The Story of Dealing With 33 Attorneys General

microbee writes "Early this year, Topix, a popular community forum, faced investigation from 33 state Attorneys General for the practice of charging a fee for 'expedited review' of content that was flagged as inappropriate. The case was settled on August 9th, with Topix dropping the fees in question. Now TechCrunch is running an article by Topix CEO Chris Tolles, in which he talks about his experiences dealing with so many Attorneys General. Quoting: 'This is going to happen more — The States' Attorneys General are the place that complaints about your company will probably end up. This is especially true if you host a social or community based site where people can post things that others may dislike. And, there's no downside to attacking a company based in California for these guys (MySpace, Facebook, Craigslist have all been targets in the past couple of years). Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up.'"

Comments

Irony

[NFN_NLN]

Land of the free and home of the brave indeed...

Perhaps they should consider hosting from a country with actual free speech.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this have to do with free speech?

Re:Irony

[Ethanol-fueled]

This kind of thing is what scares the shit out of me, especially in California's economy:

Law enforcement shifting its focus to revenue collection. Most infamous are so-called "DUI" checkpoints in which citizens are searched throuroughly and ticketted for every little infraction. There was a story in the local reader about how somebody had their vehicle impounded ($300 bucks right off the bat here) because they didn't have updated insurance paperwork for their valid policy.

And it's only going to get worse.

Re:Irony

[bruce_the_loon]

This ain't about free speech, this is a method of extortion they took down.

"Oh, somebody posted something nasty about you. Pay $20 to take it down." Like that isn't ripe for abuse by the site admins. "Hmm, BillG1020 lives in a wealthy neighbourhood. Clickety-clickety. Let's see how long he takes."

It's a real pity the AG's didn't go further and block removal of comments at all. That's why Slashdot works so well, nasty crud gets modded down most times, but it's still there for the dirty minded buggers to read if they want. You're free to say it and I'm free to ignore it.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The day they try to steal my car for lack of a piece of paper is the day I become a cop killer. I don't care what the criminal gang that calls themselves the government claims "the law" is, stealing is stealing and I will kill to defend myself.

Re:Irony

[hedwards]

$300? Up here in WA state, that ticket is over $600 if I'm not mistaken. They do allow you to submit proof after the fact that you had the insurance and waive most of the fee, but those tickets are expensive. LEOs can ticket you for every single violation they see. They'll generally give a warning on most of them if they feel that you're not going to do it again, but they don't have to. As long as they catch you doing it and it's on the books, the only hope you have is of the judge tossing it.

Re:Irony

[Peach Rings]

TFA says they weren't violating any laws, they just got on the wrong side of powerful people and had to deal with 35 attorneys general holding slanderous press releases.

Re:Irony

[GiveBenADollar]

Land of the fee and home of the brave indeed..

Fixed that for ya.

This isn't a free speech issue as much as it is a free market issue. On one hand I'd like to support the company in charging for whatever they want to, it's their company so they can make whatever rules they want. On the other hand removing inappropriate content is not so much a service that the company provides to the community, but a service the community provides to the company. So the practice is in poor taste, but what is the problem? If you think posting on someone else's website is EVER free speech then you need to have your head checked. Slashdot is a fairly open community, but it's still possible to have your voice silenced quickly if you post something that disagrees with the status quo.

Re:Irony

[Peach Rings]

Cops are just doing what they're told, it's not like that kind of focused effort comes from rank-and-file officers.

Re:Irony

[Peach Rings]

It's a real pity the AG's didn't go further and block removal of comments at all

And how would that be remotely legal at all?

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

I strongly urge people to read the background information in the links before knee jerking. Here are some pertinent lines:

  “In fact, a large percentage of the posts in some Kentucky forums contain explicit, vulgar, obscene and defamatory posts about citizens, including children.”

According to a press release from Conway’s office, the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay a $19.99 fee.

Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it. That said, freedom and anarchy are not the same. People also have the right to protect themselves and their children from being defamed or slandered. Charging someone who might not otherwise access your site if they were not being slandered seems quite ridiculous to me.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, somebody posted something nasty about you. Pay $20 to take it down."

Alternatively, you could just not pay the money and wait in line with everyone else. If you want faster service then you should expect to pay for it or do you think all those "line pass" programs at amusement parks should be free because "GOD DAMN IT, I AM ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING!!!1"?

Re:Irony

[tomhudson]

In Soviet Russia, post removes Attorney General!

Wait ... didn't that also happen to some AG named Elliott something-or-other in New York when details of his "hooker dates" leaked?

So move your servers to Kanuckistan. Welcome to the Great White North - soon to be the Great Green North, thanks to global warming.

Re:Irony

[bruce_the_loon]

Dunno about the legality of it, but not being able to remove comments would prevent a slippery slope of editing the public record.

All forums but one I belong to don't allow originators or commentators to remove posts because they would break the flow of the conversation. Admittedly that's about seventeen of however many millions there are.

