City Sues To Prevent Linking To Its Website

Mike writes "In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind case, the Sheboygan city attorney ordered Jennifer Reisinger to remove a link to the city's police department from her Web site. The city went further, she claims, launching a criminal investigation of her for linking to the department on one of her sites, and in response she's suing the mayor and the city. 'The mayor decided to use his office to get back at Jennifer for her efforts in the recall and picked this to do it,' said her attorney, Paul Bucher. It appears this will go to court, and the question will be can a city (or any business or Web property) stop people from posting a link to its site?"

Comments

Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[tjstork]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Rary]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Not only that, but the headline says that the city is suing the woman, but both the article and the summary state that the woman is suing the city. Did the editor even read the summary?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[TubeSteak]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

The problem is that the city issued a cease and desist order in the first place.
Just because they withdrew it doesn't change the fact that they engaged in an abuse of process.

Good on Reisinger for counter-suing and hopefully establishing some case law on the matter.

Example: In November, the **AA withdrew its cease and desist order that Slashdot not link to bittorrent sites.
Still don't see the issue?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[MiKM]

In November

Still don't see the issue?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[digitalunity]

Intimidation to cause censorship. The city attempted to hinder her 1st amendment rights. She fought back and the city backed down, but that doesn't make what they did right.

The city needs to be made an example of in the court of law for all to see so as to dissuade others from trying the same thing.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years):

Calling people who disagree with your political views "lunatics" isn't racist. But it sure is bigoted, arrogant, and insulting to people who have mental problems.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[PunkOfLinux]

I defend not what you say, but your right to say it. Go eat the earth flag.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[hedwards]

No, the statute of limitations is probably going to be at least 2 years and possibly 3. It would even be legitimate to file the suit right before the deadline.

In most civilized countries one doesn't have to rush out immediately to file suit, people are generally able to try to fix the problem or to mull things over. November was only 10 months ago. She'd likely have at least 14 more to file.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're getting at.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[theNetImp]

oh be quiet you lunatic ;-)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Chris Rhodes]

Maybe the city gets charged for extra bandwidth, and someone wants to slashdot their police department site as revenge?

It wouldn't be the first time someone used slashdot as a dos tool, IIRC

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[lysergic.acid]

a woman posts a link to a municipal government website, so the mayor sends her a cease-and-desist letter and then launches a police investigation on her to intimidate the woman and coerce her into removing the link. and you see nothing wrong here?

it doesn't matter that the city withdrew its demand after the lawsuit was filed (or possibly after the media broke the story). the point is that government officials should not be bullying political dissidents like this--especially not in concert with the police department.

the woman in this story was smart enough to contact a lawyer and fight back, but most people would probably be intimidated and just back down. this story should be reported if only so others know that such demands have no legal basis.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Malevolyn]

Go eat the earth flag.

Not the one made out of skin, of course.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Fishead]

It must be their Flash animation that's causing all the bandwidth. Why does a city need a flash banner?

http://ci.sheboygan.wi.us/

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[andy1307]

Reisinger alleges her First Amendment rights were violated by the city. She seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and unspecified declaratory relief.

The amount she's asking for is excessive but I hope she wins a smaller amount.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Khyber]

Excessive? In a case like this the maximum is $500,000 per charge. Asking for half of that is not excessive, especially when it comes to the government stepping on a citizen's 1st Amendment rights.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Chris Rhodes]

To root your windows box and look for child porn? I jest, it is probably because the tool used to create the flash banner was taught to the graphic designer in his six month course where he/she got a two-year degree in computer science. Way easier than all that markup and JavaScript - I mean, have you ever tried to figure out a heirarchical data structure?

Sheesh, drag 'n drop is way superior to thinking. Or having to work with one of those icky 'coders' who complains if you change your image dimensions halfway through the project.

Flash is awesome!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[TeacherOfHeroes]

If /. wants to pontificate about censorship they should do it in the cause of a more upright citizen.

Isn't the whole point of free speech that people should be free to say what they'd like especially when others find it distastful or inappropriate?

Its not really freedom if you're only allowed to say tasteful things, is it?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[SirSlud]

It's irresponsible on the part of slashdot, plain and simple. Honestly, thats just abusing the power of passing along information, treating subjects they claim to be important as no more important to review as a fun game of broken telephone.

Okay now that that's out the way, what think you? It seems nutty that the parties involved have resolved their differences, and she's suing until you consider:

FTA: "The city went further, the lawsuit claims, launching a criminal investigation of Reisinger for linking to the department on one of her sites."

What were the charges, what were the purported the basis's for it, and what is the evidence? I get the idea that she's had to put up with some seriously threatening shit, just for what she wrote but I don't get how linking to government websites has anything to do with it. Clearly, by the city backing down, it doesn't, so if you're a journalist going to report on it, do some real work and tell me what they brought against her criminally, not that they initially wrote her legalese in an initial attempt to scare her.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Lucky75]

The whole point of free speech is that you have the right to express your opinions without fear of persecution, whether or not you are in agreement with the majority, but that you ALSO have the responsibility to use that right responsibly. For example, you can't shout out "FIRE" and cause a panic, because even though you had the "right" to say it, it was irresponsible and could cause harm to others.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[oldhack]

...Did the editor even read the summary?

"editor", eh?! You'll learn soon, grasshopper.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RMB2]

I'm sorry, citizens have the "responsibility" of acting "responsibly"? And whom exactly is in charge of the subjective definition of "responsibly"?

Additionally, you earn +0 Karma for misinterpreting the First Amendment. A very simple search would tell you that
1) The Supreme Court decision (Schenck v. United States in 1919) only described falsely shouting fire in a theater, and
2)

Schenck was later limited by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day.

You might notice that no mention is made of "responsible" action. I, for one, find the lack of such subjectivity to be a good thing.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the First Amendment restricts the federal government, not the city governments. ...unless you live in Congress, AZ.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[William Robinson]

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war

Married people would differ with this.

And, obviously, another difference between war and marriage is, you can sleep with enemy...

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Greyor]

Hmm... also from TFA:

Reisinger told a Journal Sentinel reporter in July 2006 she did not know who put up the altered photo because the Web site allowed anyone to upload to the site.

Unless she's just making that up, it sounds like her site had some wiki sort of elements to it, or at least some type of dynamic, editable pages.

*shrugs* All I'm saying is that it needn't have been her who put that image up, and she's made a point of distancing herself from it.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[rs79]

Where's the cop page? I was gonna link to it.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably haven't heard, but if you RTFA, you'd find out that most lawsuits in the US are very expensive.. Few people can afford them. This means that those that can; for example a Mayor using someone elses money; use the mere threat of a suit to shut people up. The crime (an attempted attack with an unjustified lawsuit) has already been committed. It's like coming up to mug someone with a knife then walking away saying "what's the big deal; why do you want to call the police when I'm not going to mug you anyway" after they pull a gun.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Not only that, but the headline says that the city is suing the woman, but both the article and the summary state that the woman is suing the city. Did the editor even read the summary?

Obviously not, kdawson is a fucking douche.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[atraintocry]

That's true...in my state free speech is a "First Article, Fourth Section" right.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[ReedYoung]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Hint: not the city's eventual respect of the victim's unalienable legal right to free speech.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 ..."makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same)." It's a felony, not water under the bridge.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Repossessed]

you can't shout out "FIRE" and cause a panic

Why do people constantly use an argument meant to typify speech which leads to violence, injury and destruction, when attacking speech which does no such thing?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Hal_Porter]

From http://www.bratcitywebdesign.com/

Sheboygan Police department sued Jennifer Reisinger when she added a link to them on her website

This post should be indexed by Google quite soon ;-)

Mod me up if you support FREEDOM and oppose FASCISM!!!11

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Dan541]

Let's honour their wishes since its costing the tax payer.

Ok,
NO ONE LINK TO THIS SITE,
http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/

 

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Dekker3D]

don't think in the scale of "one woman". think in the scale of "a whole city's decision-maker department that needs to learn something from this". then, $250,000 is faaaaar too little.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Legion_SB]

Did the editor even read the summary?

Hmm... good question! Let's consult The Great Computer!

truth editorHasClue(char* editorName)
{
if (editorName[0] = 'k')
return FALSE;
else
return POSSIBLY NOT FALSE;
}

(note: "truth" is a new data type to help with all of this newfangled truthiness programming)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[pla]

But it sure is bigoted, arrogant, and insulting to people who have mental problems.

Presuming, of course, that you believe the moon causes those mental problems.

Otherwise, words like that just don't carry the same sting they once did, making them basically useless.

Now racial epithets, there we have the real "punch" words in modern society. Of course, not just any racial epithets... Call someone a mick or a wetback, and no one bats an eyelash. Spick, chink, kike, pretty much the same, but generally not good to drop in polite company. But use any of the assorted names for black people, and watch the brains of everyone in the room reboot as they look around in a panic to see if any of "them" heard you.

Thus, the GP chose the powerful (if incorrect) term "racist" over the far weaker "insulting to people who have mental problems".

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Missing_dc]

Ok,
NO ONE LINK TO THIS SITE,
http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/

 

Cool, I was visitor 106149 at 539am EST.
How about you?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Sobrique]

"New Page 1".

Bah. Amateurs.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Longwalker-MGO]

Also, from TFA she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years If /. wants to pontificate about censorship they should do it in the cause of a more upright citizen.

Talk about an upright citizen!!! Why is it every time someone does not toe the liberal line of allowing ILLEGAL aliens into this country they are labelled racist??? If you do not like the law, do something about and get the law changed. Otherwise stop calling everyone a racist just because they dont agree with your particular point of view.

People are allowed to disagree with you and want our laws upheld.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[stephanruby]

a woman posts a link to a municipal government website, so the mayor sends her a cease-and-desist letter and then launches a police investigation on her to intimidate the woman and coerce her into removing the link. and you see nothing wrong here?

I think I found her site, and her site is actually worse than the police department's web site (if you can believe it). It kept on making my firefox crash, the only way I could see it was with Internet Explorer. Otherwise, her site is pretty interesting content-wise, it's no wonder the city hates her guts.

[Warning: use IE to open, not firefox] http://sheboyganshenanigans.com/?cat=6

And also, I found another site that dared linking to the Sheboygan PD.

http://www.ratemycop.com/index.php?st=WI&dept=8376 (ah, the wonders of the internet)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

no

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

FIRE! RAPE! FIRE!

La la la... oh wait, I withdraw my statement.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised no one has linked to her circuit court page. If she wasn't past youthful indiscretions by age 35, why should anyone think at 49 she doesn't have a need transfer blame for her failings to police and immigrants. There are hundreds of spiteful compulsive liers who've destroyed careers and lives by abusing the power of free speech. Hate speech and web defamation is far more subtle and sinister than shouting fire in a theater. That being said, I'd drop the case against her, log a restraining order and wait If she follow the all to familiar pattern, she'll commit a more outrageous act next week which can easily be categorized as "assault", @fraud" or "conspiracy" which are catch alls for threats before actual violence. ... Yeah I was a minority report judge, what's it to ya? Move along, nothin' ta see here, eh?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm voting for McCain you insensitive clod

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RiotingPacifist]

But the police didn't do anything facist they just asked her not to link to their page! otoh i would like to does people who use flash banners so im torn.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Timothy Brownawell]

[Warning: use IE to open, not firefox]

It seems to work just fine in Iceweasel (3.0.1, maybe old versions are broken?).

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[MMC Monster]

I'm from the moon, you insensitive clod!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[crispy_one]

Nice. I was visitors 107462 - 107500...

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Tenebrousedge]

That makes you a maverick, not a lunatic.

You and a hundred fifty million other people.

Okay, so that was a joke: there aren't a hundred fifty million people that vote in this country.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Hognoxious]

I'm from something that's no moon, you insensitive clod!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[torstenvl]

This is not an insightful post. Screaming ILLEGAL! doesn't get you anywhere when, you know, we're talking about changing the law.

Activist: We should decriminalize medical marijuana!
You: BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!

Grandma: I should be allowed to take Nexium for my chronic heartburn without paying a fortune to go get my prescription renewed
You: BUT ITS A PRESCRIPTION DRUG! THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!

White Woman: I am really in love with Denzel Washington. I would definitely marry him.
You (a generation ago): BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!

Next time you might want to try NOT spewing nonsense. "[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[CastrTroy]

President Bush would disagree.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[torstenvl]

No, it does not. It restricts the Federal government, the state government, and all local governments.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[IMightB]

I *hate* illegal immigration I think that the aliens should all be crated up and shipped back to their home countries. If they want to come back so bad, they'll have to do it legally.

I DO have standing, my wife is a *legal* immigrant, and everytime I hear that someone wants to let the illegals stay, I/we feel like we've been kicked in the collective nuts. I mean we're idiots right? for doing things legally I mean. Who knew that there were things like laws and stuff.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[guruevi]

I think the city's still thinks it's the early 90's:

WebFacing requires Internet Explorer 5.5 or greater. You can down-load the latest version from http://www.microsoft.com/ie.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[pbhj]

The article appears to show that rare thing - journalistic integrity. Why do I say that?

Well, peppered throughout are statements about the source of any particular bit of information. The only source is the lawsuit which has been filed.

"The cityâ(TM)s actions torpedoed Reisingerâ(TM)s Web site marketing business and led to death threats against her, according to the lawsuit."

I can't see how getting a C&D letter and acting on it lead to death threats? Then there's this curious part:

Reisinger said she felt intimidated by McLeanâ(TM)s letter and removed the link. Then a police lieutenant told Reisinger he was investigating her use of links to city government sites, the suit says.

What, did a police lieutenant just ring her up to tell her? The claim that her business suffered loss of earnings because she had to remove this link is laughable.

It appears that Reisinger was performing a smear campaign against Mayor Perez (note the bit about photoshopped images). Perez probably complained and the police would naturally of investigated the complaint to see if anything illegal was happening.

My /prima facie/ view is that Reisinger sounds like a bit of a nut-case trying to grind a huge axe and use it to cut up some immigrants. But the reports don't give us enough to establish verity of any of the lawsuits claims.

I don't quite understand the [apparent] forcefulness of your [lysergic.acid's] response; what other information are you privy to? If people trying to conduct a nationalistically motivated slur campaign back down I think that's probably a good thing. Again, what am I missing?

---
Note that: http://www.sheboyganpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/SHE0101/808260434/1973 gives a link to download the C&D letter, http://www.sheboyganpress.com/assets/pdf/U0116421825.PDF, which seems both fair and reasonable to me. Without seeing exactly how the link was used it's hard to say if she should have acted on the letter or not.

See also http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/city-sheboygan-v-reisinger

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[fracai]

The Moon rules!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[SengirV]

Also, from TFA she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years):

Ah yes, the party of tolerance. Well, tolerant as long as you think exactly the way they do. Otherwise you are racist, bigot, inbred, etc...

The hypocrisy is amazing.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[PawNtheSandman]

Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[PawNtheSandman]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no karma, and may FSM have mercy on your soul.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Fozzyuw]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Being from the area (born and raised in the county), this story is pretty old. It also had everything to do with the fact that the women in question was an out-spoken critic of the Sheboygan mayor, Perez. The whole thing is the fact that the mayor abusing his power to make a critics life difficult. Unfortunately for the major, and fortunately for the public, the mayor was pretty clueless about the ridiculous request he made (among many of his other ridiculous things he's done).

The whole thing hit local media pretty fast and the backlash was pretty big and the city withdrew it's request some time ago.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

We love the moon, cause it is close to us.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Lershac]

I think its just the initial act of asking her in a C&D letter to remove it. They officially as government representatives attempted to abridge her 1st amendment rights. Thats pretty much all it takes for her to have a basis for a pretty darn good lawsuit. Someone will be regretting the hell out of that.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[PMuse]

No, it's sexist! Sexist, I say!! That man was clearly referring to my lipstick!!!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that makes you a Selenite instead of a Lunatic?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Chineseyes]

Call someone a mick or a wetback, and no one bats an eyelash. Spick, chink, kike, pretty much the same, but generally not good to drop in polite company. But use any of the assorted names for black people, and watch the brains of everyone in the room reboot as they look around in a panic to see if any of "them" heard you.

Where is it that you live that people don't cringe in panic at any of those words? Calling someone any of those terms in NYC will likely result in you getting your ass kicked.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[nordah]

If /. wants to pontificate about censorship they should do it in the cause of a more upright citizen.

Rodney King wasn't exactly a model citizen but that doesn't make discussion any less meritorious.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RingDev]

Keep in mind though, this is white-bread Wisconsin. A few anecdotes for ya.

