Slashdot Mirror
Utah Bans Keyword Advertising
Eric Goldman writes "Last month, Utah passed a law banning keyword advertising. Rep. Dan Eastman, the Utah legislator who sponsored the law, believes competitive keyword advertising is the equivalent of corporate identity theft, causing searchers to be (in his words) 'carjacked' and 'shanghaied' by advertisers. He also takes a swipe at the EFF, dismissing its critique of the law as 'criticism from the fringes.'"
you win one (1) free internet
?giS
Stupid advertisers.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with this picture?
Government's role needs to be closely defined, and carefully watched -- its powers must be limited, and its growth must be contained.
Sure, pal.
What?
I got bored reading the articles and I couldn't find the answer immediately. Which campaign donor paid for this, or which Mormon edict is behind it? It's obviously one or the other.
Because passing a stupid law like this in Utah will actually have any real effect on the use of keyword advertising.
The only real effect it will have is making things harder for advertising companies, by forcing them to filter out the dolts in Utah before serving up an ad.
This is nothing more than some 2-bit politician trying to make a name for himself, and won't do any good whatsoever for any of the citizens that were responsible for putting his sorry ass in office in the first place.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
ZZZzzzzz......
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Just when having 'mormon' was really starting to pay off ..
In Soviet Utah, Mormons call YOU a fringe group. OK, that was rude, but it sure was funny when South Park did it.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The CB App. What's your 20?
I love this game! Time to look like they care about shit or something.
w hatever.
1) Make an idiotic law to solve a problem that doesn't exist that the feds will shoot down on free-speech/interstate-commerce/equal-protection/
2) ???
3) Profit!
I hate politicians, but I hate advertisers, too. Ack! (head explodes)
They have already proven they can handle themselves with difficult governments.
First Google China edition
Now Google Utah edition.
So, who will be first to purchase AdWords for "Dan Eastman?"
I just googled him and got no advertisements, so looks like he's even cheaper than the average politician!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Utah is one of the places used to simulate Mars landings.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Rep. Dan Eastman...believes competitive keyword advertising is the equivalent of corporate identity theft, causing searchers to be (in his words) 'carjacked' and 'shanghaied' by advertisers.
Well, at least he's not appropriating the name of an entire city to make his point.
I didn't know that going to google.com was like going to the Oracle at Delphi. A spiritual endevour to commune with raw, unaldulterated universal truth. I was under the horribly mistaken impression that google built, maintained an operated a tool that many people found useful, and all they asked as payment was their users left over attention. That leftover attention then being sold to those who might find such vast quantities of unused attention valuable. Thank you for disabusing me of this notion, and helping me realize that google, is akin to a public service. God forbid that a person going into someone else's place of buisness be subjected to offers from affiliated businesses. I much prefer the Mormon position of people being denied adaquate legal healthcare in a commercial health establishment based on particular whims related to imagined magic.
Maybe Microsoft has decided to use lobbying to make Google's business model illegal, that way they don't have to compete with them on their home turf!
Or, ya know, not.
How we know is more important than what we know.
When will these dorks ever get a clue?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
... at least for those of us living here in Utah. They've caught a bit of flak from members of the Bloghive in these parts, especially with the hackjob responses they've got going on. Of course, these are the same guys who tried to get a special E911 tax on VoIP and almost passed statewide franchise agreements, so you've got to know they're not entirely with it.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I sure hope they stop targeting ads all-together. I would hate to be watching a baseball game and see ads for merchandise or tickets. I'd much rather see ads for something completely random like American Idol or adult videos.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
Someone put an Adword in on google for "Douchebag" and it linked to http://www.daneastman.com/
--
The law is supposed to help relieve the congestion in the tubes. As you all know the ads can clog the tubes like nobody's business.
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Which campaign donor paid for this, or which Mormon edict is behind it? It's obviously one or the other.
I think you might be onto something here.. It looks like follow the money. Now if I can find some data on the new registery mentioned in the article and who profits...
Snipped from the article....
Owners of eligible words can register the terms in a new registry by paying a nominal fee.
The truth shall set you free!
If your adserver is not located in utah, then you don't have to filter jack shit. Interstate trade is federally regulated.
causing searchers to be (in his words) 'carjacked' Is that an implied car analogy?
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
If he cares so much about business being shanghaied online why doesn't he put his energies into doing something about a real problem such as domain squatting.
I'm trying to think of a reason why the trademark regime isn't sufficient to deal with any "confusion" issues and I've got nothing. I suspect his confusion is actually related to being a total idiot.
I say give the good people of Utah a 48 port switch. That should cover the next 100 years of growth in Utah. Also since all their PC's will be connected to 1 switch; they can boast speeds of a 100 meg; tell em' it is the new internet. They won't get adware, received unsolicited emails, Keyword Advertising, etc.
