Slashdot Mirror
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?
And I would never vote for anyone who would do it.
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
What a despicable act. If I were in that area of the country, I wouldn't vote for that guy no matter what...he's definitely missing some morality genes someplace. Dummy.
The sites are about Van Hollen, so yeh, however if he hypes himself too much then it does become cyber squating, as he is using the domain name to mislead people alone.
fraudulant misrepresentation? Seriously, if I went to VanHollen2004.[com|net|org] I would expect to get something official for the 2004 campaign for Van Hollen, just the same as I would if i went to Bush2004.[com|net|org] or kerry2004.[com|net|org] (which both work). When you cant get ahead on your own merits, trash your competitors.
Having said that, I'm not thrilled with the tone U.S. politics has taken over the past 20 years or so with all the mud slinging, and I think this is (potentialy) just another few feet down that same slipery slope. I say potentially because I haven't seen the pages that were put up yet. It could be "honest politics" where one candidate is merely pointing out the voting record of another. However in this day and age I am inclined to doubt it.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
As long as the sites make it clear (either implicitly or explicitly) that they aren't controlled by Van Hollen or his people (which seems to be the case) then it's free speech.
OTOH a simple link to Van Hollen's actual website wouldn't go amiss. Not as a matter of legality, just as a case of not being a complete jackass. But this is politicians we're talking about, so there's not much chance of that.
Cybersquatting is a fair expression of political speech.
Look at the site. There's nothing misleading about it; it is very clearly _not_ the candidate's campaign site. I think this is fine.
Unless we actually enforce policies on what each top level (and lower) domain is named and contains, this sort of behaviour is just the extreme case of a broken/misfeatured system.
and almost as in beer. He's paying his two cents for the domain name, then saying his piece. Now he even gets a free plug on /., which will even give him a Google bump.
This is no more offensive than a TV ad, since I just press 'mute' if I don't want to hear it. In this case, I can just click away.
There may be some secondary backlash when Floyd supporters or undecideds go to VanHollen2004.org and find Floyd's rhetoric.
It doesn't harm anyone, since "LastName2004.org" is clearly political.
sigs, as if you care.
Domain names aren't as important as they were in the 1990's. If you want to find something on the web, you go to a search engine now. I think that typing fooblab.com in the address bar and hoping for the best went out of style when porn sites starting parking redirect pages everywhere.
I mean, how far do we take this? Is van Hollen automatically entitled to *all* domains that might be remotely associated with his campaign? If van Hollen had himself purchased vanhollen2004.com, would we be having this conversation if the opponent has set up vanhollen-2004.com?
The website is real. It's not a "buy me for megabucks!" squatter. It says right up front that it's not an official Chris van Hollen site. There's nothing misleading about it, except for the little trick of the name itself.
Whether it's ethical, or "right," is another question entirely. But I'd rather these stupid tricks play out on the internet, where I can choose not to surf to a website, than on the streets, where all those damned (and illegal) campaign signs show up every year making it almost impossible to see around corners, if you're in a small car.
Are they afraid they might succumd to the lure of Fidel unless there's a ban on travel there? "Gee, Martha, I was this close to going to Cuba today, but thanks to God and the republicans, I was turned away at the airport. Just imagine, I might have seen gay clones going on a wild rampage of the streets of Havana. The horror!"
If that's the case, I hope he votes for a permanent travel ban for all citizens of the 8th district going anywhere, because quite frankly, we in the rest of the world don't want them to escape out of their little reservation.
Money for nothing, pix for free
People make money by registering domain names and selling them at inflated prices to companies you'd expect to own them.
You've just defined cybersquatting.
In this case, however, the goal doesn't seem to be to sell the domain at an inflated price, but instead to use it to get a point across. It does seem deceptive to register someone's name and then use it against them. I'm not sure it's all that unfair, however, as long as the party that owns the domain doesn't try to make the site there look like it belongs to the named party.