Over a decade ago I was in boot camp in San Diego. We had one guy in our platoon who didn't pull his own weight. He was lazy, lacked motivation, and was about as bright as a door stop. Field days in particular, he would sit on his foot locker while everyone else was working. One morning, another recruit, fed up with the guy's lack of effort called him a porch monkey and told him to get off his ass. Being from white-bread Wisconsin, I just assumed he was calling the guy lazy, I mean, we have people who sit around on their porches sucking up unemployment insurance and welfare in Wisconsin, and in the town I grew up in, where we had 4 black families out of a pop of 7k, the vast majority of the 'porch monkeys' were most definitely white. I was a little surprised to see the recruit who said it get raked over the coals for it by the DI's.

Just two weeks ago, some republican senator referred to the Obamas as "Uppity". That's another term, being from white-bread Wisconsin, I was familiar with. It's used to describe someone who is behaving not of their social/economic class. It's crass and rude, but I had never heard of it being referred to as a racially charged word. But apparently, it is. Who knew?

I've traveled around the world, and at every stop there are differences in language, social interactions, and social expectations. What is clearly a racial term to one person can be just another insult to a different person. So while I haven't read the TFA or websites, bear in mind that not everyone has the same experiences as you.

-Rick

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

The corollary to the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is that there is no amount of power however small that can not be abused.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[kalirion]

return POSSIBLY NOT FALSE;

Oh, come on, do we really need operator overloading here?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the ilegal aliens that came to USA to decimate the rightful citicens, take their jobs, their homes, their land?

It never cease to amuse me that being a country made of 90%ish inmigrants, have so much hate and draconic laws against them.

Mod me as flamebait, I don't care.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Screaming ILLEGAL! doesn't get you anywhere when, you know, we're talking about changing the law.

You do realize that you're arguing against yourself here, right?

In other words, "screaming" is a form of talking. If screaming one thing won't get you somewhere, neither will screaming about changing the law. A for effort (I know people like you always like to get some sort of recognition, even for failure.)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[D Ninja]

Okay, so that was a joke: there aren't a hundred fifty million people that vote in this country.

...I'm not really sure that is a joke. :-(

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Random BedHead Ed]

I'm caught in his tractor beam, you insensitive clod!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[KUHurdler]

The whole thing could have been solved with:

<LIMIT GET>
order deny,allow
deny from <<jennfiers-website.com>>
</Limit>

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Lucky75]

Well, first of all, I'm referring to the Canadian laws, not American laws.

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but yelling FIRE in a crowded room would indeed start a panic and incite a riot or at least a mass exodus of people trying to get out. Many have been injured or killed in such circumstances.

Thirdly, oh yes, wikipedia is by far the best resource to find interpretations of laws. Definitely better than any criminal code or anything like that. [/sarcasm]

Fourthly, I was indeed referring to FALSELY shouting FIRE in a crowded room, since mistakenly doing so is still acting in a responsible manner (unless you count negligence).

Fifthly, the law would be the ones in charge of the definition of responsible. The word "reasonable" comes to mind here, as in "did they reasonably believe that their actions wouldn't cause any harm?" The law is the decider here, as it is in most (er.... make that all) cases.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about the cease and desist order...no harm no foul in my mind. The problem for me, and what I hope the woman is suing over, is that the city had the police proceed with a criminal investigation of her for a web link. A WEB LINK. wtf?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[afabbro]

Otherwise, words like that just don't carry the same sting they once did, making them basically useless.

Speaking of useless, what is the difference between:

• basically useless
• useless

"Basically" is perhaps the most useless word in the English language. It is never needed, helpful, or useful. Watch how it's used and you'll see it never modifies meaning.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[torstenvl]

Where did I scream to change the law? I didn't take a position on the issue one way or another. I just said his argument is full of tripe.

You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills, buddy. I happen to think that we should restrict the number of people immigrating into my country. I just don't think circular, reactionary arguments like "It should be illegal because they're ILLEGAL!" are particularly useful as part of any policy discussion.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Brain-Fu]

Why do people constantly use an argument meant to typify speech which leads to violence, injury and destruction, when attacking speech which does no such thing?

Because the Dicto simpliciter fallacy is effective at tripping up most people. The most popular fallacies are those that make irrational ideas sound rational to the largest number of people, after all.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[zigmeister]

How about a little f-ing context. Also from TFA:

Reisinger ran several Web sites and also was active in an unsuccessful recall effort against the mayor. A recall site she created later showed a Fourth of July parade photograph of Perez with a U.S. flag that had been digitally replaced with a Mexican flag and the caption, âoePower to illegals?â Reisinger told a Journal Sentinel reporter in July 2006 she did not know who put up the altered photo because the Web site allowed anyone to upload to the site.

Asshole.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[ch0knuti]

140003 @ 19:11 Moscow time

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[spun]

she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years):

Calling people who disagree with your political views "lunatics" isn't racist. But it sure is bigoted, arrogant, and insulting to people who have mental problems.

I know! At least people with mental problems have an excuse...

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which McCain? The Maverick for Reform (circa 2000) or the Reformed Maverick (as of late). Just hurry up and get your stem cells before he takes office!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[spun]

Otherwise, words like that just don't carry the same sting they once did, making them
basically useless.

Speaking of useless, what is the difference between:

• basically useless
• useless

"Basically" is perhaps the most useless word in the English language. It is never needed, helpful, or useful. Watch how it's used and you'll see it never modifies meaning.

I'm not sure that's true:

Basically, the solution neutralized an acid.

Basically, the program was written in a crappy language from Microsoft.

See? There are uses for 'basically.'

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[hclewk]

so if you're a journalist going to report on it

Who's a journalist?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Holi]

Well except mick. no one seems worry about offending us.

"We'll take the niggers and the chinks, but we don't want the Irish." - Mel Brooks / Blazing Saddles

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[lupis42]

1: Open tab. 2: Set tab to auto-reload every 5 seconds. 3: ??? 4: Profit.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[spun]

Just because you don't understand what his point was, does not mean the point was idiotic. 'Allowing illegal aliens into the country' is an idiotic statement. If it's allowed, it's not illegal. How can you not understand one simple sentence, conveying a simple and self-evidently true idea?

Now, you my not agree with his premise, but to call it idiotic is merely to display your own lack of comprehension. It is not an indictment of the parent post.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Mister Whirly]

Basically, you are right.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Mister Whirly]

Well now that you have that all figured out, please define "indecent" and "pornography".

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[pablo.cl]

Correct text for your link: Sheboygan Police department sent a cease and desist letter to Jennifer Reisinger when she added a link to them on her website

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The most popular fallacies are those that make irrational ideas sound rational to the largest number of people, after all."

You mean like "Sarah Palin is capable of being Vie President." - those type of irrational ideas?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOOOOOSH!

Rent Billy Madison from your local video store.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[VolciMaster]

Calling someone any of those terms in NYC will likely result in you getting your ass kicked.

Right: no eyelashes batting - just a good, old-fashioned ass-whoopin!

That's the difference between New Yorkers and everybody else: if we're offended, we beat your ass. If we lose, at least we fought :)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[onepoint]

140385 at about 12:10 pm eastern time

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[paiute]

a. Make up a solution so it will basically react with the acid.

b. Make up a solution so it will react with the acid.

There

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

November = Elections season in the US.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[gnarlyhotep]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites. SO um, what's the issue?

The fact that a governmental agency attempted to suppress free speech in the first place? Perhaps that's not an issue, but even if they later dropped the demand, I still consider it an issue, and the public servants and elected officials responsible need to be held accountable.

Abuse of power, even if it's now stopped, is henious and demands investigation and the full light of day to be shined upon it, lest it occur again.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[pla]

Speaking of useless, what is the difference between:
* basically useless
* useless

The first expresses a generalization, the second expresses an absolute. I try to avoid speaking in absolutes, as they rarely hold true.


It is never needed, helpful, or useful. Watch how it's used and you'll see it never modifies meaning.

I used it in a way that modifies meaning. A literally useless word may as well not exist, as you could never use it in any context but verbal diarrhea. A basically (would you prefer "mostly"?) useless word, however, still has some uses, just not many.

In this case, they still have meaning, they still have uses, and any of us could describe a context for their correct (if not "polite") use. They don't, however, retain their original sense of racially-charged oomph any longer. You could probably goad someone into a barroom fight with them, if you really tried (but could do the same without resorting to slurs), but most people would simply ignore their use.



Now, if you want to join me in a rant against "very unique", I'll hop on the bandwagon right next to you. :)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

OT but seeing the word porch monkey made me just think of Clerks II where Randal is talking about taking the word back. I needed that laugh.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Tanktalus]

I've got my response narrowed to two options, but can't narrow it further. So, take your pick:

1. I can't define it, but I sure know it when I see it.
2. "The internet."

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[griffeymac]

I think this is actually her site:

http://www.sheboyganspirit.com/

(According to here, anyway: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/city-sheboygan-v-reisinger)

G.--

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[CaptPungent]

Never, EVER, should a public official use the police to investigate any kind of political dissident conducting any kind of "smear" campaign, unless there is clear evidence of violent action (IE, calls for bombing City Hall). VERY few states have criminal defamation laws on the books, it is in nearly every case a civil matter.

Your post reads to me like you're allowing your bias against the message of this woman to shade the morality of law. Thankfully you aren't a judge.

I repeat, the mayor was completely 100% wrong for issuing any kind of C&D and having the police launch a criminal investigation. It was an abuse of power and I hope the man loses his next election based on these abuses.

Also, I take issue with your line "If people trying to conduct a nationalistically motivated slur campaign back down I think that's probably a good thing." I hate the GOP, but I hate more the accusations of "nationalism" from the Liberal side on this issue even more. There's nothing racist or nationalistic about being against individuals subverting the process everyone not sharing our border have to go through in order to enter our nation. To give you a nerd analogy, what you're basically saying is that it's wrong of an admin to block out a hax0r who exploits a back hole into your box. You'd rather the admin just gave him his own account on the box instead since he must really want one bad enough to hax in.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Angelyne]

Isn't that the same people who get into a uproar because Obama used a common expression (new to me!) it's like putting lipstick on a pig. Somehow that was considered sexist and an attack on Palin. Well personally if I was Palin and someone heard the word "pig" spoken and immediately thought it referred to me, I'd be very very insulted.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[AncientOfHerb]

Absolutely, I for one have already gone to the cities website and used the link provided to let the mayor know that the world is watching and disapproves.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Codger]

I grew up in the South. "Uppity" has always had a racial connotation there. I've never heard it applied to anyone who wasn't black.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RingDev]

The lipstick remark was blown way out of proportion by the McCain camp. No idea what's up with that. Obama was clearly using it in reference to McCain plans on the economy, Palin wasn't even part of the conversation. And heck, McCain used the exact same phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton's plans back in the primary season.

I'm no fan of the truth stretching on either side of the isle. But the McCain response to the lipstick remark was more of a "WTF?" moment then anything else.

-Rick

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Codger]

"Lipstick on a pig" is a very old expression. I've heard it used for decades. It has no misogynistic implications at all. The uproar is purely manufactured by a Republican party that knows it can only win by demonizing its opponents.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[_Sprocket_]

"[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.

I see how this works. So if the Government decides to tap phones without a warrant, that's legal. If the Government decides to confiscate property at a whim, it's now legal. If a Government official takes a sizable payment in turn for passing a law, well then... it's legal!

Nonsense indeed.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[CrazedSanity]

The city was suing the woman. It also states:

Reisinger alleges her First Amendment rights were violated by the city. She seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and unspecified declaratory relief.

RTFA?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RingDev]

That's interesting. Up here in the arctic north, uppity is a term used commonly enough to describe upper class or wanna be upper class people mingling with us common people.

For example, not far from where I grew up, on a small farm surrounded by more farms and lower/middle class country folks, a golf course was built. Along with the golf course came a number of really high end houses and people with significantly more money than anyone in the area.

Some of these people were cool enough and well off. While others were uppity snobs. We even had one couple attempt to sue the township, their neighbor, and their realitor because they bought the land in the fall and saw the house get built over the winter. Come spring/summer, the farmers in the area fertilized their fields and the smell was a bit much for them.

I have to admit though, my travelings in the south eastern US are limited. I spent a fair bit of time along the coast in VA and north, and a little bit of time in coal mining country in VA/WV, and a few trips into the mountains of SC, along with the quintessential childhood family trips to Florida. But I haven't had a chance to visit Alabama and Georgia, other then stops for gas and scenic stops.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn many of the things we take for common insults up here in the north have racial undertones in the south, but with my lack of experience in the culture down there, I would have no idea what words would be so charged.

-Rick

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[ReedYoung]

My /prima facie/ view is that Reisinger sounds like a bit of a nut-case trying to grind a huge axe and use it to cut up some immigrants.

You disagree with her. You disapprove of how she uses her right to free speech. But, she has not committed a crime. The cease and desist letter:

October 19, 2007
Ms. Jennifer Reisinger
Brat City Web Design
1819 Settlement Trail
Sheboygan, WI 53081

Dear Ms. Reisinger:

It has been brought to my attention that the website that you operate, namely www.sheboyganspirit.com, includes as one of its "local links" a link to the City of Sheboygan Police Department website.

I am further advised that the City has not authorized this connection to its Police Department website, and we wish to have the link severed until such time as the City were to give authorization.

To the extent that maintenance of this link could be construed as having been authorized or endorsed by the City and/or its Police Department, or that there is some affiliation between your website and the City of Sheboygan, or that we are somehow endorsing your website, we hereby demand that you sever this link and cease and desist from linking your website to the City's Police Department website until such time as the City were to authorize such a link.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Stephen G. McLean
CITY ATTORNEY

A hyperlink does not imply endorsement, only a link to information in another location. Stephen G. McLean will need to convince a jury of his peers that he is very ignorant of the basics of the Internet. Otherwise, phrasing his wish as a demand instead of properly, as a request, "could be construed as" a deliberate violation of citizens' rights to discuss their government.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[bigd0880]

From Mississippi here. I've always heard "Uppity" as a term for a wanna be upper class person like RingDev below mentions.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Rary]

The city was suing the woman. It also states:

Reisinger alleges her First Amendment rights were violated by the city. She seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and unspecified declaratory relief.

RTFA?

I did RTFA. You did not. Or at least you did not understand it.

The city was not suing the woman. The city sent the woman a cease-and-desist letter. The city also launched a criminal investigation. Neither of those things are a lawsuit. The woman responded to those two actions with a lawsuit against the city.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[orclevegam]

"[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.

I see how this works. So if the Government decides to tap phones without a warrant, that's legal. If the Government decides to confiscate property at a whim, it's now legal. If a Government official takes a sizable payment in turn for passing a law, well then... it's legal!

Nonsense indeed.

It is if they pass a law allowing them to do all that. The only time one law trumps another law is when it comes from a higher court (or document), otherwise as long as a law gives someone the right to do something then it's legal. The original poster is correct in that something being illegal is no argument against an amendment to a law, otherwise it would be impossible to amend any laws (as by definition if it needs amendment it's to allow something previously disallowed by said law). A law may always be overturned or amended, as has happened many times to even our most sacred laws (the constitution).

Now, whether an action is justifiable or not, that's an entirely different question, one in which the legality of the action has very little bearing.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOOOOOSH!

The Billy Madison rant is only apropos when, you know, someone has said something insanely idiotic.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Tingler]

# 141489 11:40AM PST.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[_Sprocket_]

The original poster is correct in that something being illegal is no argument against an amendment to a law, otherwise it would be impossible to amend any laws (as by definition if it needs amendment it's to allow something previously disallowed by said law). A law may always be overturned or amended, as has happened many times to even our most sacred laws (the constitution).

The grandparent poster had said:

Why is it every time someone does not toe the liberal line of allowing ILLEGAL aliens into this country they are labelled racist??? If you do not like the law, do something about and get the law changed. Otherwise stop calling everyone a racist just because they dont agree with your particular point of view.

So I'm at a loss how this thread ends up in the realm of being unable to change laws or claiming that the actions of a Government official trumps law.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the editor even read the summary?

It's kdawson, of course not. It's not like this is anything new or surprising.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I may be mistaken, but Congress is the federal legislative branch, isn't it?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mission accomplished! You admit that the purpose of the First Amendment is to restrict government, and not to affirm rights. Now the question is to determine if it extends to the State and Local governments. Consider the interaction between the First and Tenth Amendments, and try telling me again that it applies to state and local governments. I think you'll have trouble doing so without citing a judicial decision (for example, Brown v. Board of Education).