I think this will make Utah and the rest of the world quite happy. However, I will miss their news blurbs on slashdot.
It has been horribly overused and corrupted, but surely laws pertaining to Internet have to be decided on national or, better, international level. With 50 states passing conflicting laws, soon no employee of a tech company will be able to travel across state lines without risk of arrest.
The Utah legislators are confusing trademarks with owning a word. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a product uniquely, not to give a company control of a word.
Advertising a competing product when potential customers search for a trademark is exactly what trademarks were supposed to accomplish.
I don't really see the Series of Tubes missing Utah. They are welcome to create their own Series of Tubes without keywords.
I know I'm not going to miss them.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Utah has the Internet? When did that happen... ;)
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Isn't advertising what America is all about these days? Crazy desert people..
Aaron Miller
Aaron Miller Computers
"Specifically, the law creates a new intellectual property right called an "electronic registration mark," defined as a "word, term, or name that represents a business, goods, or a service."
This is a law which hopes to prevent businesses, especially those who made a useful tool to aggregate left over attention, from telling interested people about competing offers and businesses. This law is quitiscentially unAmerican in the sense that it's opposed to the free exchange of ideas, and to obtaining a competative advantage. It's positively feudal, and anyone who for a moment entertains a notion of legitimacy of such a law should be shot with a musket. Think of what the people get, the for the low low price of momentary curiosity which they may or may not act on a free useful tool, rather a variety of them, and a snap-shot of competing offers. The public domain of ideas belongs, wait for it you malignant asshat, the PUBLIC. Considering the fantastic deal the public is getting, via free sweet tools, ceeding yet another area of the public market place of ideas to dipshits that appearently give money to Mormon whores (the bad kind), those dipshits owe us all one motherfucking assload of everlasting awesome. A cure for cancer, cheap fusion power, something really magnificent for a new dominion over what we already collectively own: The knowledge that Plumber Bob is a plumber, and Dan's Plumbing offers the same services, maybe better, and maybe at better prices.
Ignorance is not a virtue, and the idea that a privaleged few should be able to force it on the larger world is truly insane.
The issue the Utah legislators are against is (the following example is fictitious) Sony buying keyword advertisements for the "XBOX" keyword - in hopes of getting them to buy PS3s instead. The idea behind the law is that, in this example, Microsoft own the XBOX trademark, and by Sony buying ads for "XBOX", they are 'benefiting from another person's trademark'. Or something like that. To be more specific, it might be the case the Sony pay more, and people typing "XBOX" see ads for Sony, and not Microsoft. The legislators see that as "hijacking a trademark".
Now, this is an interesting issue. In essence, this is a case of one entity making use of anothers' trademark for profit. Which does seem a little 'off', at least if you value trademarks (I do, and I disvalue copyright and patents, at least in their current incarnation in the US). However, as pointed out in the past, the real issue isn't what is 'fair', but what is possible. Implementing this law is a lesson in futility. In other words, Utah don't get it. But they are not the complete morons implied by most people's reaction to the Slashdot title for this story.
In Denmark it is illegal to use company names and other trademarked names for adwords. Only generic words can be used.
Not inherently a bad thing. All depends on whether you feel that others cashing in on your established band is a good thing or not...
Which Utah based business bought this law?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I xeroxed the document and placed it on your desk.
g enericized_trademarks
I just have google for bandaids.
By the way, I think I need an aspirin.
My wife just bought a new brassiere, it looks awesome!
Anyone know where to buy some dry ice?
I think I need a kleenex.
My son just bought a pogo-stick.
Anyone can recommend a good yo-yo?
Anyone can FedEx me some durex, I am all out.
I just got hit in the head by a frisbee.
I lost my tupperware in the park.
I just photoshopped this image of Utah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_
So, has anyone heard anything about Google's response to all this? Or Yahoo's or any other large search engine?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
There's keyword advertising, and there's keyword advertising. I don't have an issue with google showing sponsored ads off to the side... but not embedded within the results.
But the greatest scum of all keyword adverts is in the vein of 'gator' et al, that rewrote webpages and literally embedded ads for competitors right within a businesses own website's content - a least from the end user experience perspective.
The new 'gator' is that 'intellitext' crap, and frankly its just as bad, perhaps worse because its coming from the website instead of being the result of malware I can remove. (Sure I can generally block intellitext crap with FF using adblock with some effort, but that's beside the point.)
I hate playing 'dodge the link with my mouse' with 'legitimate' website content, blogs, and so forth. I would support a law that banned that sort of page rewriting to embed advertising links.