In this case, if Floyd is putting up a site that pretends to be Van Hollen's then that's deceptive, unfair, and probably slanderous. On the other hand, if www.vanhollen.com makes it clear that it's owned by Floyd, well that's at least less offensive and probably more reasonably "free speech."
I won't hold anything a politician's supporters do against him/her, because lots of reasonable people have crazy supporters. But if the person themselves is behind dirty tricks, I'd definitely hold that against them. Whether it's decisive depends on the other issues involved, but in my mind it's prima facie evidence that the person is more of a politician and demagoguge than an honest representative, and so they'd have to really excel in other areas to overcome that handicap and win my vote.
In this case, I don't think I'd ever vote for someone who used fear-mongering about "terrorism". There are legitimate worries, but it's our leaders' job to put them in perspective and calmly work to resolve them, not to work people up into a hysteria and play on them for political gain.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, it probably is cybersquatting in the spirit of the law, but is it actually? The TLD has an integer included, not just the candidates name. Additionally, perhaps there are more than one person with that name. Of course, the content does disparage the candidate, which is a determining factor, but free speech is free speech. If the year was not included I'd say it was a 'slam dunk', but I guess this is just a free throw. Perhaps a new TLD (i know, i know) like ".anti" or ".con" - for people to express counter-points and still rank in page aggregators, would help. How about ".rep" or ".dem" or ".gdi" or ".grn"? Bottom line, it's a politician, I don't trust him already.
Stuff that matters.
I think this is akin to the practice of campaigns buying up web adresses like Georgebushsucks or kerryblows, etc. Granted it's not exactly the most tactful approach, and he's not trying to sell it back to anyone. Cybersquatting only motivation is the monetary gain from selling the domain back to someone. I just think this was a distasteful, ugly, albeit LEGAL, tactic that will eventually work its way out via voter backlash.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
The point here is more that even if the guy does eventually lose the domain, the damage is already done.
While one can argue free speech, this was morally dubious, and having enough money to fight it won't change that.
East Coast Brewers
I remember a while back when someone had bought up a set of domain names that were common mistypes of regular websites. These were set up with the intent of forwarding people to pornagraphic websites. Those sites were shut down because of the hazard to children who may come across them.
In reality is this any different? The site names mislead you as to their content and force you to take the time to download it even when the designer of the site knows that you have no actuall interest in what he has placed there.
While I don't agree with it, I think there is an interesting argument that this isn't morally wrong (I dont say it isn't dubious, since obviousy it is debateable whether its right or wrong, i.e. dubious): look at it this way, politics is about pragmatics, at least in the campaigning. That's why Bush is talking about flip-flopping instead of jobs lost, and why Kerry is talking about Iraq instead of how he's actually going to fund his programs. Its been this way for quite some time. Isn't it possibly reasonable that a politician, entering the arena this far into the game, should anticipate such moves, and [as suggested] move preemptively?
As a disclaimer, I said I don't agree with this argument, but I think it's interesting at least insofar as it poses sociological and moral questions about something we find deeply important to society as a whole, i.e. free speach.
"Stumble before you crawl"
There are limits to free speech though, when it interferes with other laws- hate speech, libel, slander, not shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater...
so, cybersquatting is obviously a court-defined no-no, and just because it happens to be for political rather than (on the surface at least) economic motives, doesn't make it any more 'right'
ìì!
The site had the reverse effect on me - it was poorly constructed, including numerous typos.
The accusations just seem silly - "Votes for: terrorists"?? If you really want to put together a site like that, you should at least substantiate the accusations.
After reading through that crap, I went and looked at Van Hollen's real website, and was actually impressed with his biography and Congressional resume.
The guy who registered the site has the right to do so, I think -- he's just being stupid and seeming petty to the voters.
I'm not sure about morality, but it's definately ethically wrong. The guy is luring people to the web site under false pretense and showing them content they didn't set out to see. He's purposely misleading them with the name.
Regardless of what the law says, regardless of whether or not "other people are doing it" this is clearly unethical from a deception point of view. I know people have a tendency to overlook deception in campaigning (at least the deceptions perpetrated by their candidate) but that doesn't make it ethical.