And judicial decisions can be overturned, just as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. ...so don't cite your First Amendment rights in a case like this, cite your rights as guaranteed by X v. Y.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[MontSegur]

a link to this website? http://ci.sheboygan.wi.us/ ??

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[orclevegam]

So I'm at a loss how this thread ends up in the realm of being unable to change laws or claiming that the actions of a Government official trumps law.

Ok, I'll walk you through it.
The OP made a point concerning people claiming racism, putting particular emphasis on illegal aliens being illegal. In and of itself the post was right, although the emphasis on illegal was misplaced and seems to have lead to confusion.
There was a response stating that just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. In essence saying something is illegal serves no purpose within this context. At no point was the original conclusion of the OP contradicted, and in fact the logical conclusion is that if you have an issue with immigration law you should attempt to get the law changed, but the the illegal aliens being here illegally has no impact on whether the law should be changed or not. The post then goes on to point out that by definition, if the government allows something (that is passes a law to legalize something) it is, by definition not illegal.
The previous post was then responded to with one saying essentially "Ok, so if the government does it, it's all right then?" and essentially implying that as long as a government agent does something whether it's legal or not, it's ok (which is different than the implied argument given previously concerning the government passing or amending laws). At no point in time was it ever claimed that a government official gets to ignore the laws. At the same time, the confusion over government taking action (I.E. changing laws) versus government agents taking action (I.E. breaking laws) is what lead to the implication that laws once passed become immutable (because if the government can't change them then they by definition cannot be changed).

I think the whole thing can be summarized by the following:
1) Complaining about illegal immigrants does not constitute racism, so long as the complaint isn't directed at any particular race or nationality.
2) If you have a problem with a law, then you should attempt to have the law changed.
3) The government by definition can change laws, therefor the legality of something isn't an intrinsic property and thus cannot be used as an argument against making something legal.
4) An agent of the government is still subject to the laws of the government even if the government as a whole posses the ability of amend those laws.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Tenebrousedge]

I didn't think anything I wrote was actually funny.

It was a struggle to write anything that came across as ironic and not hopelessly disillusioned and cynical. The idea that people have found my post to be funny has instilled me with a sense of "you're all a bunch of sick cynical bastards." I'm going to go cry into my special Election Pillow (stuffed with non voter verifiable ballots) now--I hope you mods are happy.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[stephanruby]

I'm using Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP Pro. It doesn't crash for me now that I've added the NoScript extension, but it crashes again and closes down my browser as soon as I disable NoScript.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[blueforce]

FTA: "the center of a federal lawsuit brought by a Sheboygan woman against the mayor and other officials there"

Did you?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[blueforce]

*ahem* Mod parent down. Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[blueforce]

Oh for fsck sake. Why can't I post correctly today? I quit.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Angelyne]

Yes I knew this. It was reported as such in the media leaving out pretty much just the WTF!. But my point, which is only half serious, is that I would have been insulted, had my co-mate heard the word "pig" and "lipstick", and irregardless of context, thought of me right away.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the editor even read the summary?

kdawson never reads articles, never checks for dupes, never ensures that the article is for the right section, and despite this all, never manages to pull their head out of their ass. All Slashdot regulars know this.

You must be new here!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[_Sprocket_]

While I agree with all the points in your summery, I don't see them accurately describing the thread.

We have a post claiming that the individual is racist:

Also, from TFA she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years):

The reply disagrees noting that illegal is illegal:

Why is it every time someone does not toe the liberal line of allowing ILLEGAL aliens into this country they are labelled racist??? If you do not like the law, do something about and get the law changed. Otherwise stop calling everyone a racist just because they dont agree with your particular point of view.

To which the reply makes several points:

This is not an insightful post. Screaming ILLEGAL! doesn't get you anywhere when, you know, we're talking about changing the law.

...

White Woman: I am really in love with Denzel Washington. I would definitely marry him.
You (a generation ago): BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!

Next time you might want to try NOT spewing nonsense. "[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.

This is when I make the point that an official ignoring laws does not negate the legality of their actions (which was my interpretation of "...the government 'allow[s]' them in.." as it is the only scenario that fits the current situation). Of course, I do it in a matter that tries to trump the obsurdity of the previous post. That probably wasn't the most constructive way of doing things. Looking back at it, I should have also noted that nobody seemed to be talking about changing the law (I'm sure there's a conversation going on elsewhere). And I should definately called out the playing of the race card (interracial marriage); which is exactly what the initial post in this thread was talking about.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Rary]

FTA: "the center of a federal lawsuit brought by a Sheboygan woman against the mayor and other officials there"

Did you?

Yes. That's exactly what I said. The lawsuit was brought by the woman against the city, not the other way around as the headline states. If the editor had even bothered to read the summary, let alone the article, he would not have allowed the incorrect headline to get through.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RingDev]

Unfortunately, due to the nature of this conversation, anytime someone says "pig" or "lipstick" to me, I'll remember Angelyne from /. and how she would have been offended...

Sorry :(

-Rick

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Rary]

You must be new here!

No, I've been here for many years (even longer than my UID suggests, since I lurked anonymously for quite a while before finally signing up). However, I'm an optimist. I am convinced that Slashdot can improve. All it takes is enough people demanding it.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I'm not gonna do your homework for you, 0L.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[kae_verens]

we Irish are our own greatest critics. There's nothing the world can't say to us that we don't already say to each other.

I really can't understand why the word "mick" is even insulting. My brother is called Mick (well, Michael, but he prefers Mick).

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Angelyne]

On the internet no one knows you're a pig ...

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[pbhj]

I think I disagree with her, that's why I said "on the face of it". You're totally right that it's not illegal, and noone [it seems] made any such claim.

Otherwise, phrasing his wish as a demand instead of properly, as a request, "could be construed as" a deliberate violation of citizens' rights to discuss their government.

Demand is just another word for request, it just sounds hard. She wasn't ordered to, she wasn't told it was against the law. The "demand" is also tempered by the phrase starting "To the extent that ... [yadda yadda]". So basically they're saying we think it looks like we authorised your link - please remove it so it doesn't look that way. Her response could have been "screw you", or if she felt like it she could add a disclaimer. A hyperlink /could/ imply endorsement if used in a particular way - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=966425&cid=25037879.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[operagost]

So what are the Democrats' reasons for demonizing their opponents? You know, saying they're too old (even though the Democratic VP is only six years younger), too rich (even though Obama is richer than McCain), too inexperienced (even though said Republican VP is at least as experienced as the Democratic Presidential candidate), etc.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

And whom exactly is in charge of the subjective definition of "responsibly"?

The courts, stupid. If you think three hundred and eighty thousand pages of concrete regulation are subjective, you might want to crack a dictionary around the page for "subje".

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[lennier]

"So what are the Democrats' reasons for demonizing their opponents? "

Being on the same team as the guy who just trashed your economy by committing a war crime isn't enough?

I mean I dunno about you, but for me as a non-American, just calling *anyone* 'someone who even once sort of kinda agreed with George W Bush' is about the most dire insult possible. No further demonisation needed.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interesting. Up here in the arctic north, uppity is a term used commonly enough to describe upper class or wanna be upper class people mingling with us common people.

That isn't true.

We even had one couple attempt to sue the township, their neighbor, and their realitor because they bought the land in the fall and saw the house get built over the winter.

Thank you for spelling "realtor" the way illiterate bumpkins pronounce it. Anybody who might have believed that you use the word "uppity" to communicate anything other than racism now knows you're just making it all up as you go along.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[AK Marc]

Just two weeks ago, some republican senator referred to the Obamas as "Uppity". That's another term, being from white-bread Wisconsin, I was familiar with. It's used to describe someone who is behaving not of their social/economic class. It's crass and rude, but I had never heard of it being referred to as a racially charged word. But apparently, it is. Who knew?

Being from Texas, I can state that "uppity" was usually followed by "nigger" and then a beating. Most often, it was the "uppity" person getting beat up because the one calling him that had a larger group of friends standing behind him. However, in Texas, if you are a lone white guy and Mr Uppity had lots of friends with him, you'd be the one getting beat up.

Eventually, you could leave off "nigger" and the implication was still there. Just like a white person calling a black person "boy" has slave connotations, but yet could seem completely innocuous to someone that didn't know better.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years

You're free to leave at any time...

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Missing_dc]

for a /. effect comparison, I checked at 10.52pm est.
I was visitor 142555

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Missing_dc]

36,000 hits in 17 hours. Cooooool!!!!

Oh those poor servers.... wait,

  So that is a little over a hit per second, right?
Meh, My home PC can handle that easily. /. can do better than that!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RingDev]

know, saying they're too old (even though the Democratic VP is only six years younger),

Average healthy life span for men in the US is under 70 years. 6 years puts Bidden on the green side of the average and McCain on the high side. Not that there is anything wrong with that in particular, but I think a lot of moderates would have been more inclined to stick with him if he hadn't selected such a rabidly right wing nobody as a running mate.

too rich (even though Obama is richer than McCain),

Is this one of those philisophical answers? Obama is richer because he has a loving wife, adoring children, and leads a good life of caring for those less fortunate? That kind of rich? Because I'm pretty sure that if you check out their reported net worths, McCain's $36.4 million is more than Obama's $799,000. Unless you're using that silly Bushian math where $800,000 is greator than $36 million.

too inexperienced (even though said Republican VP is at least as experienced as the Democratic Presidential candidate), etc.

So Palin's 20 months as Govener to one of the least populated states in the country, and 2 years of mayoring a tiny city (which was a pretty rough go at it if you look at the condition of the city apon her exit) is supose to compete against Obama's 8 years in the state legislature and 4 years in the senate. 12 years public service vs less than 4. I can see how that is "as least" the same... err not really. Heck, to use McCain's own attack, Palin has never even been to Iraq! She took a pit stop in Kuwait once, but never crossed the boarder or toured any active combat zones. She has the international afairs experience of an inbread hick from the mountains of south carolina. She even claimed that Alaska's proximity to Russia was her big claim to fame on the international front. They're even sticking her in the cheap seats at the UN meetings just so she can get a crash course with cliff notes on international afairs.

I have nothing against McCain, I would have gladly taken him over Bush in 2000 AND 2004. But at this point he has squandered all of that political capital he built up in the middle/independants in favor of aligning with the republican party to secure the primary and motivate the base. His age IS an issue at this point, and it has been acutely raised by the selection of an inexperienced VP with a religious and political leaning so far to the right that there are even moderate republicans who are voting Obama.

-Rick

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Tim MacDonald]

143000 @ 12:56 PM EST.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Online Etymology Dictionary:

uppity
1880, from up; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus").

And it gets a lot of play here in the South.

A lot of people knew.

You would probably like Philip Roth's book The Human Stain.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Supreme Court itself used the "clear and present danger" test of the Schenck case to rule the Smith Act (which made it illegal to be a member of the Communist Party and disseminate Communist literature) Constitutional?

That's the problem with slippery slopes.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

aaii-i-i em vawteeng four makkane in nuvembr yew isnetitive clawd!

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[theNetImp]

If I had mod points I'd mod this one funny because of the pillow. :-D

I on the other hand was trying to be funny, as Sometimes I think this group gets WAY too serious.

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[multisync]

If you don't want people to find your website, don't register a domain. Once you do, it's public knowledge. Printing the URL of the city's website is no worse than printing the premiere's mugshot when he gets busted for DUI. (Sorry, OT political commentary, but it seemed a good example).

Re:Pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[uvajed_ekil]

It makes me laugh when I see people smiling in mugshots. If if you didn't do it (right...), are you happy about being arrested and booked?

Re:Pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[gnasher719]

If you don't want people to find your website, don't register a domain. Once you do, it's public knowledge. Printing the URL of the city's website is no worse than printing the premiere's mugshot [wikimedia.org] when he gets busted for DUI. (Sorry, OT political commentary, but it seemed a good example).

I would have thought that if a police department creates a website, the intention is that as many people as possible would find it and access the information on it. So they should be glad if someone links to it.

Re:Pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[Just Some Guy]

Politicians and other public figures would rather their mugshot be boring and unremarkable, like they're smiling for just another photo. A scowling, haggard mugshot is perfect for front page in the newspaper.

Re:Pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[Just Some Guy]

If you don't want people to find your website, don't register a domain.

And if you do, don't link it directly from your boss's website. It's not like this was some stealth operation (not that it would have made a difference).

ridiculous

[CraniumDesigns]

if a site is public, how could it EVER be illegal to link to it? i don't see this working out for the city. morons.

Re:ridiculous

[Fluffeh]

What if the link contained Trademarked content? What if part of the link used images/content from the site that it linked to? I mean what if I used a file on your website to link it from my website - and in the process drove your bandwidth through the roof?

Just throwing up ideas though, I think it's all pretty silly.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you take advantage of it. And have some fun.

Like how myspace kiddies link to images on my site for their background pictures. My watermark script sees referals from myspace, and conveinently overlays The Hoff on the image, to help spice up their profile a bit.

Or, throw out some advertisements. If they are going to use your bandwidth, get your full use of it.

Re:ridiculous

[MartinSchou]

What if the link contained Trademarked content?

Not a criminal issue (yet), thus no need or even grounds for the police to get involved.

What if part of the link used images/content from the site that it linked to?

As mentioned above, have your webserver prevent that kind of usage.

Re:ridiculous

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Doesn't matter; being a jerk isn't illegal. The only established case where linking is illegal is when you conceal the actual source of some content, for instance if you were to deep link to a real estate search engine and wrap the results with your GUI/ads.

Re:ridiculous

[Dan541]

Hot linking can be disabled in .htaccess on Apache systems.

Re:ridiculous

[Chrisq]

What if the link contained Trademarked content?

It would certainly be fair use. Just imagine in the real world if someone asking for or giving directions to the Microsoft office had to have permission to say "Microsoft".

Re:ridiculous

[pbhj]

If you read the C&D letter http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Sheboygan%20Cease%20Letter.pdf then you'll see that they never claimed that it was illegal, just that the way the link was used suggested that the linking site was somehow endorsed by the linked-to site; then they asked that the link be removed to avoid this confusion.

A moron, IMO, would be someone who comments on the specifics of a C&D letter without reading it. YMMV.

The claimant is suing because she says that that letter infringed on her first amendment rights. I don't see it to be honest. She could have left the link in place and if she were bothered simply added a line "not authorised by Sheboygan City or it's associates".

Re:ridiculous

[CaptPungent]

How exactly is posting a link to another site in any way a suggestion of being endorsed by said site? With all of the links posted here on /. there's no possible way you could be confused into thinking any of the linked-to sites endorse the idiotic comments some people post here.

Re:ridiculous

[pbhj]

Baby Smoking Weekly

Did you know that smoking     | as practised by CaptPungent
dried out baby remains is     | all products endorsed and used
the best way to get a high    | by [link]CaptPungent[/link]
what's more if you buy my
book you'll be able to get
cheap baby parts with which
to roll your own baby cigars!
--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--
Other news
CaptPungent loves this and has no problem with it,
see he even has a link to his site right here ...!

don't do what?

[JLennox]

oh, this.

Re:don't do what?

[The Ancients]

Have you looked at the code and graphics on that site?

It should be illegal to link to it.

Re:don't do what?

[tubapro12]

Let's see, the / page has a title of "New Page 1"... I can see why they're so pitifully trying to hide their website from their public.

Re:don't do what?

[flyingfsck]

This one is better: http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/main.html

Re:don't do what?

[Tubal-Cain]

That one's named "Front Page". So much better.

Re:don't do what?

[digitalchinky]

And the chief isn't even fat. Sigh. They can't even propagate my own stereotypes.

Re:don't do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, what's wrong with you and why the hell did you put a link to that place?

Their code isn't even W3C compliant!

Re:don't do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent up. That link is great!

Re:don't do what?

[ArsonSmith]

I did my civic duty and clicked every link on their sidebar.

Re:don't do what?

[Frosty Piss]

Have you looked at the code and graphics on that site? It should be illegal to link to it.

I wonder why?

meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"

Re:don't do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't ok for her to link to the Sheboygan Police, but they can link to every agency around them? http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/lelinks.htm

Re:don't do what?

[Tubal-Cain]

...in new tabs. Then did a reload all.

Re:don't do what?

[ClogHammer]

Yes That http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/main.html

Re:don't do what?

[Jophiel04]

People still don't know about CSS? The wasted time that could have been spent on oh I don't know, not paying some high school kid to write your city and police department's websites...

Re:don't do what?

[proverbialcow]

It should be illegal to link to it.

Including internally.

Re:don't do what?

[Repton]

Yeah, but that's pretty tame. It would be more interesting to google-bomb them. Something like "Sheboygan police are autocratic censors". Or we could just call them a bunch of baby-smoking iguanodons with home-spun cheese ethics.