I've never met a user that found those ads anything but annoying. (Especially on older systems where running the javascript and building the popup would take several seconds, like my old G3 ibook, a delay triggered by simply letting the mouse glide over a link by mistake... not click on it, just drift over it)
Just wanted everyone to know I'm reading this with my mouth open making 'uh?' noises.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
how much is an "electronic registration mark"
l argest_companies
how much will the state of Utah collect for all of those registrations.
"Hello? Utah? My name is Joe Internet. I'd like to register some ERMs. Here is the list."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world's_
Haha - now all searches will point to my company.
-1 Funny?
You cause negative humour.
Any funds collected from the registration of a mark under this chapter or the use of the database in excess of the expense of maintaining the database shall be retained as dedicated credits to be used by the division to:
(1) promote the registration of electronic registration marks to holders of federal trademarks;
(2) promote the state as a desirable location for business; and
(3) provide incentives to businesses considering relocation to the state.
"Dum dum dum dum dum"
Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
By the sound of it, it doesn't actually ban keyword advertising, it just limits a bit.
Returning Bob's Hardware in a search for 'Dan's Hardware' based off from the word 'hardware' might be ok. 'hardware' is a rather generic word, after all. Walmart buying a link based off of 'Target', 'Sears', or 'K-Mart' would not be.
Still, I could easily see this law being struck down by a judge with a wide interpretation of the 1st, as long as no actual misrepresentation is made.
I don't read AC A human right
It looks like follow the money.
A politician acting in self-interest! Stop the presses, this is a first!
(You're not in the administration business, are you?)
If you've ever tried to find true "Free Ringtones" you'll probably have an idea of the frustration that lead to this sort of law. It took me along time to identify Audacity 123 software, QualComm Purevoice software, BitPIM software, and a data cable as a means to create real free ringtones for my phone. Virtually every link to free ringtones had you buying a service are getting "free" ringtones only if you signed on to buy others. This is false advertising, and is an area that makes the internet useless. Again that what make the Internet the most useful (powerful search and association capability) brings it to its news for some intended purposes. Just banning the use of the word free in advertising would help. Though this would probably be impossible to implement and enforce.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
Otherwise known as the UGF, will be setup via Google Checkout. In order for Utah visitors to see search results provided by google or pages where ad revenue is generated via Google Adwords, the user must pay the amount that would have been generated if the ads could have been shown in addition to a $0.75 processing fee per transaction. Visitors looking to save money may Pre-Fund in a minimum amount of $25 with only one $0.75 fee being charged for the transaction, when the balance goes below $1.00, your account will be automatically funded for an additional $25 plus $0.75 transaction fee.
Adsense customers may also setup a Utah Free Zone where the Adsense is not generated for Utah visitors but the loss of revenue is charged to the web host, Utah Restricted Zone where the Adsense javascript will prevent any Utah visitors from viewing the content and optionally Utah Pay Zones where users are required to subscribe in order to view content and the javascript will redirect them to the proper signup/payment page at the rates set by the webmater.
Thank you Utah for opening up new business models and revenue streams at the expense of your residents!
There are hundreds and hundreds of advertisements that go out every day in every media where they specifically identify their competitor and bash them in their ads. Like in, "Acme Garage changes oil for 9.99$, Superior Garage charges 19.99$". There are store brands of products that mimic a copytighted product. For example, the store brand mouth wash Equate specifically says, "Same active ingredient as in Scope(R)TM". Why leave them all out and bring only the electronic ads into the purview of the law?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Consider -- a state stupidly votes through a law that might kneecap Google's earnings. The champion of the law even insults the EFF.
Looks like a typical case of Microsoft removing a competitor's oxygen supply. It is not a conspiracy since Msoft are documented as astroturfers...
You might be right in arguing "Never assume malice if it can be explained by stupidity" -- but in today's world even Utah law makers should have more insight.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Searching on a term that brings up a competitor's product isn't a problem, it's just an extension of the example I mentioned.
Eastman sounds like the kind of politician Ed Markey, from my home state of Massachusetts is - utterly clueless. Markey is the chairman of the House Subcommitte on telecommunications and the internet but he's as dopey as Eastman - trying to regulate something he has little knowledge of.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
I don't give a crap about the potential hardship this might MIGHT cause advertisers. Pay per click or KEYWORD advertising is a scam and the only company that really profits is GOOGLE. If you could get sole ownership of a keyword when getting a pay per click deal then you might have something other than a scam, but when you have to bid against other advertisers for use of the same keyword it only benefits GOOGLE.
With lots of national banks being registered in Utah (American Express comes to mind), how does it affect them? Are they now prohibited from advertising online using keywords? Yeah, Amex is really going to love that!
On the other hand, I wonder if Amex was one of the companies who "sponsored" this moronic bull, in attempt to curb competition in search results when searching "american express" returns www.discovercard.com?
