Political Cybersquatting Or Free Speech?

Although plenty of people have purchased politically linked domain names as a form of protest in the past, now they're being used as part of organized campaigns. In Maryland's 8th district Congressional race, Republican candidate Charles R. Floyd purchased three domain names (VanHollen2004.com/net/org) that one might think would represent Democrat incumbent Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Instead, these sites carry criticism and a bit of mockery. Floyd says Van Hollen should've registered these domain names himself, and previously used the same tactic in the primary. Is this cybersquatting, or is it a fair expression of political speech?

Comments

Re:Cybersquatting, free speech or...

[richie2000]

bush2004.com is clearly a joke site.

Clearly? It had me fooled until I found this snippet:

Make no mistake, this site is run by guys sitting around in their underwear.

Cheney is way too ugly to be sitting around in underwear, that's how I spotted the joke. Up until that point, I figured the Bush/Cheney campaign had just decided on the stunning political move of being honest and truthful. I know, I know, that's hard to believe. But it was on the internets, so I figured it had to be true.

Floyd is an RFC violator!

[AndroidCat]

He runs domains that accept email, have mx records, but have no working abuse address! This is in volation of RFC2142. (He's also violating RFC1123 5.2.17, but that's not quite as bad.)

If he violates anything as important as this, he can't be trusted with anything smaller like Congress.

Re:Follow the money

[nwbvt]

I hope you never visit the Onion, which is billed as "America's Finest News Source". People could be lured there under a false pretense, thinking they are recieving actual news.