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
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.
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.
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
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
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"
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
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...