The most stupid thing to come out of Utah since a certain religious cult. Granted, I would rather them pass a ban on ad's period because I hate them as much as the next guy. The thing is, at work, I have no adblocking software and I am not able to install one either. My beef with this is that if I am forced to view ad's in my daily browsing, I would like ad's to be somewhat targeted to things I have an interest in. I have no need to see ad's about feminine hygiene products, or quilting or other such non-sense. Ad's targeted to sites I visit like gun and outdoor living, computer/tech related, truck outfitting, and other such crap as I look at are what I should see. This is actually to everyone's advantage just in case they do choose to support ad's or do happen to be somewhere like me that can't block them. Why I say this is simple, I have bought stuff I didn't know about from the help of ad's. Yeah, I admit it!!! I have bought stuff I saw from ad's. They are a horrible tool of the marketing industry, but they do work, and they do promote a way of letting people know about things they are interested in and may not have already known about. My 2 cents!! I still hate ad's though.
Google purchases Utah.
Video Store Clerk: [laughs] What movie this is? Where have you been, under a rock?
Lisa: No, I'm from Utah.
Video Store Clerk: Oh. Sorry.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Even before the internet. Most supermarkets (and increasingly other categories of retail stores) have Checkout Coupon printers, which are run by a company called Catalena Marketing. These machines don't spit out coupons just because they like you, they print out coupons based on what you buy, printing coupons for related products or for competing products.
For example, you buy a box of Kelloggs Corn Flakes cereal, a coupon prints out for Post Total cereal. Or you buy a bottle of Advil and a coupon for Tylenol prints out. Or you buy a package of Huggies diapers and a coupon for Luvs diapers prints out.
This is exactly the same as the keyword advertising that this law aims to ban: one brand/product is desired and direct advertisement for a different/competing one is displayed to the consumer. Bet they didn't think of this, did they? And you can bet even more that they won't try to enforce the law this way.
...wide interpretation of the 1st...
...no law...? The interpretations we've been getting are way too narrow, and just plain wrong.
"wide interpretation"? Just how many ways can you interpret
What?
The problem with with not allowing a business to buy a keyword based off of a competitor's name is that, in America at least, businesses are encouraged to mention a competitor's products in advertisements and product placement. If I go to the store looking to buy Dawn dish soap, the grocery store places their cheaper knock-off brand next to the Dawn for a reason. In effect the grocery store is saying, "I know you want Dawn dish soap because they have a lot of advertising and you've heard of it before. But this knock-off brand will get your dishes just as clean and is a full dollar cheaper!" This law makes similar conduct on-line illegal. What will result is increased strength of already strong brands and increased barriers to get to the market. That hurts all of us by resulting in less effective competition and higher prices.
Above poster is on the right track in thinking about this as a commerce clause problem and not a 1st A. problem. But this is really a very narrow part of trademark law. States can and do have their own regimes of trademark protection and it is generally accepted that the federal government has not occupied the field on this one. So a constitutional challenge, while it could could probably be brought, is unlikely to be successful.
to hike, fish, ski, and sit on your porch watching the sunset while waiting for the apocalypse.
-- QED
Suggestion to Google on how to comply with these laws: add the ability for trademark owners to disable targetted advertising to their trademark, as the law requires. However, do it by completely removing that trademark from the search index. Anyone searching for that trademark should get a blank page. We'll see how many companies really make use of this feature. If you don't want to play fair, you should take your toys and go home, I say.
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
As a long-time, non-Mormon resident of Utah, it looks to me like they're trying to herd online business to Utah companies, many of which are LDS church-based. Utah isn't a bad place to live, the crime rates are low in my area, the scenery is spectacular, and the opportunities for outdoor entertainment pretty much unlimited. But the one thing that many parts of Utah don't have is a good selection of retail stores. In my area, there's a Walmart and one other big-box store, and a lot of local shops that mostly never have anything I need, or have it at an inflated price. So I go online to find what I need rather than driving 75 miles to the next mall.
The last thing I want is to do a search for something and come up with nothing but local Utah businesses.
I apoligize in advance for the stupid mistake. Only the first line of my post is a quote.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
(Score:0, Flamebait)
Oops, so sorry. I forgot that standing up for freedom of speech is forbidden in front of the children.
What?
"wide interpretation"? Just how many ways can you interpret ...no law...? The interpretations we've been getting are way too narrow, and just plain wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit jaded; but if you look at my sig, you'll see that I'm a 2nd amendment advocate. I mean, they manage to work their way around 'shall not be infringed' just fine.
Thus my statement.
I don't read AC A human right
Thank you. That does indeed look like a closer match.
Specifically targeting search engines is overboard. Having the word 'Sears' redirect you to target would be overboard, but I don't think that that's much of a problem.
