as those comments are truthful, stated opinion, or parody. Trademark rights do not give, and have not ever given, owners the right to prevent their use in that manner. Trademark rights involve commercial use, and preventing unlawful use that might harm commercial image. No deception = no (legally redressable) harm.
Maybe I'm strange but I don't see anything wrong with doing any of the things you describe. The only way I'd have a problem with it is if the site was intended to trick people into thinking the site was actually run/endorsed by the "Real" Falwell. There just arn't enough possible (ok practical) domain names for us to be roping off every one that happens to contain a trademarked word. Maybe this whole domain name concept was a big mistake and we should just use IP addresses + search engines.
Quote from news article:
Judge Hilton took a rather different view of the relationship between government secrecy and the rights of the defense in his last involvement in a politically explosive case, when he presided over the 1989 trial of Joseph Fernandez, the CIA station chief in Costa Rica. Fernandez was indicted for perjury in the Iran-Contra affair. He was charged with lying about the illegal arms shipments to the Nicaraguan contras organized by the Reagan administration.
In the run-up to that trial, the Bush administration, Judge Hilton and the attorneys for Fernandez engaged in an elaborate charade: the attorneys demanded classified materials to assist in their defense, the Bush administration refused to divulge it, and Judge Hilton eventually dismissed the case on the grounds that Fernandez would be deprived of his right to an effective defense without it.
The conflict was a prearranged sham--most of the "classified" information had already been made public in the press, such as the fact that Ilopango Air Force Base in El Salvador, the departure point for the illegal airdrops of weapons to the contras, was the location of a CIA station. Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, in his book on the case, observed that some of Hilton's declarations from the bench sounded "like those of a man working toward a predetermined objective."
While Judge Hilton's legal position has shifted dramatically, his rulings in the two cases are consistent politically--they have protected right-wing conspiracies against the democratic rights of the American people, the first spearheaded by Oliver North, the second by Kenneth Starr.
### ends ###
It is certainly most clear to me that they have little regard for democratic rights of the American people.
Mind you - no different to our government having scant regard for democratic rights of the British people.
Most our Members of Parliament are so vacuous of intelligence that they let Tony Blair do anything he wants. They do so believing him the best chance of them winning next election. The MP's that have intelligence to understand, drop their honourable principles for greedy self interest.
Those aren't gaping holes.
Slavery:
Most of the apparent contradictions in the slavery passages can be resolved if you let god not be against slavery, but merely abusive slavery. The remaining two I see are Mt. 4:10, Mt. 23:10 and 1Cor.7:23.
Mt. 4:10 is talking about not worshiping the devil...not slavery.
Mt 23:10 appears to be talking about the structure of the religious institution (don't serve rabbis, serve god).
1Cor. 7:23 is talking about something unrelated also. The preceding verse: "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.". This context makes it clear that the writer isn't talking against slavery.
Polygamy:
The quotes almost speak for themselves here. On one side you have the commandments of God saying to do something, and on the other side you have the history of Jewish leadership doing something else. Could it be that the leaders were (*gasp*) not without sin? The only quote I feel the need to explain is 2 Sam.12:7-8. This verse has been...taken...out...of...context.
This quote is from a passage where Nathan is telling David a narration of David's life from the Lord's perspective. After David took over Saul's kingdom David got everything that was formerly Saul's (including the wives). What their quote implied is that since David didn't inherit the punishment due to Saul, god must be pro-polygamy. Note however, the Lord's response when David gains an extra wife (who he steals after sending her previous husband off to war...):
"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes".
As for your assertion that straight quotes are as unbiased as possible, that is demonstratably false. What if I were to say "I was involved in promoting the initiative that created the internet". Then what if you were to quote me "I...created the internet". Then there's quite an obvious bias there (the quote was specifically designed to make me look stupid).
Or if I were to say:
"Women should not be slaves, but in the case they are, for their own protection, they should be submissive to their masters".
Now let's pull two quotes out of that and compare them side by side:
"Women should not be slaves". "Women..should be submissive to their masters".
Those are obviously in conflict. How could a sane person hold both those views! It's an obvious contradiction. And I quoted them directly with no commentary, so no bias.
The answer is of course context. Quotes need context to be meaningful. When you write a paper and use quotes to back your point you have to provide an interpretation of the context surrounding the quote in order for it to have meaning. Without context quotes have no more meaning than the words they are made of. In most writing you put the context in commentary around the quotation. For instance "While the author expresses his dislike of female slavery, he chauvanistically suggests that '[Women] should be submissive to their masters'. Quite clearly we can see that the author is a fucktard".
I wouldn't have a problem with the way that website does it (after all they do link to the actual biblical text they're quoting), except that they don't seem to be taking the context into account when they pull out the quotes. The instances I saw in there mostly argue semantics and definitions (which you can't really do with a work that old that has gone through so many translations -- at least if you expect to be taken seriously...). And all of the really serious sounding points are taken completely out of context in really obvious ways.
I still have to agree with the original poster-- it makes a great resource for aspiring Christians. To see opponents fail to make a valid point, it only reinforces their 'faith' (through a logical fallacy whose name presently slips my mind).
[Sarcasm alert!] Yes, because it's a URL people can no longer discern between differently spelled words.
Amen, brother. Amen.