Re:don't do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't buy publicity like this...

http://www.bratcitywebdesign.com/#

Re:don't do what?

[omglolbah]

What? You dont approve the use of Frontpage 5.0 for generating wonderfully looking websites?

*hides*

Re:don't do what?

[thewolfe]

There's a link on the bottom of the page for the web master.. officer such and such.. I just sent him an email. Said I wanted to look at his department's web page, but since they threaten legal action for people doing similar things, I wanted his permission to do so as I don't also want to receive a cease-and-desist order from the chief. Maybe we all should do that so we's don't get in trouble?

Re:don't do what?

[Kaki Nix Sain]

Contemplated a little wget rm sleep loop. But that just wouldn't be polite.

Re:don't do what?

[dmneoblade]

They also have pages full of bitmaps in thier gallery. http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/gallery/selection.htm How long to eat up thier bandwith, /. ?

Re:don't do what?

[Werkhaus]

And look at the Table Organization.
http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/table_organization.htm

A massive 1.2Mb bitmap to show the command structure.
http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/Table%20of%20Organization%20072005.bmp

Re:don't do what?

[uvajed_ekil]

I saw on Youtube, CNN and Digg that the Sheboygan Police are either for or against Barack Obama and John McCain and Sarah Palin, individually and not as an organization, of course.

Re:don't do what?

[Hal_Porter]

I've always wondered if you could use the Streisand effect to your advantage.

E.g. in this case Mayor Harkonnen appoints Sgt Glossu Rabban to head up the police department. Glossu Rabban sues people for linking and is generally an asshole. He becomes vastly unpopular and Mayor Harkonnen sacks him and appoints Sgt Feyd Rautha, his nephew. Afterwards both Mayor Harkonnen and Sgt Rautha are popular for ridding the world of Glossu Rabban.

Re:don't do what?

[n3tcat]

Oooo they have photos too!

Re:don't do what?

[stephanruby]

No, no. This is the link that they don't want you guys finding out.

Re:don't do what?

[stephanruby]

Oops. That one was just a redirect. Try this one http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/surveyresults_interface/Results/submission_form.asp

Re:don't do what?

[wakingrufus]

i, for one, enjoyed reading "New Page 1"

Re:don't do what?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Now make sure to keep reloading their photo gallery pages over and over again.

Re:don't do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

now you're giving away their coding secrets

Re:don't do what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Was this site designed in 1995 and never updated?

BTW, is it common for a city to require registrations for bicycles? I've never heard of that before.

Wait, did I just link to them again? Oh shi...

Re:don't do what?

[Repton]

Heh, that's interesting.

"When was the last time you had contact with the Sheboygan Police Department? ..."

"What was the nature of the contact (check all that apply)?"

None of the options listed say anything like "I was arrested for committing a crime." I guess they don't expect criminals to fill out the customer satisfaction survey...

Cannot stop people from filing a suit

[flyingfsck]

Anybody can file a suit over anything against anybody. This is an important freedom in a rechtstaat.

Re:Cannot stop people from filing a suit

[uvajed_ekil]

...or stop a judge from laughing, scolding the people for filing a ridiculous claim, and tossing out the case in the first ten seconds of the first hearing.

Government has no rights

[NovaHorizon]

The Government doesn't have the right to privacy.. so no a Government can't demand that it's people do anything that say.. inhibits free speech such as this.

Good Luck

[cromar]

Good luck Jennifer! It's fairly certain that her suit will pan out, but who knows nowadays?

Re:Good Luck

[jabberjaw07]

It's me...the "Web Gate" gal. : ) I had to drop in to sincerely extend many thanks to all of you expressing support and kind words regarding the link "issue". I have read everything and appreciate all the comments so much - even the dissenters; after all, that very freedom to express dissent is part and parcel of our treasured constitutional rights. Obviously I cannot say much at this time, but please, no matter which side of the fence you're on, do realize this is a very, VERY difficult thing to go through. I move foward with the fervent hope that in the end, case law will be made so not one of my fellow techies/geeks/nerds in America ever need go through anything like this again. I do not know how to appropriately show my gratitude to all of you showing me support...BUT! I did think of one thing I can do - I CAN LINK! If you support me and would like your link placed on "THE LINKS PAGE" that started this landmark case (which is getting tons of hits), please use the contact form on Brat City Web Design and let me know what you would like posted. Oh and yes, we must keep the sites clean and wholesome, of course. Thank you again to all and feel free to contact me, as I really cannot post publicly like this again for a while. Godspeed!

Soon: Mayor's Office C&D Posted to Idle

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/main.html

Re:Soon: Mayor's Office C&D Posted to Idle

[Tubal-Cain]

The quality of the site seems very poor. Let's all click the pretty link and hope the server is an ex-gaming rig.

Re:Soon: Mayor's Office C&D Posted to Idle

[Firehed]

Actually as it's all a bunch of static crap from 1994 frontpage, it probably will be fine. It's the rush of database connections and non-cached dynamic content that causes most sites to die in a slashdotting.

Re:Soon: Mayor's Office C&D Posted to Idle

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that page has only 97087 hits...

This is even a question?

[bigstrat2003]

the question will be can a city (or any business or Web property) stop people from posting a link to its site?

The answer is (or damn well better be) no. This is completely obvious. When you put something up on the Web without a form of access control (meaning logging in, not meaning "I only give out the address to certain people"), it's public every bit as much as if you put an ad in the newspaper. Linking to your site is no different than me saying, "Hey, check out this newspaper ad CmdrTaco put in, it's really cool!".

Even if that weren't the case (and it very much is), this is a government web site. They have no right to keep anyone out at all. I don't know what the city was thinking, but they have no ground to stand on here. Maybe they're hoping they'll get a really clueless or corrupt judge, I dunno.

Re:This is even a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linking to your site is no different than me saying, "Hey, check out this newspaper ad CmdrTaco put in, it's really cool!".

Bullshit. I saw that advert and you could definitely be jailed for crimes against humanity for sharing that around.

Just as your right to swing your fists ends at another person's face. So your right to show around pictures ends at pictures of CmdrTaco wearing a crotch-less bunny outfit, in a bath full of hot grits.

I nearly clawed my own eyes out. Still get nightmares too, like that bloke in Apocalypse Now.

Re:This is even a question?

[KGIII]

I would like to think it is a "no." However, at some point, it becomes physical property. There's a server somewhere and bandwidth that is billed. I don't have a decent analogy so I'll resort to a crappy one. If I put a chair out on my lawn you don't have a right to sit in it. If I bring my chair out to a public beach you still don't have a right to sit in it. Even if I'm not in it. I, of course, am unlikely to give a shit if you sit in it but the idea is the same. The question is, can someone encourage people by means of erecting a sign informing them that they can sit in my chair if they want even though I've not given them permission. It is potentially a muddy situation and muddied even more with it being a government owned site. I'd hope that the answer is a clear emphatic "no" that people can freely link to it. The wrong judge and/or jury could go either way.

Re:This is even a question?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If I put a chair out on my lawn you don't have a right to sit in it.

Depends on how public it is. If it's next to the sidewalk, it makes sense that I can; next to the house or behind a barrier, not so much.

Re:This is even a question?

[KGIII]

Makes sense that you can but that doesn't mean that you're legally entitled to do so. Hell, if I put a chair outside and someone wants to use it when I'm not then I don't think I'd ever complain about it. Hell, I'm likely to drag out a second chair and some beers. And, yeah, I do have a chair outside and sometimes people sit in them at the table but they're usually people who are waiting for me to get home or what not.

Re:This is even a question?

[pbhj]

Baby Smoking Weekly

Did you know that smoking     | as practised by bigstrat2003
dried out baby remains is     | all products endorsed and used
the best way to get a high    | by [link]bigstrat2003[/link]
what's more if you buy my
book you'll be able to get
cheap baby parts with which
to roll your own baby cigars!
--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--
Other news
bigstrat2003 loves this and has no problem with it,
see he even has a link to his site right here ...!

Scientology

[longhairedgnome]

Isn't this what the CoS tried a number of years ago? How did that turn out? The Church of Scientology has lost a courtroom battle to compel a Dutch writer and her Internet service provider to remove postings from a Web site, in a ruling that keeps hyperlinks to copyrighted material legal. this is from 2003...

Happened in Finland in 2001, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar case. Someone linked to police website in 2001, and police claimed that their domain name represents the police on the internet and thus linking to their site without permission was illegal. The police lost, ofcourse, but it's still ridiculous that there was even a fight about it. Finally the parlamentiary ombudsman had to take the case and rule that links are like literary references, and completely legal.

The bigger question... changing the legal system

[compumike]

So, yes, this is silly, but ultimately this is just one example of a bigger phenomenon: people filing stupid lawsuits, where simply the burden of defending oneself is overwhelming / not worth it. This happens for many reasons: lawyers are expensive, court simply takes time, etc.

Is there some way we can modify the legal system so that these kinds of frivolous suits die quickly and cheaply? Like an online peer review thing, where there's an anonymous, rotating committee of reviewers who can triage filings and vote to reject them? This has its own problems too, of course -- the rule of the mob emerges.

So I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems like we have to think about how to make it about two orders of magnitude cheaper/easier to defend oneself in court against frivolous suits.

--
Get started with electronics: Microcontroller kit for Linux/Mac/Windows. Do it with your kids!

Poor effort people

[Anonymous Coward]

The site is still up.

Then block her already

[Auckerman]

an a city (or any business or Web property) stop people from posting a link to its site?"

The cities sysadmin should be fired. Check the referrer, then redirect to the main page when "needed". A couple minutes set up time and *poof* no more "deep linking" from other sites.

Re:Then block her already

[mcrbids]

The cities sysadmin should be fired. Check the referrer, then redirect to the main page when "needed". A couple minutes set up time and *poof* no more "deep linking" from other sites.

You assume a great many things:

1) That the city is wise enough to see the need for a sysadmin. Seriously.

2) That the city was cohesive enough to hire a sysadmin.

3) That the city is large enough to justify hiring a sysadmin. (according to Wikipedia, it's only 50,000 people)

4) That the city, otherwise utterly incompetent at technical issues, was somehow able to hire a sysadmin competently.

5) That a competent sysadmin would care to admin a city website.

6) That said competent sysadmin wouldn't quit within 90 business days due to the utter stab-yourself-in-the-eye kind of boredom that would reign supreme while admining your average city website.

A township this size HAS no admin. It's a small town, with small egos and big drama. Welcome to small town, USA. And worse, the city is, by definition, a government agency, and government agencies are uniquely unqualified to do anything businesslike as well as technical. Governments are POLITICAL organizations.

As a technology provider of services for government-managed agencies, I see it over, and over, and over: political organizations FAIL at dealing with technical issues, or competently hiring people to deal with technical issues. I've seen so many minor small-government fiefdoms ruled by unqualified techies who know how to spout intelligent-sounding techno-babble with extreme jealousy.

These types are fundamentally liars. They are unqualified, they know it. They spend their efforts attempting to disqualify any threats to their "turf", and selling their technical expertise to their co-workers through a combination of oppressive (and ineffective) security "requirements" and policies of limited value. They live in constant fear of being "discovered" and vehemently attack any improvement offered by any outside source.

In a bass-ackwards sort of way, the more draconian and oppressive the measures implemented, the more it appears that the tech weenie is "doing something" and the more likely he/she is to be supported. And thus, we end up with "Mordac, Preventer of Information Services". It's real.

My strategy when dealing with these types is to offer my services through them. Make them the hero for recommending our services, and make very public, deferential statements respecting their expertise.

Setting up an Apache module? Psssht. At this scale, good luck finding somebody who actually knows that Apache isn't just a breed of Native American!

Re:Then block her already

[LordLucless]

Referrer information is provided by the browser, and thus, is not trustworthy. it's useful for statistical information (with it's untrustworthiness accounted for), but for security? No way.

Re:Then block her already

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if I have understood this story correctly, the thrust of the true issue is completely different.

From reading the original article, I believe what was going on was that she put up a webpage with an insulting/inflamatory picture linked to the police site. Implying that the two were linked.

So what they should have done was sue her for defamation.

Re:Then block her already

[Auckerman]

Security? I wouldn't call redirecting incoming links based of referrer as anything resembling security. Some websites find it useful and it works.

Re:Then block her already

[Anonymous Coward]

There wasn't any deep linking to begin with, the wayback machine has the original page:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071106092824/www.bratcitywebdesign.com/links.html

It's a link to the main page of the police department.

Re:Then block her already

[uvajed_ekil]

The cities sysadmin should be fired. Check the referrer, then redirect to the main page when "needed". A couple minutes set up time and *poof* no more "deep linking" from other sites.

Have you seen the site in question? If you had, you'd obviously know that the admin and "designer" must have compromising pictures of the mayor and a goat, or else we would not be having this discussion.

Re:Then block her already

[Anonymous Coward]

You're depending on Referer headers actually being sent there, though, and that's a great way to not comply with the relevant RFCs anymore. 'cause if you read the one on HTTP, you'll find that a Referer header is not actually required to be present or anything - it's a convenient bit of extra information passed along by the browser out of niceness, but nothing more.

Would you, as a Slashdot reader, not get upset if a site doesn't let you in because you don't accept cookies? If you haven't got Javascript enabled? If you haven't got Flash installed? Referer headers are exactly the same thing.

Re:Then block her already

[Auckerman]

I don't care what anyone does with their page. Cookies, javascript, whatever. The "politics" of technology don't matter to me, at all. I just don't go to sites that don't work, it's really just that simple. The entire time I've used a web browser has been on an operating system other than Windows. Starting with OpenVMS (seriously, that was the first OS I used on the web), Linux (back in the hand compile days off a floppy), MacOS (system 6), then a huge selection of Unix machines. I have NEVER used Internet Explorer for personal or work use. Seriously, never.

These guys wanted her to quit linking. Whatever, they can want the heavens for all I care. They were supreme jackasses about it and tried to scare her into changing her site via an abuse of the law. If it means THAT much to them, if it's that important that this one women in her one little corner of the web change her web site, they had alternatives available that weren't possibly illegal (unlike the option they chose). Examining referrer headers is a valid option and sites use it without causing an uproar.

Re:Then block her already

[Just Some Guy]

You assume a great many things:
3) That the city is large enough to justify hiring a sysadmin. (according to Wikipedia, it's only 50,000 people)

Ummm, what? My city only has about 25,000, or maybe less since the chicken plant closed (no, I'm not joking), but I eat lunch with the city sysadmin once a month or so. The payroll systems have to run on something, you know. He's also handling the fiber optic rollout and conversion of the city government phone lines to VOIP.

A 50,000-employee company would have significant IT needs. A city that size will have many of the same needs.

Re:Then block her already

[corbettw]

Yes, but the real question is: is a sysadmin from a small city qualified to be the nation's CIO?

Re:Then block her already

[jonaskoelker]

Check the referrer, then redirect to the main page when "needed"

Because wget would never lie, no it wouldn't. Nor would Live HTTP Headers for firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3829). Nor would anyone ever copy a request from wireshark and paste it into netcat (or socat, or telnet).

It's ineffective at what it does and annoys people. Just like the myspace mp3-playing flash app that either lets the band disable downloading of a song (hello wireshark) or enable downloading of a song from logged-in users only (hello wiresh... oh wait, this time it was firefox's DownloadHelper add-on).

</rant>

one sandwich please, hold the bread

[Tablizer]

How dare she make the Web be a web!

Seriously now

[Jimmyisikura]

Its like they expect me to say, what police department? I don't know any police, they don't exist, and if they did I can't tell you about it. Top secret and what not.

Streisand Effect at work ... again

[dtremblay]

Another good example of the Streisand Effect at work here. This will bring even more interest to this issue. Well done Mayor Perez!

Re:Streisand Effect at work ... again

[diamondmagic]

Um... the "Streisand Effect" applies to censored information, how censoring something makes it only more available. Not the case here.

Re:Streisand Effect at work ... again

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... the "Streisand Effect" applies to censored information, how censoring something makes it only more available. Not the case here.

Not quite. The Streisand Effect is the backfire resulting from the attempt to censor information.

Actual censorship does NOT have to occur to precipitate the Streisand Effect. Merely the attempt to censor.

Re:Streisand Effect at work ... again

[diamondmagic]

There was no attempt to prevent people from knowing the website address though. This is a link, not information in general.
It is still a bad thing to do, don't get me wrong. Telling other people what they can or cannot do with their own property? I bet the town hates freedom.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they trying to hide, the fact that they have an awful Web site?! Bonus lulz for the Homeland Security Advisory System widget. Lock up your daughters: the risk is at: "Elevated - Significant Risk of Terrrist Attack y'all"

Notice the hit counter down at the bottom of the page, it currently reads: 96,453. Let's see if we can make that sucker go up a little, before the server crashes.

