Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Versus Billionaire
Roger Whittaker writes "An interesting case in England is pitting the combined power of multiple bloggers against an Uzbek billionaire. The bloggers are supporting the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has written a book about what happened there after the fall of Communism. The book is apparently unflattering in the extreme to oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who has engaged the law firm Schillings (which seems to specialize in getting unfavorable Web content removed for rich clients). Their threats have led to the removal of Murray's blog site by his hosting company Fasthosts. But a large number of bloggers have taken up Murray's cause, and the content that caused the original complaint, and links to it, have now sprung up in a very large number of places. The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it."
If this jerk had simply kept his trap shut and his legal team leashed, I would never have heard of him. But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Attempting to suppress a piece of information nowadays practically guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than ever before, and with enough redundant links to remind you that the Net's underlying protocols were designed to survive WWIII.
Not sure if any kind of pornography or other forms of free speech should be censored; once you start the process, there's no stopping.
On the other hand, producing or sponsoring sick materials involving children, rape, etc. might very well deserve an execution, or life imprisonment at least...
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
While I agree that this guy does seem like an arse, I have a thought experiment: What if someone were to make up a story like "I found out that John Howard was taking bribes from George Bush to influence Australian lawmaking -- but when I blogged about it, the AFP had my webhost pull my blog!"? They could manipulate this phenomenon to spread misinformation and people would end up believing it.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
...but the people who are on it. But still, I applaud them for standing up to the bully that he is.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
What if in some other case the information were completely false? If somebody posted your name and said that you were involved in perpetrating the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? And they made sure that the information was spread far enough over the Internet that a Google search on your name would bring it up?
Would you still be an "aggressive prick" (your words) for trying to correct the record? It's undoubtedly slander to knowingly falsely accuse somebody of that sort of heinous crime. But it's the sort of thing that a flat "I didn't do it" wouldn't work on. Most people aren't going to read far enough to find your denial, and even if they did why would they believe it?
That's the hard case. Think it over.
But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
That's what a defamation suit is for, but if you look around, they specifically aren't claiming defamation -- they're just dealing out take down notices under the draconian anti-speech rules in Britain. Secondly, given the author's position, he is quite likely a highly knowledgeable source. Last, even if totally false, he has by his own aggressive actions made the problem worse, which was my point.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"Alshithead regularly engages in producing child pornography.
;)) whereas in America you'd lose (after all, my comment is vague enough that its impossible to disprove)? Sounds like England might have the slightly better system in this regard."
;) :) Fucked up world we live in, isn't it?
So you're saying that in England you would win a lawsuit against me (unless you did and I proved it of course
Great example and you expose a part of my point that I neglected. In the US as long as you say, "IN MY OPINION alshithead regularly engages in producing child pornography", you would most likely be okay. State it as opinion in USA and you can get away with almost anything. There are exceptions, I wouldn't try that with a well known, public figure like the President or Oprah. Public figures seem to have better protection although, not absolute. Look at the rumors of Hilary Clinton being a lesbian and President Bush invading Iraq for oil. Both are out there and no one has sued yet. And, IN MY OPINION, I have to agree England may have the better system and "speaker of the truth" tells only lies and has sexual relations with both of his/her parents.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
No it wouldn't. Censorship suggests that something in the public interest is being suppressed. It is not in the public interest for people's personal details to be left lying around. However, it is in the public interest to know which companies are lax with personal data, or whether a billionaire's assets are mostly ill-gotten gains.
This is the trouble with many simplistic rants on Slashdot - because $FOO is considered a good thing, then $BAR must be "otherwise your opinion is inconsistent". Whereas anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that it's not quite as clear cut as that, and someone's personal bank details are not the same thing as whether someone's business dealings are legal or not.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Usmanov is also dogged by the widespread belief in Uzbekistan that he was guilty of a particularly atrocious rape, which was covered up and the victim and others in the know disappeared. The sad thing is that this is not particularly remarkable. Rape by the powerful is an everyday hazard in Uzbekistan, again as outlined in Murder in Samarkand page 120. If anyone has more detail on the specific case involving Usmanov please add a comment.
Don't want to side with the bad guy, but...
The section above leaves me feeling very uncomfortable. If someone made this kind of unsubstantiated allegation towards me, I would want it removed.
'Widespread belief' is very difficult to quantify and in any event, is certainly not proof of guilt.
To be clear he was removed from post, not fired. He remained an employee of the UK government. The government claimed that it was for operational reasons and nothing to do with him claiming that the British security services had used information obtained by the Uzbek's through torture.
While there was talk of disciplinary action he eventually agreed to resign having negociated a very sizable settlement.
His blog did have a fairly detailed decription of it before it was taken down.
Yeah, in the newly released Corruption Perceptions Index, Uzbekistan was tied for the 4th most corrupt country in the world. Of course, Kazakhstan wasn't too far behind. Maybe next year they'll beat out Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, or the Republic of the Congo :)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
I'd hope that Meg White would try to remove references to her name in association with the sex tape or demand clarifications. But you'd call that "censorship" and call it morally wrong. How can it possibly be morally wrong to remove your name from sex tape that you didn't make?
This really is a knee-jerk response; how can it be morally right? Indeed, morality may not be involved at all. These are both good questions to ask, but there is an obvious essential truth; Meg White is a raging hottie. Nine out of ten guys would bang her, given the opportunity - and we'd all like to think a fair number of left-leaning girls, too. The intertubes have a hard on for her, and she isn't going to be able to deny that by trying to pull any or even all references to a possible sex tape.
Admit it, the whole idea of a sex tape fascinates you. You, and everybody else.
Meg trying to deny that this rumor existed is not only foolhardy, but disingenuous. If there is a sex tape, then you can't morally say there is not. If there is not a sex tape, it says nothing about you that there is a rumor that there is - only muddle headed thinking would suggest so. It only says something about the social zeitgeist. Which, I think we can all agree, really digs Meg White.
"And the message coming from my eyes says, 'Leave it alone.'"
[Ego]out