Of course, fraud statutes exist to take care of true imitators.
I don't read AC A human right
By the indications of the moderation, I get the impression that most people will pick the red one. Too bad the color code was reversed :-)
What?
with the idea that there are thousands of web pages out there that essentially say "come and get your real, official Coca-Cola right here!!!" When you get to the page you see either (a) nothing at all having to do with Coca-Cola (odd, but OK I guess) or lots of stuff that says "Get your Coca-Cola right here!!!" again. Finally, when you get down to the ordering and paying part of the purchase you discover in teeny print "Note: the product you are buying has nothing whatsoever to do with Coca-Cola but our substitute is just as good in every way."
Repeat this for every product that people might buy on the Internet. It is designed to trick you. If a store did this, they would be closed down almost immediately in the US by a number of different regulators at local, state and maybe federal level. However, we get to see this on the Internet every day and maybe, once in a great while, someone gets sued over it and closed down. After five years of selling stuff getting a fine of $25,000 is just a cost of doing business.
This is corporate welfare, plain and simple.
It's the spending of taxpayer money to come up with this legislation that I find distasteful.
You really want to make things better for people? Ban all non-factual advertising. I'm quite serious. Prevent any claims being made in advertising that are not purely factual. No more "Jimmy's Junk Food Snacks taste great!" Now you have to say "83% of people surveyed liked Jimmy's Junk!" Et cetera. The fact that advertisers are permitted to make unsupported statements is simply ridiculous. Freedom of speech is one thing, but advertising is another. Of course, the fact that corporations have freedom of speech is simply wrong as well.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So if I sell windows for your home, will I be able to buy any ads for them, or only for a Microsoft operating system?
This law is ridiculous, and I'm sure that it was bought by some lobbyist for some specific case. I doubt the lawmakers even understand it.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They talk about the militia being well regulated. The second part of the sentence is rather hard to work around.
Also, back then 'regulated' meant more along the lines of mechanical function; A regulated clock would be one that meets standards of operation. It was along the lines of specifying that the militia would actually show up with functioning weapons and an adequate supply of ball&powder. That wasn't guarenteed at the time.
Even if you go along with the regulated part, how do you justify the effective banning of current issue military small arms for sale to citizens?
I don't read AC A human right
The state's actually not a bad place for startups and new ideas right now. It's got an educated populace with a good work ethic and historically low wages. I've worked for three different startups in the last 10 years, all of which have either turned into profitable, sustainable operations, or been sold, or both.
But ability to do keyword advertising has been crucial to the success of last one, and played a role in the success of the first two as it does with nearly any online enterprise. And even if keywords aren't just banned, but become some kind of IP, it seems like it would essentially entrench established players and make things much harder for startups. It's hard for me to see any other result than decreased competition.
If the law really works that way, I'd hope Google won't even wait to go to court, but simply pull the rug out from under businesses in the state. Nothing I can think of would send a message to Utah's tech business community about what their legislators are busy doing.
Then again, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe the bill is backed by people who've got money and who'd like to have a new IP fronteir on which to practice land-grabbing. And you'd think this would be a paradox, given that Utah's political culture is ostensibly economically liberal. But sadly, it wouldn't be the first time I'd have heard about local business interests influencing law to create or defend a personal gravy train.
Tweet, tweet.
The intent of the 2nd amendment when written is more akin to the midieval practices in England that encouraged bowmanship. Every male was given a weapon and expected to practice. Other forms of recreation were discouraged or banned so the "militia" was stuck doing nothing with it's free time but archery.
The language of the 2nd amendment is much consistent with Switzerland or Israel than California.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
New Keyword. Stop it, you guys. You're just confusing search engines even more. The next guy that Googles Slashdot is going to get a Guns and Ammo centerfold of a buxom blonde with an M-16.
What?
Your interpretation of "regulated" is an interesting one, and one I had never heard before, and I have heard 2nd Amendment arguments for a long time. But even if you interpretation is valid, why is it that it is ok to back date the word "regulated" but not "firearm." By your logic "firearm", as used in the constitution, refers to flint lock single shot rifles and low power single shot hand guns, which are basically weapons which produce less kenetic energy that many modern BB or Pellet guns. After all you even said that "regulated" means "adequate supply of ball & powder." I don't see alot of drive by shootings being done with black powder rifles.
Even if you go along with the regulated part, how do you justify the effective banning of current issue military small arms for sale to citizens? I don't, and I don't care too. I'm am neither a supporter or opponent of firearm control laws. Personally I have never been in, witnessed, or even heard about a single situation were a firearm was required to solve a problem, but this doesn't mean that I care who does or does not have firearms.