Heh, they can't get me for bringing down their server either! What're they going to do, extradite me? Oh hang on ... I'm Briti

[CARRIER LOST]

Ugh

[gringer]

Don't go there, their initial/start page is just a single picture talking about Theodore Husting:

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/

That links to the main site, which looks a bit more pleasing:

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/main.html

Oye

[ohtani]

You know a organization knows what they're doing on the web when their landing page is titled NEW PAGE 1 and was made with FrontPage 5.0

Re:Oye

[cerberusss]

their landing page is titled NEW PAGE 1 and was made with FrontPage 5.0

I'd have to say I like this better than a situation where city hall spends half a million on some stupid hip web design agency who does nothing more than creating a Flash site.

Re:Oye

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, and their CSS is like "Style1, Style2" and is located in the same page. xD
http://www.anr.cl

Re:Oye

[Pfhorrest]

their landing page is titled NEW PAGE 1 and was made with FrontPage 5.0

I'd have to say I like this better than a situation where city hall spends half a million on some stupid hip web design agency who does nothing more than creating a Flash site.

The sane compromise would be to spend a few hundred (or a very few thousand) on a local community college multimedia arts major who can actually put together something simple and decent in valid XHTML/CSS.

Re:Oye

[cerberusss]

The sane compromise would be to spend a few hundred (or a very few thousand) on a local community college multimedia arts major who can actually put together something simple and decent in valid XHTML/CSS.

You're absolutely right, thanks for the positive reply! And in your suggestion, they'd support their college with letting the students get some business experience as well.

Re:Oye

[elrous0]

I haven't seen design that good since the 1997 West Lake High School Web Design Challenge For Special Students. Maybe they were suing her out of embarrassment.

Re:Oye

[Ryan Mahoski]

From their "Front Page" you can download Adobe Reader 7.0.

In Soviet Finland...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you can!

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Eskarel]

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of frivilous law suits out there, but how is this one?

A web designer created a web link to the main site of a public, government institution. The city then issued her with a cease and desist order and began a police investigaton againt this person. This is patently wrong, and is behaviour which needs to be discouraged.

The fact that they withdrew the order later is really beside the point. A police investigation when the person instigating it knows(and TFA pretty clearly shows he did know) that it is baseless and illegal is intimidation.

The fact that this woman may or may not have undesirable political and/or racist opinions doesn't really matter. It wouldn't even matter if she's the second coming of Hilter(queue Godwin), using the police to intimidate or harrass someone who hasn't done anything wrong is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional, and saying "Oops we're sorry" when you get caught doesn't get you off the hook.

It would have been a slightly different situtation if she was attempting to incite violence, or using the link in some other non protected way, but there seems to be absolutely no indication that this is the case(I'm not entirely sure how you could incite violence against a web address in the first place).

She ought to sue, she ought to win, and the idiots who ordered this ought to be out on the street. The fact that's she appears to be a racist redneck fool doesn't change any of that.

Sheboygan Police

[8ball629]

That doesn't sound like anything I want to visit O_o.... Sheboygan?

Doofus..

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting information on the web is making it public. Putting up a link to such material is like telling a group of friend to look at a specific film on YouTube. Telling people NOT to point at the offending material should immediately give the question: "then why on earth did you put it on the website?!?"

Sjeezes, no wonder the economy is in shit state. The quality of "leadership" just may have something to do with it..

sheboyganpolice.com

[Entropy98]

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/

Sheboygan Police General Information:
Phone: 459-3333 / Email: spd@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Chief of Police / David E. Kirk
Phone: 459-3343 / Email: dkirk@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Deputy Chief of Police, Operations Division / Allen J. Sherven
Phone: 459-3343 / Email: asherven@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Captain of Criminal Investigation Unit / James A. Veeser
Phone: 459-3355 / Email: jveeser@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Shift Commanders / Phone: 459-3333
First Shift ( 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM ) Captain David A. Derus
Email: dderus@ci.sheboygan.wi.us
Second Shift ( 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM ) Captain Stephen B. Cobb
Email: scobb@ci.sheboygan.wi.us
Third Shift ( 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM ) Captain Bob V. Wallace
Email: bwallace@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Training / Resource Division / Lieutenant Michael Williams
Phone: 459-3190 / Email: mwilliams@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Administrative Services / Lieutenant Janet Reinfeldt
Phone: 459-0239 / Email: jreinfeldt@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Drug Unit / Lieutenant Kurt Brasser
Phone: 459-3999 / Email: kbrasser@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Traffic Section / Sergeant Thomas Tuszynski
Phone: 459-3352 / Email: ttuszynski@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Court Services Section / Lieutenant Janet Reinfeldt
Phone: 459-3353 / jreinfeldt@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Community Policing Unit
Lieutenant Jeffrey Johnston / Phone: 459-3338 / Email: johnston@ci.sheboygan.wi.us
Officer John Winter / Phone: 459-3341 / Email: jwinter@ci.sheboygan.wi.us
Officer Todd Priebe / Phone: 459-3341 / Email: tpriebe@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Street Crime Unit
Officer Kurt Zempel / Phone: 459-0234 / Email: kzempel@ci.sheboygan.wi.us
Officer Brian Retzer / Phone: 459-0267 / Email: bretzer@ci.sheboygan.wi.us
Officer Paul Olsen / Phone: 459-3348 / Email: polsen@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Criminal Investigation Division / Phone: 459-3355
Detective Mark Kolosovsky / Email: mkolo@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

K-9 Unit / Officer Trisha Miller
Phone: 459-3333 / Email: tmiller@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

School Resource Officers
South High School / Officer Terry Meyer / Phone: 459-3706
Email: tmeyer@sheboygan.k12.wi.us
North High School / Officer Doug Hall / Phone: 803-7604
Email: dhall@sheboygan.k12.wi.us
Urban Middle School / Officer Patrick Leichtnam / Phone: 459-3959
Email: pleightnam@sheboygan.k12.wi.us
Farnsworth Middle School / Officer Eric Edson / Phone: 459-4083
Horace Mann Middle School / Officer Eric Edson / Phone: 459-3386
Email: eedson@sheboygan.k12.wi.us

Police Property Office / Julie Lamb
Phone: 459-3347 / Email: jlamb@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Administrative Assistant & Office Supervisor / Paula Haelfrisch
Phone: 459-3343 / Email: phaelfrisch@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Communications & Electronics Technician / Russell Schreiner
Phone: 459-3351 / Email: rschreiner@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Fleet Operations Mechanic / David Daniels
Phone: 459-3350 / Email: ddaniels@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Web Site Administrator / Officer John Winter
Phone: 459-3341 / Email: jwinter@sheboygan.wi.us

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[uvajed_ekil]

Hmm, can we tag replies, i.e. "slashdotted" for this one? hehe.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[clickclickdrone]

>Web Site Administrator / Officer John Winter
>Phone: 459-3341 / Email: jwinter@sheboygan.wi.us
I'd have kept quiet about his role if I had this site to look after.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Sobrique]

As would I. I mean, did you have a look at that HTML on that site? Never a good sign when your webshite 'title' is 'New Page 1', but the rest of it isn't so hot either.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[nospam007]

It's a shame that spammers don't harvest addresses here.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Capt James McCarthy]

I guess they only have one area code. It's been a long time since I've seen phone numbers without them.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Capt James McCarthy]

For some reason, I though it was some weird pr0n site: She-Boy-gangpolice.com

What can I say, it's still early here. I'll wake up soon.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Lumpy]

I agree. linking that man's name with the horrid HTML and design of that site. How mean.

Hey cops. I dont go patrolling in your neighborhoods, quit trying to design webpages.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[flahwho]

Look out. Here comes another lawsuit. Why'd you have to pull /. and all of us into this!?!?

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[vidarh]

The obvious question is whether you were relieved or disappointed when you realized your mistake.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Capt James McCarthy]

The obvious question is whether you were relieved or disappointed when you realized your mistake.

Neither, I had already seen the web site in my mind. ;-)

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[oahazmatt]

Never a good sign when your webshite 'title' is 'New Page 1'

Or when you have the terror alert scale. Even Fox News doesn't use that thing anymore.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking deeper into the site, you'll find a message from the police chief arguably inviting you to link to the website:
"Lastly I like to have an open door policy. In this case, an open website policy. We want to hear your opinion on the Sheboygan Police Department whether it's good, bad or otherwise. Click on the link below to access our "Community Survey". Please take time to complete the survey and be honest about your opinion.

Sincerely,
David E. Kirk
Chief of Police"

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Dragonslicer]

Most cities are entirely within one area code. You have to get up to sizes on the order of New York and Los Angeles before you need more than 10 million phone numbers.

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright... how many of you you submitted all of these addresses to every mailing list you could find?

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[corbettw]

Interesting, the guys running the Police Department's website didn't even know enough about modern communications to add area codes to their phone numbers. No wonder they've never heard of the Streisand Effect!

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[A_Non_Moose]

SHUUUUUSSSSHHH!!!

No linking or information, they want to be the supar-sekrit po'lice!!!

Re:sheboyganpolice.com

[moortak]

or cleveland or detroit or kansas city or atlanta or...

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[jewelises]

How about this: if you sue somebody and lose (or back out, etc.) then you pay the defendants lawyer's fees as well as your own.

Barbra Streisand asks that...

[Anonymous Coward]

people please stop linking to the Shebogan Police Department.

It hurts their feelings.

Re:Barbra Streisand asks that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes good point, no need to hurt their feelings... but you spelled Sheboygan wrong

fucksheboygan.com

[Joystickit]

Countdown to fucksheboygan.com 3...2...1.. Except of course, No one can spell "Sheboygan".

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[phuul]

I'm really not sure what your point is. So a person having a link to a website should just accept a cease and desist order and also accept an investigation against them?

But this isn't just any website, it's a website of a public and government run website. You know, the kind of things taxpayers give money for. So a taxpayer now can not link to something they payed for.

Huh.

Apparently we have very different definitions of the word "frivolous."

Americans with disabilities

[paulthomas]

That splash page is a usability nightmare. The image, which is primarily text, should include alt and longdesc attributes so that blind people and other people using text-only clients can decipher the message.

Even better, they could format that page using text for the text part and images with alt text for the decorative part.

Better than that would be dropping the splash page altogether, as it seems to convey nothing of value for most visitors.

"nolo mi tangere"?

[RedOctober]

Nothing yells out fail as much as someone trying to quote latin but getting it wrong. It's "noli me tangere".

Re:"nolo mi tangere"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a real Latin grammar nazi, you should chisel the correction on your monitor.

Re:"nolo mi tangere"?

[jsalbre]

Actually, it is being used as a noun. The word itself, "fail" is the subject being acted upon; the "thing" in person, place or thing.

Re:"nolo mi tangere"?

[RedOctober]

Consider the phrase "Nothing yells out 'I'm a barefaced liar!' like a Slashdot reader bragging about his sexual exploits". Is 'I'm a barefaced liar' a noun? What about, "When I asked her how she felt, she yelled out 'miserable!'". Is "miserable" a noun?

Re:"nolo mi tangere"?

[jsalbre]

Point taken, I concede the issue. Yes, I realize that's unheard of on Slashdot, but some of us can admit that we are not quite perfect.

Search results

[Lucky75]

Please, please don't link to my website, I don't want to be the first result on google or anything.... I mean honestly, she was doing them a favor in more ways than one.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[adamstew]

I don't think that this is a frivolous lawsuit, but...

They do have some things to try to prevent abuse of the legal system...It's called Anti-SLAPP (Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). AFAIK it's only in California, but other states may have adopted similar statutes...

Basically, you can't file a suit unless you have a good reason. If a defendant raises the SLAPP defense, then the plaintiff has the burden to prove that they can at least make a 1/2 way decent case...they basically have to tell the judge the basic premise of their case. If they can't, then it's an immediate dismissal, and the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal costs, plus statutory damages. SLAPP defense can be raised early, before the actual trial, and is meant to limit legal costs for defending a frivolous lawsuit, as well as provide a disincentive for actually filing one.

IANAL, and this is just my understanding of it. Some details may be wrong, but you get the basic idea.

Well...

[Weaselmancer]

It used to be.

Re:Well...

[cizoozic]

I think it's interesting that when China did this during the Olympics, THEN it was a huge controversy and human rights issue.

Re:Well...

[operagost]

That's because even that wasn't enough for China. They jailed the little old ladies who merely asked for permission to protest.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this: if you sue somebody and lose (or back out, etc.) then you pay the defendants lawyer's fees as well as your own.

How about this: No one ever sues large corporations again because if they lose they're going to be broke for the rest of their lives.

VP Material

[wardk]

sounds like if Palin falters, McCain has his new running mate

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[KGIII]

I am pretty sure that the police can investigate anyone at any time with or without merit. They will still need warrants to get access to materials that they might not otherwise have but they are certainly welcome to apply for those warrants via the legal channels. We can argue all day that they shouldn't be allowed to but I am pretty sure that they are allowed to and can't find any laws prohibiting it except when the investigation becomes harassment which is pretty clearly defined. Simple observations, singular questionings, etc are all perfectly legal as would be speaking to her friends, relatives, co-workers, etc... Not that I like it very much but, well, that's how things are setup and unless the crossed those boundaries then they're probably not going to get in any trouble for it.

Ooo no, this would NEVER happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this still Slashdot?

How can anyone here forget the 2600 case? http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1233

Attempts to prevent linking to websites are unfortunately as old as ... well, as old as the Web itself.

but can't stop a Telco from suing it....

[freedom_india]

A city sues a single person to prevent him/her from linking to a public website, but keeps silent when a Telco sues it for providing free internet...
Guess cities are bullies like corporates.
Pick on the small guy.
I dearly, dearly hope the defendant not only prevails, but also countersues the City Mayor for Fraud, deliberate attempt to subvert justice, manslaughter (what the heck, file anyway), and personally report him to the FBI for corruption.
Counter Attack is the best form of defence.

Re:but can't stop a Telco from suing it....

[monkini]

A city sues a single person to prevent him/her from linking to a public website, but keeps silent when a Telco sues it for providing free internet... Guess cities are bullies like corporates. Pick on the small guy. I dearly, dearly hope the defendant not only prevails, but also countersues the City Mayor for Fraud, deliberate attempt to subvert justice, manslaughter (what the heck, file anyway), and personally report him to the FBI for corruption. Counter Attack is the best form of defence.

Sheboygan was sued by a Telco for providing free unternet? tell me more

Re:but can't stop a Telco from suing it....

[freedom_india]

Not him. Iam talking about another story in slashdot a few days earlier where a Telco was suing a city for providing internet access to its citizens because the Telco backed out.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=962747&cid=24988895/
The city has since stopped its plans.
How come when City Hall meets a bigger bully than itself, it backs down cowardly, but when it meets a small fry it gangs up on him.

Re:but can't stop a Telco from suing it....

[Anonymous Coward]

A city sues a single person to prevent him/her from linking to a public website, but keeps silent when a Telco sues it for providing free internet...
Guess cities are bullies like corporates.
Pick on the small guy.
I dearly, dearly hope the defendant not only prevails, but also countersues the City Mayor for Fraud, deliberate attempt to subvert justice, manslaughter (what the heck, file anyway), and personally report him to the FBI for corruption.
Counter Attack is the best form of defence.

THE CITY IS NOT SUING HER....SHE IS SUING THEM...I hope she loses

Damages

[Harmonious Botch]

Perhaps we should note the difference between compensatory and punative damages. Compensatory damages are to compensate the plantif for damage done to her. In this case, GP is probably correct in assuming that she did not suffer 250K in damages.

But in the question of the government stepping on a citizen's 1st amendment rights, as P mentions, 250K is not excessive, as it is not big enough to make most municipalities pay attention. In this case, it should be a huge ammount, and it should be under punitive damages.

Re:Damages

[Kingrames]

Harmonious Botch (921977) has just declared that his freedom of speech is on sale, for much less than $250,000.00.
Do we have any buyers?

never heard anything so ridiculous

[presidenteloco]

I have a suggestion. If you don't want someone linking to your web page, take it off the freaking world wide web.

Morons.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[dr_d_19]

I'm not entirely sure how you could incite violence against a web address in the first place

You link it from Slashdot :)

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[atraintocry]

It's not that that doesn't happen, but usually it's agreed upon in advance by both parties, who happen to be on either side of a contract, for instance, in a lease agreement.

