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

Follow the money

[jfarnold]

Only the person with the most money will be able to hold the domain in any legal kerfuffle. Look at what happened to etoys.com.

Re:Follow the money

[DigitumDei]

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.

Re:Follow the money

[The Only Druid]

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.

Re:Follow the money

[DigitumDei]

I tend to disagree, free speech says you are free to voice your opinion. Does it state you are free to disguise it, or trick people into hearing/reading it?

I agree this is VERY arguable, which is why I called it dubious rather than wrong in my previous post. I just think that to draw an analogy, this would be like an 19th century politician disguising himself as the opposition, getting up onto a soapbox and totally destroying the oppositions reputation and then ripping off the disguise at the end and say, "hey, by the way, its me, not him".

Okay, maybe a bit extreme, but it is similar. :)

Freedom of speech should be the freedom to express your views as you, not as your opponent. And putting a disclaimer on the site (which he has done) is not good enough in my opinion. He has already lead the person to the site under false pretences.

Re:Follow the money

[Total_Wimp]

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

Re:Follow the money

[Total_Wimp]

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

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.

It's free speech.

[Garg]

And I would never vote for anyone who would do it.

Garg

Re:It's free speech.

[AWhistler]

As past lawsuits have shown, this is cyberquatting. However, I like your solution better.

Re:It's free speech.

[ajs]

It's not free speech. We do not allow for free speech in all cases when it comes to elections (we limit how many ads you can put on TV, for example).

I would say that, in with the dozens of other election reforms that are needed, we should restrict the purchasing of domain names, search results, etc. which imply one candidate and promote another (or attack the promoted candidate).

Free speech you may have, but this is the electoral equivalent of trademark infringement, and should be treated as such. The site is not a public service, it's an ad for a competing "product". What would we do if Tide (a brand of laundry soap) put out a box in the market labeled "Cheer.gov" (Cheer is another brand of the same product) with Tide in it? Same deal.

Re:It's free speech.

[aster_ken]

Most politicians in the United States of America are held accountable to their constituency by the electoral process.

Most citizens in the United States of America are held accountable to their peers by the judicial process.

This case is special in that the politician has (possibly) violated a law. Enforcement of the law is not in the hands of his constituency. Enforcement of the law is in the hands of the legal system.

So instead of just giving your vote to another candidate, why not make this politician accountable for his (possibly) unlawful actions in the same manner in which citizens are held accountable?

Definitely cyber squatting.

[jhallum]

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.

Should have linked....

[julesh]

The site in question

I think people should look at this before commenting.

Re:Should have linked....

[beaverfever]

This site has a lot of vague accusations without real facts and/or background to back them up. I'm not saying any of the content on this site is correct or incorrect, but you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe any of it presented as it is.

Just by scanning it quickly I suspect some of it may be misleading. For example, saying he is anti-business could mean he has voted in favour of some environmental control (which by the standard of many is 'anti-business'). Also, the section listing items he has voted for doesn't mention that these vague, nasty sounding votes could have been for bigger, worthy bills with silly amendments buried in them, as happens all the time.

The content of this site reminds me that in modern US politics candidates for office can say just about anything they want about an opponent and the onus of clarification or disproving any misleading or false accusations is on the accused.

I can't say whether or not the practice of using the URL is valid or not, but I would consider the content of the site to be piss-poor at best, misleading at worst. Actually, the worst would be bald-faced lies, but I'm not going to start checking facts. Regardless, there is no shame in US politics today.

Neither, it's Free Speech

[DLR]

I'd call it cybersquatting if he were trying to sell it back to Van Hollings for a profit, but as it is he's registered a domain and is free to say what he wants on it.

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.

Re:Neither, it's Free Speech

[gimpboy]

Let me get this straight. We both saw the same site


Van Hollen votes for:

His party (99%)
Trial lawyers
Himself
Special Interests
Tax Increases
More Regulations
Terrorists


And you think this is informing people of his past actions? How do you vote for terrorists? This page doesn't enumerate issues with this guy. Instead, it just makes unsubstantiated claims. I'm not saying the domain should be taken from it's owner. Any reasonable perspective voter looking at this tripe would feel insulted and assume Van Hollens' opponent is childish (you saw the chicken picture).