Second, more on topic reply:
Regardless of its "good" intention. To me the law is clearly a violation. But, but contrary to what one person I know says, I don't base my interpretation on inferences that simply don't exist. That's why I made my statement. I see only one way to read what was actually written. And yes, you are right about the 2nd. And furthermore, the 4th, 5th, and 9th are taking big hits. Considering how loose we are getting with the law, the whole Bill of Rights is up in the air right now. Oh well, it's this backwater thinking that put Warren Hatch where he is today, putting all our computers under threat. They can do what they want in Utah, but they should keep their incessant meddling out of Washington and the rest of the country (world).
What?
If Youtube can restrict what gets posted based on copyright law, then google can restrict who uses what keywords. The process would be the same, the company wishing to enforce their trademark would just have to go through some trouble to prove that they own the trademark.
Did anyone else notice the irony of Imus saying "nappy headed hos" being a severe issue, but Rep. Eastman can say "shanghaied"?
Is it better to be called a ho because of race, than to be called a thief because of race?
Am I the only one who thinks shanghaied is a Chinese slur?
I primarily hunt but carry a weapon close to me on some occasions. Mostly to control Coyotes when comming and going form the house but I never know when I get some free time and want to target practice or do some hunting. (I keep fishing poles close for the same reasons). Unless someone is a psychopath, I see no reason to remove their abilities to do the same. Using a gun in a hunting atmosphere, you get a different respect for them. One that isn't artificial like the impressions form video games and such. You know the damage they can do and you know the there isn't any second chance at death. I think if more people experienced this, gun violence would be down.
I remember taking my
As usual, a lot of semi-informed people jumped into this one with both feet.
The law wasn't passed to make searches on Google illegal, it was to prevent lying to you to get you to unrelated sites. I have to agree with the Utah guy on this. (I agreed with a politician? Scary thought!) When I search for something, I want that thing, not what some advertizer paid to force me to endure. If Google starts to go down that path, then I will abandon Google. Like I did MSN and Yahoo. (Yahoo, I've been told is not so bad any more. We'll see.)
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
I'm trying to relate this to television advertising and I'm having a hard time with it. On Google if you type in Xbox as a search and one of the sponsored links is to sell you PS3's, to me that's no different than if you watch a gaming show that reviews the new Xbox and the advertisements during the show include ads for the PS3. The advertisers want to target people who might be interested in their product.
Now, if the top sponsored link was for some home-built gaming rig called an X-boxx, that tried to pass itself off as the real thing, then I'd call that trademark infringement, which Microsoft would already have the legal right to defend. As long as the search results are still there and can't be hijacked, it's up to the advertisers to try and place their ads in front of the most receptive audience possible.
So, it seems to me that the Utah law is wrong.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am neither proponent or opponent to firearm control. I personal fired a gun before I was old enough to even remember it and was taught how to handle an respect firearms. I raised in a family that frequently hunted but that does not give me the right to change the meaning of the amendments of the constitution to fit my current needs or to determine alone what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Are you sure about that? It seems that the scribe might of added some commas while writing up the final document. A bit of history on comma usage as regards the 2nd(and therefore the rest of the constitution).(Wiki link, but elucid).
Neither am I, but I did have 12 years of english, some more in college, and was reading at college level in jr high. Cheer for excessive comma usage! Here's a hint: take the first and third commas as pauses. The part before the second comma is explanationary. It's one reason for the second part. The second part is the declatory part containing the actual instruction. 'The car's a wreck, don't buy it.'
Where does the word 'firearm' appear in the text of the 2nd ammendment? A firearm is indeed an arm, but so isn't a bow, sword, knife, dirk, spear, axe, halberd, mace, and too many others to count. Going back to the original definition; 'Arms' were pretty much weapons for an individual soldier. So, keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning*, it would mean any weapon that's used by the individuals in an army. Back then it was certainly black powder, with a sprinkling of swords and pikes. Today, in the USA, it's some varient of an M16.
Quick definitions of what I consider important words:
Regulated - Note definitions 3 though amendment 3 might suggest laws encouraging a functional militia would be allowed.
Militia - Non-professional military; historically able bodied men, minus certain categories of unwilling due to religious reasons**. I personally modify this to all willing and able people; After all, back then only white men could vote, and we have a number of amendments expanding that right. Federal law right now has all 'able bodied' men between 17 and 45, as well as female national guard.
People - Somewhat generic, but was frequently restricted to 'White men'. Today, I pretty much apply it to 'Anybody in the country' - With some concessions for incompetent or violently criminal people.
Arms - Weapons, personal use. Not WMD, large bombs, etc... It has to be reasonably usable in a discriminate fashion. You can stuff a frag grenade into the definition, but not sarin gas.