But like others have mentioned, in the US we are of the opinion that there shouldn't be up front risks in seeking justice.

Simple

[SmallFurryCreature]

Buba, your roommate shoved his cock up your ass in Apil, but withdrew it in november, so what are you crying about?

They never should have demanded it in the first place, abuse of power and harrasment. They only withdrew after she fought back. That is bullying.

And I thought...

[thephydes]

that the whole point of a website is that it is public. I'd better stop looking at "private" sites and linking to those I like. What an effing crock of shit.

You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[unassimilatible]

City governments do not have printing presses to churn out $20 bills to pay off lawsuits. This is taxpayer money, and as one of those taxpayers sick of property tax assessments and hearing how broke my city is - and as someone who has helped defend such lawsuits for my local city attorney's office - I can tell you first hand that city governments are far too free wheeling with other people's money when it comes to paying off lawsuits. It really is disgusting how they will settle suits rather than stand up and fight and risk taking any political positions.

We've got enough fiscal problems without you throwing around other people's money like it is free.

These city politicos look like dipwads, but how does giving this woman a cash windfall at taxpayer expense hurt them? Take my word for it, the *taxpayer* money the average city pays out on junk lawsuits is the real rights being trampled daily.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[bigsteve@dstc]

You could say that the taxpayers deserve it for voting for such an obviously bad mayor. Or for taking so little interest in local politics that they couldn't be bothered to vote against him.

The mayor was acting on behalf of "the people", with the weight of the power bestowed on him by "the people". So, IMO, it is the "the people" who should ultimately take the responsibility for his abuse of power. If the courts can sanction the mayor personally, all well and good. If not, then responsibility again falls on "the people" for not electing people who will pass the laws to make that an option for the courts.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[Trailer Trash]

Next time the mayor is up for election, he's out. If not, the people deserve whatever more they have to pay. The new mayor, if he's smart, will also do some major house-cleaning at the police department.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[pbhj]

the taxpayers deserve it for voting for such an obviously bad mayor

I don't see how the Mayor is obviously bad? He didn't like a website attempting to cast him in a negative light, for example using photoshopped photos, so he asked if a link to the cities police could be removed as that link appeared to give the website credence (as if officially warranted in some way).

The link was removed, then reinstated and the claimant complained - a public apology was made by the Mayor.

End of.

Except then some lawyer helps her create a case claiming she lost 53% of earnings?? How can I get double my web earnings by creating one link to a police website? It sounds to me like the Mayor behaved perfectly well in this situation.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[LihTox]

I wonder if a suit against a city could stipulate that the court winnings be put into a trust, to be paid back to the city in the event of the current government's being voted out of office?

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[Rob the Bold]

The link was removed, then reinstated and the claimant complained - a public apology was made by the Mayor.

End of.

We call that, "Can dish it out but can't take it".

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[Lershac]

Where do you live that the mayor can have the city attorney try to stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights? And then sic the police department on you to "investigate" you for linking to their website?

That is a pretty clear violation of your constitutional rights. This should be stomped on pretty hard!

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[NeoSkandranon]

Well pretty much any little "good old boys" town that kind of shit happens. Good luck getting rid of it.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[CaptPungent]

He should never have asked for the link removal, and never should have involved police in what is a civil matter. If the mayor wanted to hire a private attorney to handle the civil defamation suit, that's on his own dime. What he did instead was abuse his power.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[CaptPungent]

Lawsuits like this will at least help stamp it out, if other dissidents learn that they can fight back against such power abuse.

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[The Moof]

Hmmm.. I understand what you're saying.

However, as a Chicagoan, I'm curious how this affects me. What if the elections are rigged? The dead people that vote don't pay taxes, which fall back on me, the not-yet deceased.

(No, I'm not being serious. Yea, it's sad that election fraud has become so common that it's a running joke here)

Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Well, Sheboygan could act like the city of New Orleans, which ignores lawsuit settlements against it by never budgeting the money, and claiming it can't afford to when sued again to actually pay up. Never mind that N'Awlins can somehow find the money for multi-million dollar contracts for the mayor's brother-in-law to do nothing...

Brussel's public transport did not like links

[solarcatcher]

In Brussels, Belgium, the local public transportation company STIB/MIVB used to not like links to their site either: Until about a year ago when you visited their website, you were greated with a popup, which told you that you may not link to their pages without their explicit consent. Only when you accepted this, were you allowed to use the website... I don't know why a service provider such as a public transportation company would ever want to be not linked to...

Will I be sued?

[Chrisq]

So could you get sued for putting a link to http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/?

Re:Will I be sued?

[tygt]

You won't, but slashdot might, given sheboyganpolice's track record.....

also those that enter the site address

[BBird]

they should also sue those that enter the site address manually. Why why not those that copy-pasted the site address? And the dns providers should be be sued as well, as well as google and all the search engines.

Oh that's evil

[Chrisq]

I can imagine what will happen when the spam-bots index this page. New email addresses all round, and a server upgrade.

Hey you insensitive clod..

[Chrisq]

I was his room-mate.

Re: whole point of free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

> Isn't the whole point of free speech that people should be free to say what they'd like especially when others find it distastful or inappropriate?

As long as they aren't trolling...

No Legal Precedent?

[aero2600-5]

Regardless of who's suing who in this mess, there won't be any new precedent set about linking to a website. 2600 Magazine won a court case in 2001 when Ford Motor Company tried to stop 2600 from linking to their website. Not only that, but one of the original sites from the tussle is still up. Here is the original news announcement from 2600.

Aero

Re:And they have a counter!

[Anonymous Coward]

join the fun
It is one of the old fashioned ones that just count up on every view. And I thought this species has died out at least ten years ago ;-)

What really worries me

[clickclickdrone]

The mission statement on the website says:
We, the men and women of the Sheboygan Police Department, value:
* Human Life
* Accountability
etc.

Do they *really* need to state they value human life? Is there an assumption that the norm is to not care who dies? What sort of crazy department is that?

Re:What really worries me

[winwar]

"Do they *really* need to state they value human life? Is there an assumption that the norm is to not care who dies? What sort of crazy department is that?"

Well, if you have to state it, it's probably not true. At least the cynic in me believes that....

Similar to a business calling itself honest. I would hesitate doing business with them....

Re:What really worries me

[corbettw]

Do they *really* need to state they value human life?

With the way most police departments handle no knock warrants, yes, they do need to state that up front. It would also help if they stated they valued canine life.

Re:What really worries me

[Puffy Director Pants]

Well, I'm not going to knock them for stating it. Sometimes it's nice to confirm the obvious.

So the public will sack the mayor

[Anonymous Coward]

for being an asshat and costing them a quarter million.

I didn't agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I just clicked a button.

Me too dumb to read.

Now let them prove I'm smart. ;-)

Ya..

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America...

sounds illegal, didn't click

[Trepidity]

A site about "she boys" eh?

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Eskarel]

Yes, and if the police were investigating you on their own look out, that's one thing. This is about a mayor who has told the police to investigate someone for something he new wasn't a crime.

It's not so much harassment by the police as it is harassment by the mayor, which is pretty much unacceptable in any state.

streissandeffect

[nimbius]

and i have no link to her site in the summary or article? hardly.

Have Fun....

[Shadow_139]

Registrant: City of Sheboygan Police 828 Center Ave. Sheboygan, WI 53081 US Domain Name: SHEBOYGANPOLICE.COM Administrative Contact: Keppel, Michael City of Sheboygan 828 Center Ave. Sheboygan, WI 53081 US 920-459-3795 fax: 920-459-3967 Technical Contact: Network Solutions, LLC. 13861 Sunrise Valley Drive Herndon, VA 20171 US 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620 Record expires on 12-Apr-2010. Record created on 12-Apr-2000. Domain servers in listed order: NS25.WORLDNIC.COM 205.178.190.13 NS26.WORLDNIC.COM 205.178.144.13

FuckGeneralMotors.com

[claytonjr]

Didn't something like this happen to the hacker magazine, 2600?

http://slashdot.org/yro/01/05/18/1421201.shtml

It seemed like Eric Corely purchased the domain: http://fuckgeneralmotors.com/ and pointed it to http://ford.com/

I think it went to court. The last time it checked in, it was ruled in favor of Eric Corely, because it would otherwise violate his free speech.

How would this be any different?

Re: whole point of free speech

[a_nonamiss]

That's the beauty of the ./ system, though. People are free to troll as much as they want, and the community at large is free to mod those people down so that they have less of a voice to spew their idiocy. Turn off -1 comments, and you'll miss 99% of the GNAA, Goatse or "FIRST!!" posts. Make too many of those posts, and your Karma will dictate that nobody will ever see any of your posts.

If we just started ignoring the idiots in real life, they would go away, too. Instead, we put them on the news. All you have to do is wave a Nazi flag or hang a rope from a tree, and you automatically get +5 mod points just for being a moron.

slashdotters unite...

[hesaigo999ca]

To teach them a lesson in how the internet REALLY works....everybody that has a website here on slashdot should link to that police department, then any one who knows someone with a botnet pass on the word...spread the link!

Re:rediculous

[flahwho]

Just throwing up ideas though, I think it's all pretty silly.

you better put a bucket under that and have someone hold back your hair.

Well so much for ....

[3seas]

...For the People, By the People.

Here's a deep link

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo, a deep link OK, I don't live in Wisconsin, so if you assholes want to sue me too, you'll have to subpoena slashdot for my IP address, then subpoena my ISP for my identity. Then you'll have to file a case against me in Federal court where you'll quickly be made the laughing stock of the country. Go ahead, make my day.

kdawsonsucks tag

[RobBebop]

I'm not wasting my time in this article except to post a "Thank you" to the taggers who flagged this story as "kdawsonsucks". On occasion, stories that he posts are interesting and useful but a warning for the ones that should have fallen through the cracks is appreciated.

Re:kdawsonsucks tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, this is a very interesting story and it's too bad you're too blind to see that. A city official tried to use a cease-and-desist to stop one of his critics from linking to the city's police site, and now she's suing the city for their obviously abusive - how the fuck does that qualify as a story that deserves a "sucks" tag? You're such a fool.

Regarding Racial Slurs

[Lucid 3ntr0py]

In regards to

But use any of the assorted names for black people, and watch the brains of everyone in the room reboot as they look around in a panic to see if any of "them" heard you.

I think this classically illustrates how racism still exists in America. Mexicans don't like being called spics, don't call a lesbian a dyke, a gay a fag, and so on...unless you are tolerant. I can say whatever I choose in mixed company and rarely will a person of particular race,gender or ,who ever fits into whatever slur I said , will get mad.(I'm not talking about running into the tube and screaming "Stupid-ass, watermelon munching. Nigger") Why you ask?

Because they know I've got nothing against anyone. Shying away from certain words shows that you are afraid of them. If you would say something amongst close friends, such as saying "don't be so niggardly", but wouldn't say it in front of a black person- you are racist.

Minorities aren't stupid, yet we treat them like they are. Its like when you have that friend who acts like he enjoys your company but know he talks shit about you. Everyone gets it.

Here's an example, I am a white male in the IT sector. I play in a jazz fusion band called "Spook and the Ghosts". One of my best friends is the black drummer. You know who worries about the name or protests against it? White people. If I were to mention it at work- amongst my ivy-league-PhD-toting-engineers coworkers, they would get freaked out- but then make racist jokes. My black and Hispanic friends in Jamaica Plain [one of the ghettos(in the original sense) in Boston] think its hilarious, but they aren't going to make racist jokes because they think its safe. The PhD's (and most of white America) is racist at home and pretends like they aren't in the street. No one fools anyone.

If someone has a mental disability, call them retarded. That's what they are. When your jewish friend complains about the 25 cents he was shorted at Dunkin Doughnuts, even though he makes 100k a year, tell him to not be such a jew. He knows what your referring to.

The worst thing you can do is act one way in public and another at home.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Psssst. Us white guys are becoming the minority.

I for one welcome our new Home Depot, day laboring overlords.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[D'Sphitz]

Minorities aren't stupid, yet we treat them like they are.

Minorities in general are just as stupid as the average white person. Thanks to the "black leaders" (who aren't interested in racial equality, if there were racial equality they'd all be out of jobs and the national spotlight) way too many blacks have a victim mentality and will often seek out and find racism where there is none.

I see nothing wrong with choosing words carefully, or just avoiding racial slurs altogether.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[JavaRob]

The PhD's (and most of white America) is racist at home and pretends like they aren't in the street. No one fools anyone.

If someone has a mental disability, call them retarded. That's what they are. When your jewish friend complains about the 25 cents he was shorted at Dunkin Doughnuts, even though he makes 100k a year, tell him to not be such a jew. He knows what your referring to.

The worst thing you can do is act one way in public and another at home.

Sure, telling racist jokes with your friends but clamming up in embarrassment when a stranger approaches is hypocritical and/or cowardly... but isn't that also one of the necessary steps in actually changing racist ideas? I.e., it's a big step to actually get people to feel that blatant racism is socially unacceptable (even if they feel differently personally); and hopefully the next generation might be a bit less racist at heart.

It's certainly important to keep discussing the subject; I'm not in favor of pretending to be "color-blind" when we know perfectly well that just about everyone has automatically different responses to people dependent on race... but discussion is a completely different thing from encouraging someone to use racial slurs just because they popped into their head.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[mopower70]

If you would say something amongst close friends, such as saying "don't be so niggardly", but wouldn't say it in front of a black person- you are racist.

Nah. That just makes you an idiot. The words "nigger" and "niggardly" are completely etymologically unrelated.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[Lucid 3ntr0py]

I certainly hope I didn't come across as promoting the use of slurs in a pejorative manner. If I did I sincerely apologize.

My larger point is that many "racist" words have a sign and signifier relationship that extends beyond simple derogatory status. If someone chooses to use words such as those, they should use them appropriately and in front of those to whom they refer.

I certainly wouldn't want my child going up to a stranger and saying "Hey mister nigger!"

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Mexican, and I support massive Chinese immigration into Mexico (and the world). BE ASSIMILATED OR DIE!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QoA44c23A

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[Arterion]

People who understand words well enough to know that likely aren't going to get offended by them.

Maybe the context and purpose for which they are used would be offensive, but not the word itself.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[Tyrannicalposter]

Minorities in general are just as stupid as the average white person. Thanks to the "black leaders" (who aren't interested in racial equality, if there were racial equality they'd all be out of jobs and the national spotlight) way too many blacks have a victim mentality and will often seek out and find racism where there is none.

Then that would make them stupider then white folks.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[ancientt]

Wow. I mean Whoa and wow! Thanks, I needed that. It had been a long day and being reminded that there are plenty of stupid people did me good. I immediately thought "What? Saying averages are essentially identical is somehow insinuating that one group of people is smarter than another? Idiot." I hit reply. I started marshaling my thoughts preparing to point out that it's obvious any group of people classified by skin color will have both exceptionally smart and exceptionally stupid people, but averages are a littler harder to quantify, and mostly, well, they average out.

Then I read the post again, and I then noticed that the poster said "stupider then" as if it were intended to say "stupider than" and thought, "wow, what an example right there of stupidity." Stupidity is the unwillingness to learn and nothing says "I'm stupid" more than basic grammar mistakes while errantly correcting someone else's grammar mistake."

It was then that I realized that I'm responding to someone who typified all the mistakes they criticized in a single post. I can't decide if it is an example of extreme arrogance based on stubborn stupidity or subtle and thick ironic sarcasm.

Kudos to you Tyrannicalposter, I've never before seen someone so brilliantly stupid in one line.

Re:Regarding Racial Slurs

[ancientt]

I beg to differ.

An idiot would assume that failing to communicate successfully because of common associations is the fault of the listeners. If you use the word "niggardly" in your communications without considering the likely misunderstandings, then you are at fault. Likewise, if you use words that you know will be misconstrued as hateful in a group that you believe will condone such biases, but refuse to use them in a group where you assume the worst because of skin color, then yes, that does make you racist.

As a teen I was accused of being "deliberately obtuse." It cut to the bone because first, they were right, and second because I didn't know what it meant and had to look up the meaning. If I've called you a racist, I hope it cuts to the bone in the same way.

Racist doesn't only mean that you believe that people are inferior due to skin color, it also means that you believe that it is okay to assume that people react differently based solely on their skin color. If you tailor your words to avoid terms because you believe that people who are black will be offended by terms with racial associations, then you are assuming that a black person is going to be less educated than a white one.

The real ugly truth? It's still, tremendously sadly, reasonable to guess that a black person is more likely to be offended by the word "niggardly" than a white person. My country, the US, has a history of racial intolerance and racial bigotry that is embarrassing, but the sad fact is that a breakdown of education or a breakdown of ignorant offense, where either demographic is by race, will show that blacks are more likely to be offended due to poor word choices and are less educated.