Trying to simplify issues down to "he voted against our troups" when they are much more complicated that that is downright dishonest.

A lack of class

[laetus]

Personally, I think the cybersquatting shows a lack of class. I voted against Van Hollen in the last election, but I don't condone what his opponent is doing for one reason, in that you shouldn't work to silence your opponent in a political election in a republic.

Floyd is wrong on this one, big time. By attempting to suppress Van Hollen's website and ideas, he's tarnishing his own reputation.

Mhm?

[richie2000]

Republican logic: A vote by Van Hollen against the Cuban travel ban is seen as a "vote against the citizens of the 8th District". Not to mention his votes against banning human cloning and claimed support for gay marriage. I think I speak for all thinking people when I say "WTF?". Are all citizens of the 8th district clone-hating, anti-gay and vehemently against anyone ever going to Cuba?

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.

Re:Happens all the time

[YouHaveSnail]

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."

Cybersquatting and possibly libel

[aussie_a]

In Australia we don't have the right to free speech. Instead we have what we aren't allowed to do defined by laws, and anything else we're free to do. So Australia's libel laws may be a lot harsher then America's. But in Australia this would definitely be libel (in some states of Australia he could get away with it as it isn't libel if it's true, but this isn't the case in all states).

As for cybersquatting, yes this definitely sounds like it. WIPO has the following criteria in determining if someone is cybersquatting.

1. Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
2. Does Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name?
3. Was the domain name registered and used in bad faith?
4. Has the Complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking?

I think the main point in this is #3. A quote from a similiar issue talking about issue 3 is...

Complainant presented clear evidence that Respondent's activities fall under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely that by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website.

The uncontroverted evidence shows that prior to notice of this dispute, Respondent's domain name resolved to a website referring solely to Complainant's competitor Shutterfly, and containing links to Shutterfly's website. That Respondent's website was directed toward Complainant's customers, and not generally to those seeking "free opinions" about high technology products, was clear from Respondent's prominent use of the phrase "Already have an Ofoto account? Give Shutterfly a try...". Respondent's website was devoid of any mention of an "Online Forum Of Free Opinions" until after Complainant contacted Respondent.

(From here)

Not exactly the same, but I think it has the same feel as this situation. I'd personally not be completely against this except for the quote "loyd says Van Hollen should've registered these domain names himself" that just makes me angry and (imo) is ridiculous. I use the same forum name on many forums (except this one) should I be forced to register it to stop someone from one day creating a hate-site about me?

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.

partly depends on the responsibility

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:The anti-Van Hollen site is junk

[Shakrai]

Any politician who claims that his opponent "votes for terrorists" instantly loses any credibility with me.

Too bad they usually win anyway. This is where I start to get disillusioned with American politics -- not when third parties are excluded from the debates. But when idiots like Karl Rove can run an advertisement accusing somebody like John McCain (five + years in the Hanoi Hilton) or Max Cleland (lost three limbs in Vietnam) of being unpatriotic... and it fucking works!

Bah! It's sickening.

Precedent

[michaelmalak]

In another Maryland case involving Robin Ficker, a federal judge ruled in favor of the cybersquatter. This is in contrast to the Falwell case, where Falwell was successful against a cybersquatter merely because he had a trademark on his name. As I pointed out in my post, this amounts to trademarking a religion, and thereby quashing speech critical of that religion.

The courts have ruled: you may mock politicians, but not televangelists.

Re:The anti-Van Hollen site is junk

[Shakrai]

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

Re:The anti-Van Hollen site is junk

[surprise_audit]

I generally reckon that any candidate who spends more time talking trash about his opponent than he does talking himself up, probably isn't worth listening to, or voting for. It's like they're saying, "He's a fucking idiot. Only other fucking idiots would vote for him", but they never really concentrate on their own good points. So I have to conclude that there aren't any good points worth mentioning...

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...