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

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?

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: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: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?

[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?

[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: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: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: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.

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?

[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.

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: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?

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.