Let me be absolutely clear, blacks are more likely to be ignorant and resentful than whites. It is NOT due to the color of skin; it is due to a severe sociological problem that has grouped blacks into a single sociatial group when they don't need to belong to one. That grouping has led to people from every group making false assumptions about their own race and about other races. Thankfully, this is not a natural order and has been steadily improving over the last century and with empathy and effort, it will continue to improve. One starting point, don't use the word "niggardly" outside of an educational setting. It is likely to be misconstrued as racist by many and using it fuels pointless animosity and bigotry.

Re: whole point of free speech

[GooberToo]

Turn off -1 comments, and you'll miss 99% of the GNAA, Goatse or "FIRST!!" posts.

And you'll miss 99% of the insightful posts. The /. moderation system is hopelessly broken at this point. Insightful comments are often modded down because someone either disagrees with it or is too ignorant of the subject matter to be modding in the first place. The meta moderation system has far too few participants and the vast majority of the false moderations never get fixed. Worse, the current generation seems to ignorant of proper terminology and often redefine words or out of stupidity and never bother to learn the actual definition. Few under the age of 20 seem to understand the definition of words like "flamebait" and "troll". Many here seem to falsely presume "flamebait" means I disagree and "troll" means I really, really disagree.

To make matters worse, many people now mod troll. They specifically target people via multiple accounts and immediately snipe their posts, forcing them down before they can be modded up. Since many people do not read 0 and -1 posts, very insightful posts are never even seen. Some people have dozens of accounts for the sole purpose of trolling and mod trolling, whereby, they use their accounts to mod their other accounts and trolled posts up.

As is, slashdot is a shadow of what it once was. Now, the dopes and idiots plus the high number of bad moderations which are never fixed chase most of the intelligent would-be posters away. This means we are largely left with the ignorant that think they have something to add but sadly don't. And the few that do are often modded down by the mass of ignorance that is common here. Worse, their friends mod them up without regard for the content provided and they mod down any real content.

Slashdot is hopelessly broken. Either live it or move on. You'll find most have moved on. In other words, by ignoring -1 posts, you are likely missing out on the entire point of visiting slashdot's comment system in the first place.

Picking nit(wits)

[Porchroof]

Have the true Slashdotters abandoned slashdot.org leaving the web site to only nitwits?
I read the first dozen or so posts on this subject and they are all off-topic moronic chatter.
I've done the best that I can with a reference to Jennifer's problem by posting several links to http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/ on the web site http://www.spelledsideways.com./

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Jason Levine]

I would agree on everything except for this part:

It would have been a slightly different situtation if she was attempting to incite violence, or using the link in some other non protected way, but there seems to be absolutely no indication that this is the case(I'm not entirely sure how you could incite violence against a web address in the first place).

Even if she was putting up the link and saying "bomb these people," her crime wouldn't be the act of linking to their web site, but inciting violence. In fact, I can't think of anything she could do where the link itself would be the crime (though it may be used in a larger crime). The closest I could think of would be writing something libelous and making that text link to the city's website. Even that, though, would involve the text and not the link itself.

Other than that point, though, I agree with you completely. The mayor completely overstepped his bounds and will hopefully be put in his place by the courts.

What I heard...

[kellyb9]

I hear they are in the process of suing some company named "Google"?

i think you SHOULD be able to yell fire

[ClioCJS]

Honestly, Iâ(TM)ve finally gotten to a point where Iâ(TM)m tired of the âoefreedom of speech doesnâ(TM)t mean you can run into a crowded theatre and yell fireâ. I actually think that should be protected speech. This is extreme, yes.

If the idiots in the theatre trample each other in a mad rush from a fire that doesnâ(TM)t even exist, it was their own stupidity and lack of clearheadedness that killed them, not the person shouting fire. If your reaction to the mere threat of danger is to hurt others, you are the culprit.

For example, think of George Costanza in the episode of Seinfeld where he throws the old ladies in their rockers to the ground in order to rush to the door. Are you going to tell me it was the messengerâ(TM)s fault? NO. His behaviour was deplorable and his panic was his own fault for being a non-clear-headed individual willing to hurt others just to preserve himself.

If someone tells me there is a fire, I am going to at least look for smoke so I can figure out what direction to flee. And I am not going to trample people unless I actually see a real fire about to burn me up and itâ(TM)s me or them. But trampling people just to get out when thereâ(TM)s no actual fire? Simply because of a panic? I think thatâ(TM)s far worse than yelling âfireâ(TM).

I know I am unique in my extreme opinion.

I think painting speech as potentially physically harmful has a chilling effect: Just look at the whole Cartoon Mohammad thing for an example of that.

âoeWords can hurt, so you canâ(TM)t say words [or draw cartoons] that hurt.â

The censoring of Mohammad in this weekâ(TM)s South Park was a perfect example.

Anyway: Words donâ(TM)t hurt people. People hurt people.

Learn to think for yourself, and mere words will never be able to physically hurt you.

The idea that everyone must mindlessly follow whatever words they hear, in and of itself is a dangerous idea. Should we panic just because someone told us to? No. Should we panic if the loudspeaker tells us to? Maybe. Should we panic if Fox News tells us to? Maybe, maybe not.

But before you go tramping people to death (and thus tramping our free speech rights by being too much of a moron to think for yourself), consider whether you or the buliding are actually on fire. Dumbass.

Edit, 9/12/2007, comment from below incorporated into this post:

Fyngyrs (http://slashdot.org/~fyngyrz) says:

âoeThere is no harm in yelling fire. There is no harm in filing out of a building that isnâ(TM)t burning, There is no harm in filing back in. These are the acts of reasonable people. In fact, the practice would do people some good. We used to do it all the time in school. The fire alarm would go off, and out weâ(TM)d go, not knowing if there was a fire, or not. No one ever got trampled. The theatre owner has, as an owner of a private business, the option to no longer serve that customer. Of course, should one patron fail to file out reasonably, and in the process trample another, then a crime has been committed, that of assault by that patron upon another. The idea that it is acceptable for people to trample one another â" or that it somehow âoeisnâ(TM)t their faultâ â" is just one of the things that is wrong with the cliche, aside from the initial, completely incorrect, idea that one could not yell fire â" or anything else â" in a crowded theater. Itâ(TM)s socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, itâ(TM)d be the last time you ever got in the door, but other than that, there you go. Free speech trumps all. Every time. Thatâ(TM)s the basis of liberty.â Original post: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/04/14/294/

Re:i think you SHOULD be able to yell fire

[Chris Tucker]

Ah, for the good old days when ASCII was ASCII, and not some bastardized mutant with fuckall extensions.

Itâ(TM)s socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, itâ(TM)d

I'm linking to it

[digitalgimpus]

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/ I'm linking to it. Here's the contact page for good measure: http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/who.htm There's no law against linking to another site. If they want to do that, go to congress and try to get it outlawed... Dare you. All the politicians will cry when they realize political bloggers can no longer link to their campaign blogs.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[pbhj]

The city then issued her with a cease and desist order and began a police investigat[i]on again[s]t this person.

It's not an order, they "demand" - but that's just lawyer speak for asking. The police investigation could well have been a result of a complaint by Mr Perez (as himself, not in his mayoral capacity) complaining that Reisinger's website was racially discriminating against him (eg with the photoshopped imagery); it wouldn't need to be true for an investigation to be made.

SEO anyone?

[pbhj]

This all comes across to me like some mad SEO stunt, her sites are going to be linked like nothing else for Sheboygan now ... perhaps she's going to drop her complaint and live off the ad revenue?

It's a liberal myth, you insensitive clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Re:It's a liberal myth, you insensitive clod!

[Random BedHead Ed]

Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

This whole explanation is just designed to buy you favor with the Illuminati, the transatlatnic conservative union that secretly controls Slashdot and most other sites on this supposedly "unregulated" Internet. Anonymous Coward indeed! They know who you are ...

Re: whole point of free speech

[residieu]

When I've tried to read with -1 comments turned off, the conversations become so incoherent they can't be followed as posts show up replying to comments that have been hidden. Skipping over GNAA posts is an easy enough thing to do, small price to pay.

Mod parent up

[DriedClexler]

Thank you! Finally someone injects some common sense into this! That was the best explanation I've seen of that very frequent fallacy. If my mod points hadn't expired, I would have modded you up.

You should add:

Martin Luther: You know, I don't quite agree with the doctrines of the pope, I think peole should stop following them.
You (20 generations ago): But that's illegal!

Notice how the same people that make that argument about illegal immigrants,

a) selectively decide which laws are okay to break (e.g. speeding, inappropriate touching of an office appliance)
b) don't suddenly rescind their objections when all immigration laws are repealed.

Of course, remember that there are defenensible reasons for restricting immigration, but they amount to more than "it's illegal".

Re:Mod parent up

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

a) selectively decide which laws are okay to break (e.g. speeding, inappropriate touching of an office appliance)

So you're saying that anyone who speeds is opposed to illegal immigrants? 'cause it seems to me that every individual selectively decides which laws to break. Some don't break any. Some break a lot.

b) don't suddenly rescind their objections when all immigration laws are repealed.

That's a rather interesting straw man - you can't possible know that, since all immigration laws have been repealed...

Re:Mod parent up

[WNight]

No, you an be pretty sure that they will continue having a problem with it. They didn't say "But it's illegal, it'll take time to change the law", they (in this theoretical case) said "But it's illegal!" If they can't make the connection to the fact that it wouldn't be illegal they obviously aren't smart enough to change their mind on it when it actually isn't illegal. They don't show the requisite capacity to stop objecting irrationally because they're, well, irrational.

So unless the repealing of immigration laws causes magic pixies to change their mind for them, we can be pretty sure they won't change them themselves.

Also, I read the first part as, "the person who screams 'ILLEGAL' here is likely breaking many laws themselves". If they are, it certainly impacts their credibility for them to be using the argument against others (illegality trumps all) and ignoring it where it concerns them. Hypocritical.

Re:Mod parent up

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'll concede the point in the first, though GP phrased it poorly IMO.

As to the second: Hell, I'm happy to drive 10 over the speed limit, yet I'll still expect laws against murder to be enforced.

Whether or not this is hypocrisy would depend on the individual. If my moral code says that laws which stop real harm to another person are OK, but laws which stop the potential for harm are not, there are a whole slew of things I would be bound to abide by. And many more that I would not not - this would make me consistent, not a hypocrite.

On the other hand, if my moral code said that all laws must be obeyed no matter what, then yes - speeding while expecting murderers to get caught would be hypocritical.

Re:Mod parent up

[WNight]

I feel the same way about those two illegal actions and have the same (general) justification for it (potential harm). I was referring to people who scream 'Illegal!' as an argument against something.

Ummm . . .

[PMuse]

Anyone curious about what that link might have been that could get the mayor so riled up?

It's time

[RecycledElectrons]

It's time to shoot the bastards.

Andy Out!

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Mr. Slippery]

How about this: if you sue somebody and lose (or back out, etc.) then you pay the defendants lawyer's fees as well as your own.

A horrific idea. If I get screwed over by Amalgamated Profits, Inc., and try to file suit, not only do I have to face their high-powered lawyers, if I lose by even a hair I now have to pay for their high-powered lawyers - a small expense to them, a bankrupting one to me. Faced with that risk, I'm likely to just let them get away with it.

I'm all for anti-SLAPP and anti-barratry laws which allow cases to be evaluated individually for abuse; but loser-always-pays makes it just about impossible for the little guy to use the courts to seek justice against the rich and powerful.

Bad Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm out of points, someone tag this story with badsummary please.

The lady is suing the City, not the other way around. Oh, and the city official withdrew its demands LAST NOVEMBER.

Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com

[Ioldanach]

This isn't the first time linking has been addressed in the courts. Deep linking, in particular, was addressed in Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com (USDistCt - 2000 Aug 10 - FDQ4 371774), though I expect that was in a different district. That case referred to deep linking, and this case refers to linking right to the homepage. I think it'd be obvious that the city would have no cause to issue a cease and desist against her, and such an instrument could be construed, by itself, as an attack. That's likely what she's responding to, and if she can prove that they initiated a police investigation and used it to tarnish her reputation, then she might have a case against the city.

Though, it also sounds like she's bearing a grudge against the city for something, so I'm not sure how much I can believe her. I think this is a non-story until the court comes back with something, or something comes out in discovery.

Ooh. link!

[sepelester]

I'd like to take the time to provide a link to the Sheboygan police department!

Link to the mayor?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will he like it if /. links to their site?

http://ci.sheboygan.wi.us/Mayor/MayorBiography.html

  Mayors Office Hours: Monday thru Friday 8:00am - 12:00 pm 1:00 pm - 5:00pm

Location: 828 Center Avenue, 3rd Floor, Sheboygan, WI 53081
Phone: (920) 459-3317
E-mail Mayor@ci.sheboygan.wi.us

Fair Use Considered?

[reeeh2000]

This reminds me of a DMCA take down notice. Does anyone know how fair use applies to links. If it applies, but they failed to consider it, there is a counter suit needing to be made thanks to the new legislation that you must consider fair use before demanding that something be removed. If anyone knows what the law is, I'd love to know.

I ran into this kind of thing years ago

[dpeters11]

This reminds me of when I was almost called to a discipline hearing when I was at Ohio State in the early web days (around 1995-1996) when I put links to sites like Yahoo. In this case the Dean said it was somehow a copyright violation and that written permission was needed from each site to link to the home page. Fortunately it didn't go this far, but was a bit of a nightmare.

Re: whole point of free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Few under the age of 20 seem to understand the definition of words like "flamebait" and "troll". Many here seem to falsely presume "flamebait" means I disagree and "troll" means I really, really disagree.

But what the words 'troll' and 'flaimbait' actually mean is worse. Both assume you know the motivation of the poster. Troll is to "post false or controversial messages to gain attention for the sake of attention". Flaimbait is to post "with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in". Who cares if you know what they mean if you can't infer the intent of the poster?

On the other hand, off-topic tends to be more clear cut. Posting a raunchy story when it is not suitable. As is 'overrated' - it implies 'in my opinion and with my mod point I thusly smite you a point'. The mod options of troll and flamebait are there specifically to promote arguments over motivation. This is not necessary. It is just like calling people 'cowards' that don't aid the economic well being of Slashdot by registering. To sum, "I disagree" is the most accurate interpretation of the negative mods. It may be wrong, but it is accurate.

I browse at -1...

[NeutronCowboy]

And you'll miss 99% of the insightful posts.

... and I say you're full of shit. What sits at -1 sits there for a reason. Occasionally, I see a mod war where people go between 5 and -1, but this is very, very rare. Not to mention that the post generally stabilizes at a positive number.

I've been around since pretty much beginning. I've seen the rise and fall of Portman and grits, GNAA and Katz. As more people joined, signal to noise ratio has indeed dropped. But quite frankly, people like you are part of the noise, and always have been. People have been bitching about the dropping quality of Slashdot since your UID still put you in the noob category.

The final kicker - you're currently sitting at +1. The irony should make your head implode.

Re:I browse at -1...

[orclevegam]

He (the GP post) started trolling another thread (admittedly in the mostly useless Idle section) with a whole series of these posts. This one seems to be more thought out and reasonable than the other ones did though, so it avoids the simple mod of Troll or Flamebait (although OT is a possibility). If he makes a habit of posting these in every article then he'll be deserving of a Troll mod. His major problem near as I can tell, is that there aren't enough categories of -1 mods, so he complains when something pointless gets modded Troll or Flamebait because he doesn't feel the post meets his exacting definition of Troll or Flamebait (even though Troll is a pretty generic moderation for anything someone does to purposefully illicit a negative response). Ultimately the reason for the upmod or downmod doesn't matter all that much, as it's really just a way of indicating the groups opinion on whether a comment is useful (or entertaining) or not.

Re:I browse at -1...

[WNight]

If a troll is anything designed to elicit a negative response, how are you expected to every disagree with an idiot? Any sign of not agreeing pisses them off (negative response). Posting reasons and being correct just further pisses them off.

So yeah, I agree with GToo that most of what gets modded troll is really "He hurt my feelings by saying something I can't answer!"

I ignore /. moderation (often browsing in post order, at -1) because most of the people who moderate and those too stupid to post. (It's mod or post, not both, and if you don't have anything to say you're assumed to be capable of judging those who do...) It'll finally be useful when I can rate moderators. Perhaps not even with their name attached, but just to say "Whoever rated this a troll, give their mods 0 weight in the future - whoever modded it ... give their mods 50% more weight."

