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]

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.

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.

Should have linked....

[julesh]

The site in question

I think people should look at this before commenting.

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.

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: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.