TW
It's both... the idea of free speech guarantees that both and idiot or an asshole can say or do what they want to do as long as it doesn't impede the rights of another.
Since, in this case, the candidate doesn't have the right to any domain he wishes except through normal, fair and public channels, he loses. He really should have been savy enough to consider purchasing domains that benefit him instead of this rival.
Things are ONLY ever ethically wrong within the scope of an ethical system
You're right. Our American political ethical system is pretty clear on deception to the electorate in order to get votes. It's in the same category as cheating on your wife. It may not be illegal and you may high-five your buddy when he get's a particularly good looking gal on the side, but if you get caught it's considered "bad" (assuming it's not security related).
Just in case you think I might be wrong, I would urge you to play this mind game. Can you picture any politician debating that I'm wrong and that deceiving the electorate is actually neutral or good? Though not proof, the fact that no politician would openly support deception is pretty good evidence of it's ethical standing.
TW
Well, what do you expect when someone like Cleland tries to pack the TSA with his union cronies at the expense of national security?
Oh stuff it up your tailpipe. The man was in favor of the DHS months before the Bush administration was. Bush & Co. only got behind it because it was going to happen anyway and they didn't want it called the "Joseph Liebermann Homeland Security Act". Gee if Kerry did something like that we'd probably call him a flip-flopper. When Bush does it we call it "decisive leadership".
In any case they then decided to use it to try and strip millions of people of civil service protection. Cleland was bold enough to take a stand against this. It had nothing to do with "union cronies". And for a man who dodged serving in Vietnam (bad knee indeed) to run an advertisement accusing Cleland of being unpatriotic because he had the balls to support his constituents is the height of hypocrisy.
The reason why it "fucking worked" was, well, it was true.
Bah! IHBT
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Which reminds me, I must get a fresh Union Jack to hang by my front door before the Polling Season starts. It's amazing how fast those local candidates and their supporters vanish when I tell them I'll vote for anyone who'd care to restart the War of Independence, seeing as how I pay taxes and yet am not allowed to vote...
If the name of the domain makes no claim as to who it supports. Just a name and number. Really, look again. No deception whatsoever.
(BTW, I'm too lazy to actually look at the site, but previous posts suggest that it doesn't claim to be his website.)
Otherwise, I hereby claim all domains with my name in them MUST be mine or at least act in my interest! Otherwise it's deception!!!
I would agree that this individual did engage in unethical but legal behavior and did purchase the domain names for the purposes of "cybersquatting". Maybe not for montetary gain, but certainly some gains for his cause and/or candidate. Oddly, while unfortunate & unseemingly, it appears to still be legal except when some huge corporation feels that they have been slighted in some imaginary way. Then those with the most lawyers win regardless if the law is on your side.
The aggrieved candidate in question is looking for sympathy for unfortunate but legal slight against him when it was entirely within his control to prevent with nearly no effort on his part. His web campaign manager should have been fired immediately. Let's face it. This was a huge gaff on the democratic candidate's part. The milk is split. Get over it, suck it up & continue to march on. Spin it your advantage & that's why your staff has "Spin Doctors" & "Press Secretaries".
Now, the republican challenger who is benefitting from this actions of this less-than-virtuous cybersquatting individual has been been reported as condemning these actions, declaring them unethical, and demanding to have those sites shut off.
Again, the Republicans could have score wicked-easy brownie points with everyone and benefited from the unethical behavior as a bonus. duh. Republicans still have not mastered the Way of Unethical-Self Righteousness, it comes off as rehearsed and teleprompted.
Nerdus Maximus (mostly a wannabe, but you have to have goals)
I call it just being an asshole.
The domain used to belong to the Representative, but he (or his dormant campaign staff) forgot to renewal.
You may not agree with it, but I have my rights and having a easy-to-remember domain name certaintly helps people find it. I make no representation that it's "Duke's" website.
I don't see much difference between this and Michael Moore's F-9/11 movie. Both are designed to mislead and misinform.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.