Re:I browse at -1...

[orclevegam]

It'll finally be useful when I can rate moderators. Perhaps not even with their name attached, but just to say "Whoever rated this a troll, give their mods 0 weight in the future - whoever modded it ... give their mods 50% more weight."

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that's part of what the meta-moderation system is for. If someone continually has their moderations reversed by meta-moderators it decreases their chances of receiving mod points in the future.
I do somewhat agree on the point about not being able to comment when you moderate and vice versa, but it's there to keep people from moderating anyone who agrees or disagrees with their posts up or down purely on said agreement. Of course, they can always just moderate whoever makes a point similar to the point they would have made, but it seems to me in most cases that's really what the system is designed for anyway. Ultimately yes it does come down to opinion (collectively) in many cases of course, but that's the nature of discourse.
You also miss the point somewhat, it isn't just that it elicits a negative response, it's that it's something specifically designed to do so. It's being annoying specifically to annoy. If you post something with the intent of actually contributing to the discussion then there should be no way for it to be rated Troll (although in the context of the greater discussion it might be offtopic). I've received plenty of moderations that I felt were "unfair" or left me wondering what the mod was thinking, but on the whole the "fair" mods outweigh the "unfair" ones. I've never had a post I consider good moderated down to -1 before, and I doubt many others here that are capable of putting together a well thought out and logical post have either. Worst case scenario most of the time, is that no ones bothers to moderate the post at all.

Re:I browse at -1...

[WNight]

I've had a few modded down enough to reach -1, while simultaneously pulling in enough positive mods to hit +5. There's simply no way to question religion that some people won't take as offensive.

Besides, that totally ignores that often the best way to make a point is to be so offensive that the person realizes they look like a moron and is so ashamed that they examine the events later.

I believe you're right about meta-mod, but it's not quite what I'm looking for because it reinforces group-think. I'd like the mod points to be scaled based on my opinion of them, not that of the other people who spend more time moderating than posting.

I prefer how Kur5hin does moderation - you can mod anytime and without limit, even while posting. But everyone can see who modded any given post and stop respecting that person's mods. (Though not with an automated tool, afaik.)

Re:I browse at -1...

[GooberToo]

... and I say you're full of shit.

Classic example of flamebait post (YOURS) which was modded interesting. My post was informative but off topic; despite it being topical for the thread. Point proved. Furthermore, obviously you have comprehension issues. You seriously believe I intended you to believe that statistic? 99%? Really? Exaguration to make a point doesn't register with you? If you can't garner the understanding to follow what I'm saying, you likely shouldn't be replying at all.

I've been around since pretty much beginning.

Yes, your id # says it all. Ouch. Regardless, noise is noise. Signal is signal. You are noise.

But quite frankly, people like you are part of the noise, and always have been.

Take a look at the post. You're as much as noise in this article as I am. And to the contrary, I'm normally informative "signal." I'd bet your normal is noise. Take a look at your post. You're flame-baiting because of what appears to be comprehension issues. You're a classic troll/flamer. Once again proving my point.

The final kicker - you're currently sitting at +1. The irony should make your head implode.

Rolling eyes. Yes, because it's impossible to quickly change it while reading or moderating. I'm sure you'll need to clean your monitor and walls to collect what was once your head. *BOOM*

Thanks for proving the mod system is broken and noise like you continue to get moderated up. You completely validated my entire argument. *BOOM* I guess what was left of your head just exploded again. Irony. Ouch.

Now to make the rest of your body explode. According to you, everything works great. I have excellent karma. If I'm noise, I can't have good karma. Yet I have good karma so I can't be noise. *BOOM* Your self imposed logic bomb just detonated. That one had to hurt.

Seriously, can you post without trolling or flaming? Better yet, can you post without huge gaping holes in your logic or falsehoods in your statements?

Re:I browse at -1...

[GooberToo]

You're thinking of someone else or replying to the wrong message. I don't troll. I do sometimes flame back accordingly.

Re:I browse at -1...

[GooberToo]

+1 Insightful!

You obviously get it!

Re:I browse at -1...

[orclevegam]

You're thinking of someone else or replying to the wrong message. I don't troll. I do sometimes flame back accordingly.

I just looked back through the archives and you're correct, I was thinking of someone else, I'm sorry I falsely accused you of trolling. I was confused because the post you made was very similar to the one the person I was thinking of posted. The post he made in and of itself was not what makes me say he was trolling though, it was the 40 some odd posts he made after that where he was calling all the mods idiots and then saying how he was being "proven right" whenever one of those posts got modded down. Not that that matters in this context.

I'm posting this with my Karma bonus so that if anyone comes back through they'll be more likely to see my retraction of my previous accusation.

By the people. . . . .

[bogidu]

Let's see, what can be said . . . .BAD politician for abusing his power for a personal vendetta, STUPID city attorney for not realizing what a shitstorm he'd be walking into. It's truly up to the local population to tell them both that this kind of behavior against it's citizens won't be permitted. If they don't to anything about it then the get the type of representation they deserve.

Just code against the referering entity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Web wise you could just watch for the Referer that brought you to the site and send up a access denied page. (if they knew what they were doing)

I Wish

[Anonymous Coward]

They had sent the cease and desist to Lowtax.

Can they? Sure!

[swordgeek]

"...can a city (or any business or Web property) stop people from posting a link to its site?"

Sure. Take down the website.

Otherwise, don't go to the effort of making a public site and then suing people for pointing to it. Seriously, how many brain cells does it take?

Elaborate Marketing Ploy

[Crudely_Indecent]

Think about it:
1. Issue cease and desist to web developer for linking to your website.
2. Web developer responds by removing, then replacing link and asking everyone else to link to it. Hires a lawyer
3. Get national attention by counter suit and claims of "first of its kind"
4. increased backlinks boost rankings

I say tell the mayor how you feel :)

[Phil_at_EvilNET]

mayor@ci.sheboygan.wi.us Man.. could you imagine being slashdotted in SHEBOYGAN. Someone please email Johnny B at the Loop (WLUP) and let him know!!!

Got Compression?

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the heck does this image get to be 1211 KB?

http://www.sheboyganpolice.co/table_organization.htm

Oh wait, the used a BMP.

Should make it easy to create a slashdot effect on this website. Whatever you do don't go to that link.

unicoditorium

[ClioCJS]

Yea, I noticed that too. I'm disappointed in slashdot. How hard would it be to put a kludge in to convert it back to a normal frickin' "'"?

$s =~ s/Ã\(TM\)/'/sg;

Missed your shot

[eronysis]

This could have been a great opportunity to monetize that site!

Re: whole point of free speech

[Locklin]

Man, I really wish I could "Threshold :1" real life.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Locklin]

They do that here in Canada. I believe it's based on some sort of "reasonable attorney fees."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: whole point of free speech

[orclevegam]

It is just like calling people 'cowards' that don't aid the economic well being of Slashdot by registering.

How exactly does registering aid the economic well being of Slashdot? I know subscribing earns them money, but registering just means you have a persistent karma to follow you around, as well as the ability to choose which sections you see and how you want the various moderations weighted.

I hope Disney notices her....

[rahvin112]

I hope Disney notices her blatant abuse of copyright in using the image from the Incredibles. If she thinks the cities suit is bad, wait till Disney sues her. And she deserves to be sued for using frontpage and stealing other people's images.

Re: whole point of free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the dotboom era, registered users were gold. They are still quite valuable. By way of example, Facebook boasts their number of growing users. They don't boast the difficulty of unregistering and deleting a user's data. It is a bit indirect and difficult-to-impossible to confirm, but it is a metric by which a dollar value is placed on sites. You forgot the most important part about registering. It allows them or a nefarious party to track all of your posts, every story you read. No offense, but I don't EVER need a post tracked down to my real person. Innocous or not, there is no benefit. No benefit means the only possible affect is negative. Slashdot is MySpace, in essense.

Re: whole point of free speech

[orclevegam]

It allows them or a nefarious party to track all of your posts, every story you read. No offense, but I don't EVER need a post tracked down to my real person. Innocous or not, there is no benefit. No benefit means the only possible affect is negative. Slashdot is MySpace, in essense.

Well, I don't know about no benefit. I find it much simpler to follow responses to messages I've posted, not to mention my good karma allows me to bump posts up a bit if I want to emphasis a point. You also earn the privilege of moderating if you're registered. I also don't see slashdot having any real need to advertise their "registered user" count, as that's more for sites looking for investors, or to be bought out by someone. Slashdot is well beyond that point already, what with their corporate overlords in OSTG and as such has no need to advertise something as pointless as subscribed users (not to mention page views is a much better metric and impresses more).

As for the comparison to MySpace, sure some of the comments are probably on par, but at least viewing /. doesn't make you want to claw your eyes out like MySpace does (the Idle section excepted).

corruption in gov't

[cizoozic]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely too.

NEW PAGE 1

[cizoozic]

This drives me as crazy as the people who leave the cloudy plastic film on their electronics' displays.

No, but

[unassimilatible]

No, the taxpayers do not deserve bad things to happen to them because those they elect abuse the public trust any more than an abused wife deserves it for marrying the wrong guy. Not like the mayor ran on the platform of anti-First Amendment.

The one silver lining is that if she can prove retaliation, elected officials could lose their qualified immunity from suit, and could be liable personally (and in some cities, a showing of bad faith by an official does not require the city to pay his lawsuits).

Now there's a result we could both agree on.

No privacy on the net?

[migloo]

When you put something up on the Web without a form of access control (meaning logging in, not meaning "I only give out the address to certain people"), it's public every bit as much as if you put an ad in the newspaper. Linking to your site is no different than me saying, "Hey, check out this newspaper ad CmdrTaco put in, it's really cool!".

Let me disagree with you.
If I share private data with friends or family or colleagues on a private non-indexed website, I would certainly hate to see an outsider intercept and publish the url (or the password).

A public government website financed by taxpayers is another story of course.

this is like

[Anonymous Coward]

suing someone for pointing at a billboard.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Anonymous Coward]

And this differs from the status quo HOW, exactly?

Wow, how obnoxious

[mrmeval]

http://www.sheboygan.org/ wants to load an applet.
GNU Classpath's security implementation is not complete.
HOSTILE APPLETS WILL STEAL AND/OR DESTROY YOUR DATA!

Click "Cancel" if you do not trust the source of this applet.
Click "Trust Applet" to load and run this applet now.
Click "Trust Applet and Add To Whitelist" to always load and run this applet from now on, without asking.
The whitelist is a list of the URLs from which you trust applets.
Your whitelist file is " /home/jcaldwel/.gcjwebplugin/whitelist.txt ".

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/main.html

Sue me. I want to find out how evil I can become.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Eskarel]

Cursed wireless keyboard and low battery, it does that sometimes, misses letters :(

I've Been to Sheboygan

[gyrogeerloose]

If I were in the municipal government there, I'd be happy if anyone wanted to link to the city Web site.

Have they ever considered...

[GoldMace]

...simply requiring a password if they don't want people to get into their site like every other site in the world that has content that they don't want linked to? Probably not...

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't actually happen that way. In Canada, we generally have a "loser pays" system, but it also factors in how frivolous the judge decides it is.

So if you sue a large corporation, and the judge decides that your suit was reasonable, had some merit, you could have won, but in the end you lost, then both sides will likely have to pay their own legal costs.

On the other hand, if you sue a large corporation and the judge determines that it's a waste of everyone's time and money, then you will be asked to pay for it, or at least a large portion of the costs.

Where it works well is that if you are a large organization (say, one that claims to represent musicians) you will think twice before bringing a lot of frivolous lawsuits against your clients' customers, because you know that if it goes to court and the judge realizes you have no evidence or legal ground to sue, you're going to have to pay both yours and your victim's legal bills.

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

How could this have helped?

Her web pages changes from "click here look at X at the police departments site" to "look at X at the police department's site, google for the ABC police department, because in an effort to cover this up they're using a cease and desist order to prevent me from directly linking to them." Or... have the address, but not as a link to sidestep.

This makes the lady look right to call for the mayor's dismissal. The mayor can't be expected to understand everything, but he can be expected to consult appropriate contacts as needed. If he can't figure out how ineffective this would be, he isn't smart enough to be a mayor.

This also shows a petty-ness of character of the mayor to do such a thing, and suggests both

don't bother dealing with this town, official business may be randomly delayed by "more important" personal vendettas

and

watch your Ps and Qs, or you could be next, we'll stop at nothing to massage our egos

After this incident, I can see a second recall going through. I'd support it the second time even if I'd been against it the first.

http://www.racialicious.com/ try reading some of

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.racialicious.com/

try reading some of their experience.

I'm "white", but my "religion" isn't, nor has it ever been western,
so I've been subject to a hell of a lot of bizarre assumptions by "christians".
( parents tried to make me one: didn't stick )

They generally assume that giving is some kind of scam.

don't know why they do, but in my eastern religion, giving's kinda normal.

to westerners giving is some kind of leverage one's torquing obligation into others with?

bizarre. Wrong Planet, as far as I'm concerned.

Only by honestly considering other KINDS of experience, though,
in the words of the experiencer,
did I learn much of a handle on other's experience.

equanimity comes of that, and equanimity is wonderfully nice to enjoy.

Oh, 1 last thing:
if one's been subject to both pervasive abuse & boundary-violation
( molesting is one kind of that, doesn't need "sex" for either partner, does need "authority" and deep violation of one's person/validity )
then it takes decades, IF one is lucky, to force one to finish forming as a whole human being, the way healthy / non-messed-with children do.
( 50%/50% chance of becoming whole by 50 years old? probably not that good odds )

And interestingly, what any abuser could have told me long ago, when you "hit" someone, if you hit a huge & deep bruise, all the hurt in 'em hits 'em in the face, throwing 'em back into the whole of it, all at once, at a deep level.

iow, it takes many years of NOT being subject to abuse to form healthy / whole human worth.

I wish everyone could get that non-beaten real worth.

It's too bad my parents won't ever understand it, though ( from what I could see ).

Re: whole point of free speech

[GooberToo]

+1 Insightful

It was. Some of the replies and the moderation to those post further strengthen my argument.

Re: whole point of free speech

[GooberToo]

But what the words 'troll' and 'flaimbait' actually mean is worse. Both assume you know the motivation of the poster.

That's exactly the point. That's when you are supposed to use those mods; when you *know*. Both are easy to spot yet if you go based solely on modded posts, they'll almost always be wrong. Again, you've made one of my points. People are using these mods despite the fact the posts don't meet the requirements. This means they are bad mods. Furthermore, the meta-mod system is not correcting the majority of these.

On the other hand, off-topic tends to be more clear cut.

I agree. This thread would quality. And had the system worked, it's what I should have been modded. In stead, I was modded troll, etc.. And it is very clear, nothing in my post is trollish or flame bait. People may disagree, and that's fine, but then again, that's what replies are for, not mod points.

As is 'overrated' - it implies 'in my opinion and with my mod point I thusly smite you a point'.

That is a common use. I don't think I have an issues with it. Having said that, I don't use it as such. I use it to close out threads where factually incorrect information was provided and modded up. If these are left modded up, they distract from the topic. In other words, they do have legitimate use. And IIRC, they allow for corrections without punishment which can be a nice benefit.

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Anonymous Coward]

A web designer created a web link to the main site of a public, government institution. The city then issued her with a cease and desist order and began a police investigaton againt this person. This is patently wrong, and is behaviour which needs to be discouraged.

Nope, you could probably get a patent for that (that is if one doesn't already exist).

Thank you

[jabberjaw07]

It's me...the "Web Gate" gal. : ) I had to drop in to sincerely extend many thanks to all of you expressing support and kind words regarding the link "issue". I have read everything and appreciate all the comments so much - even the dissenters; after all, that very freedom to express dissent is part and parcel of our treasured constitutional rights. Obviously I cannot say much at this time, but please, no matter which side of the fence you're on, do realize this is a very, VERY difficult thing to go through. I move foward with the fervent hope that in the end, case law will be made so not one of my fellow techies/geeks/nerds in America ever need go through anything like this again. I do not know how to appropriately show my gratitude to all of you showing me support...BUT! I did think of one thing I can do - I CAN LINK! If you support me and would like your link placed on "THE LINKS PAGE" that started this landmark case (which is getting tons of hits), please use the contact form on Brat City Web Design and let me know what you would like posted. Oh and yes, we must keep the sites clean and wholesome, of course. Thank you again to all and feel free to contact me, as I really cannot post publicly like this again for a while. Godspeed!

Re: whole point of free speech

[sexconker]

Durrrrrrrrrrrr