Keep & Bear - Own and carry/transport. Even use under the appropriate circumstances.
infringed - 1st definition in the American Heritage Dictionary(2nd one down). As in, if it violates a person's ability to 'keep and bear', it's wrong.
Sure... Right... Look, I own a .50cal black power rifle. It's about the same size as many period
I don't read AC A human right
I would love to hear an example of a situation were at no point an solution not involving firearms was available.
The problem I have with this statement is What do you consider solutions? What's acceptable? Sure, there are measures that might solve a situation given 20/20 foresight. "Honey, I'm not going to work today, otherwise I'll have to shoot the scumbag that's going to shoot the place up while robbing it."
Otherwise, search some self-defense blogs. The biggest one I remember I don't have a link handy too, but involved a grandmother versus an extremely large escaped convict. She ended up shooting him, and he ended up expiring from his wounds, but he would have killed her otherwise, and almost did despite being shot six times.
Ghandi was instrumental in the changing of entire societies and the may never once took violent action and he lived through far worse times than anyone in the US born after Vietnam has ever had to live through.
Ah.. You mentioned Gandhi... I love the guy, and some quotes of his:
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest
And despite his non-violence, he still died 'by the sword'. Sure, there's the saying 'Those who live by the sword die by the sword', but many innocents die from the sword anyways in that context. I don't 'live by the sword', but stand ready to take it up against those who do.
Nowhere in the second amendment of the US constitution does it say what type of "arms" only that the right to bear arms, if you read it this way, will not be infringed. Until the Government declares all possible weapons as being illegal the second amendment is still being upheld.
Kinda like how in Mexico it's gotten watered down to the point that the allowed 'arms' are jokes? Where corruption rules? No thanks. 'Shall not be infringed' is a whole lot stronger than a simple 'allowed with regulations'.
I raised in a family that frequently hunted but that does not give me the right to change the meaning of the amendments of the constitution to fit my current needs or to determine alone what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Yeah, but that very constitution gives me the right to attempt to have it changed, through my own words and actions.
I don't read AC A human right
How about when you search for Walmart and see my "Boycott Walmart" ad? Obviously protected speech. But where do you draw the line between that and Bobmart's ad saying "Walmart's prices are higher than ours"?
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
...keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning... You use of the phrase "whenever possible" pretty much gives you the right to make up what ever meaning you want, unless of course you personal communications with the framers. The understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is one of the tasks of the Supreme court. If you don't like there interpretations then feel free to elect different judges when then chance comes around, which I assume you will. But don't get all high and mighty and act like your personal interpretation is some how guaranteed to be how the original documents were intended. Look, I own aSorry you don't like the question I posed but so far I have yet to have someone come to me with an example where there was no other course of action, that would have actually resolved the issue, other than use of deadly force. You know as well as I that there were many alternate solutions to the example you gave, and that there is no proof that the convict in question would have killed the victim, unless of course you have abilities to see alternate outcomes that the rest of us can't, specially if no violent means of resolution were employed. Does this mean if I perceived my child's life was in danger that I would not take what ever means I had available to remove that perception? Of course not, I'm not half the man Ghandi was and as much as I would like to live a life of true non violence I know that I have the capability to harm, maim and kill.
And speaking of Ghandi, you point out two great things. First that Ghandi was an opponent of disarmament of an entire nation, and that he died by firearm. The fact that Ghandi did not support the whole sale removal of all weaponry from a nation does not mean that he supported a complete lack of regulation of deadly arms. Ghandi's death, on the other hand, is great example of a situation where the availability of firearms would not have saved him from death, no mater how many weapons he could have carried or used the out come would have been the same. Now had his assailant not had access to weapons with deadly force, Ghandi may have lived a number of additional years.
All of that is beside the point, as usual. The points are that there are always solutions to solvable problems other than deadly force, and more direct to the thread, that the constitution does not unilaterally protect an individuals right to own and use firearms without regulation. If you want to change the laws of to country so that select citizens (sense I rarely hear people standing up for the rights of rehabilitated criminals) do have that right to own arms of any level of lethality, then feel free to convince people to support you and elect officials that support that stance, but do not try and state that your belief is the correct one because of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. And if you really what to fight for reinstatement of constitutional amendments that look at the 9th and 10th as for more clearly defined and regularly misused or disused.
You use of the phrase "whenever possible" pretty much gives you the right to make up what ever meaning you want, unless of course you personal communications with the framers.
.32ACP pistol doesn't trump a .44cal flintlock pistol at 7 yards if the guy with the flintlock hits.
.45(two of the biggest carry calibers) barely dent 3/16" steel. The rounds that penetrate, I'll note, look a lot like rifle bullets. Small diameter for their length, necked cases. I'll also note that the very properties that allow them to penetrate steel also make them suboptimal for self defense. IE they aren't very deadly.
