Slashdot Mirror


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?"

7 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? by Rary · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  2. Then block her already by Auckerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  3. Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? by RMB2 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    [/sarcasm]
  4. Re:Pretty cut and dry if you ask me by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  5. Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? by Repossessed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  6. You do realize who actually pays such suits? by unassimilatible · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  7. I browse at -1... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.