Sometimes situations crop up that are really unusual, so interpretation is required. It's tough for me to say absolutes, as if there's even one exception it's no longer an absolute in my mind. For example, the whole 'people' thing. Back then you could sometimes translate it(by founder intent) as 'White Land-owning Men'. There are things that the founders never envisioned. Stuff like a nuclear bomb. Automatic weapons are easy; there were some works using multiple barrels even back then.
The internet, I'm sure they didn't have a clue, but I give it the same protection by the 1st as I give old manual printing presses.
Both are advances in technology.
Mind you that is also regardless of the fact that the founding fathers never use the term "regulated" to mean what you think it means anywhere else in the Constitution.
Ok, the 2nd grands the government the right to regulate the milita. Still doesn't allow it to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Nice leap there. You can't honestly tell me you are using a modern production black powder rifle as a measurement of 18th century unrifled flint/match lock muskets? The difference in Muzzle Velocity is staggeringly different.
No, actually it isn't. While mine is more a duplication of a civil war piece, but it's performance characteristics are the same. Percussion/flint/match locks are all just ignition methods. FFg and FFFg are Black powder, the same stuff as used back then. Heck, the ratings on powder granularity date from back then as well.
but the point that a 1700 musket or pistol is even remotely comparable to modern firearms is quit laughable.
They both propel a lead projectile. A modern firearm can indeed be more powerful; but a
And since you obviously know what the original writers of the constitution thought then I am sure you know they never perceived people carrying around concealed hand guns capable of punching holes through inches of steel.
Now you're exaggerating again. 9mm &
They'd have wondered what the big deal about concealing it. At least for the 'gentlemen', carrying something was pretty standard. Carrying openly was accepted. So wasn't carrying in a pocket of a coat for convienence. More knives than firearms, in many cases, but still. Why would they worry about the 'sheer' power? Gunshot wounds are more survivable today than they were back then. Lead Ball inflicts nasty wounds even compared to modern hollowpoints, though medical technology has made the real difference.
I don't read AC A human right
Hey friend, I strongly support the right of citizens to possess the tools to defend themselves against criminals, foreign invaders, and corrupt governments. However, I suggest you reconsider the question posed on the entry page of your website. It shouts out that you are either stupid or dishonest, causing me to discount everything else you attempt to communicate.
In particular, "a useful tool" and "a liability" aren't opposites at all. A liability is simply something like (the trash or a loan that I have to pay someone to take away from me. The opposite of a liability is an asset, something I must pay to get, but if I possess it, I can sell it for money. Clearly, a gun is an asset. You have routed everyone with an understanding of assets and liabilties to the other option If this person wants to avoid choosing the option that is clearly wrong,, they must indicate that they think a gun is a "useful tool", which ever side of "gun control" they are on. You want them to make a leap from agreeing with you on this nonissue, to agreeing with you on a real issue.
To continue, just about anything that isn't purely recreational can be a tool. A tool is useful if anyone has a use for it. A use doesn't have to be good, even criminals have their tools. Therefore, a tool is always an asset, even isn't useful to me, Therefore, the "useful tool" option is always correct. But, this is by your obviosly manipulative design. Me, being the cynic that you are forcing me to be, thinks you are being dishonest. By being so obviously manipulative, you are not helping your apparent side. Or maybe you are really on the other side, trying to convince me that only dishonest, stupid nutcases worry about infringement of the 2nd. But, it doesn't matter, I've already discounted everything you say.
As any clearheaded proponent on either side of the gun control issue knows, it isn't the gun that's a problem, it is how the gun is used that can be a problem. The real problem is that you can't control how someone might use their assets, but you might be able to control who has what kind of assets. Reasonable people can disagree on how to solve this problem.
This isn't supposed to be a thread about guns. I suggest you move this discussion to a forum intended for that. But, I suggest that take it to a website that is attractive to reasonable and honest people. Your site, as currently designed, doesn't qualify.
I am a Utah resident who believes in freedom! I also believe the voice of the people should be heard, and since my state's elected officials have seen fit (had the audacity) to try and legislate how the global Internet works, I believe they need to hear from all of its (the Internet's) users. (They always say, if you don't like what's happening, let them know about it.) Well, may I suggest we take them up on this offer.
Below are links to Utah's Representatives ("the new fathers of Internet law"):
Utah State Senate Roster (Email & Phone)
Utah State House Roster (Email--Click on individual for additional contact info)
Utah Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel
Utah Governor (Office Contact Info & Link to Online Feedback Forms)
Utah Lieutenant Governor (Office & online form)
Utah Attorney General
Just for fun, Dan Eastman's website (Bill's sponsor)
Crazy Utah Lawmaker