Consider a meat-space equivalent. Some white guy shouts something nasty at a crowd of blacks in Detroit. The news crews have filmed the incident from the start to the riot where the hospital is burned to the ground. Now the white guy goes and asks the film crews to cut his words out so that it looks like he was just standing there when the crowd went wild by itself.

Re:Irony

[bruce_the_loon]

The sense I got from the news articles was of without payment, there was no service at all. Whether that was reality or perception by the users, I don't know.

Re:Irony

[GiveBenADollar]

The news does this already. Years ago journalists went from wanting to "Deliver the news" to "Change the world" Scandal sells, rebutting a scandal not so much. Cue Fox News jokes, but all the outlets are guilty the only difference is the slant.

Re:Irony

[insufflate10mg]

Holy shit...

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

"...no one has the right to not be offended..."

Fuck you.

Re:Irony

[Wyatt Earp]

That was the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.

He was banging a hooker for a 1000 dollars an hour, the Feds were investigating and got him on a wiretap. He'd been doing it too as AG of New York, and had spent at least 80,000 on hookers.

Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.

Re:Irony

[Cwix]

They taught me not to follow "unlawful orders" when I was in the military.

Following orders is a very bad excuse for doing something you know is wrong.

Re:Irony

[mysidia]

And how would that be remotely legal at all?

They are not required to remove comments, they chose to do so. They could change their stance to only remove comments with a court order.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

According to a press release from Conway’s office, the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay a $19.99 fee.

And was that press-release truthful?

Re:Irony

[dbcad7]

I have belonged to moderated forums.. I see nothing wrong with it.. For the most part removing posts, and censoring and banning people who don't comply with the TOS is done to provide a product to the standard that the owner and administrator of the site determines. I am not bound to these sites, and I have alternative avenues available to express my views.. To give an alternative example.. If I were to join depression and suicide prevention forums, and continued to post comments on the joys and best ways to commit suicide, and to attack various users on why they haven't killed themselves yet.. It would be negligent and wrong for the owners and administrators of the forum to leave my posts there just for "public record".. The different forums I have visited have a wide range of participation, and the users and the moderators play a part in the final product and whether or not I continue to participate.. But I do so with full knowledge that the owners and administrators of these forums have the right to perform quality control. It's a fine line. Too much reigning in is bad, and not enough or none can be bad as well.

Re:Irony

[westlake]

Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this

There is a time and a place for everything.

The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.

The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.

Re:Irony

[eco2geek]

What interests me is the bias of the TechCrunch article, which is along the lines of "powerful attorneys general bully a beleaguered business because it makes them look good." WTF? Why is it assumed that Topix is unfairly under attack from the government, and the attorneys general are only doing what they're doing in order to bolster their careers?

The articles didn't give me a lot to go on, and I've never heard of Topix before, so I have to generalize. Lots of forums are moderated in one way or another, but this is the first time I've heard of one that turned "express moderation" into a profit center. But the point is, I don't start out assuming businesses are the "good guys" and the attorneys general are the "bad guys". My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores. Businesses generally aren't looking out for my interests; they're looking to make money. I'll take the attorneys general over businesses any day, even if that causes butthurt for CEOs like Chris Tolles.

Re:Irony

[CmdrPorno]

Most of the Topix small town boards are complete cesspools. It's like the old fashioned small-town gossip phone tree, except 1) it's completely anonymous and 2) millions of people can access it easily.

A lot of these small towns are trying to increase tourism and bring new industries into their communities. Having a public forum where their citizens are anonymously posting vitriolic comments about other citizens is not going to attract tourism or industry.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

if you dont see anything wrong with it you are a stupid sheep. eventually those forums will become the only ones left and free speech will be dead. its about the medium and forum as much as the message. try and get your statement on cnn for example. then look at coke and see how easy it is for them to pay the $100k/mnute to get on CNN. free speech my ass.

Re:Irony

[Xaositecte]

Also in Washington, I was driving around with an expired card, but the policy was still valid. Sent in proof of insurance and got stuck with a $60 "administrative fee" is what they called it if I remember correctly.

There wasn't even a hint of my car getting impounded.

Re:Irony

[khallow]

The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.

It's worth noting here that the First Amendment is as absolute as any change to the Constitution can be and it was the first such change made. I think that makes such talk as yours above, rather unenlightened. Sure, if you were warning us about an absolute interpretation of some obscure clause, I might agree. But instead, you're speaking of one of the core parts of the Constitution.

Second, the original poster already showed, via their discussion of slander and libel, that they do not think in absolutes with respect to freedom of speech, hence, your warning is unjustified. Nor do I see any indication that absolutes were being considered in your quoted fragment anyway. It is merely true that no one has the right to not be offended.

Considering all that, why did you bother to post your warning? Do you really think there should be some sort of "right" or privilege to impose on someone else's freedom in order to merely avoid being offended?

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

"...no one has the right to not be offended..."

Fuck you.

lol... exactly

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

John Stossel does this all the time.

Re:Irony

[dbcad7]

Yes because it is so hard for alternative forums to be created, and there are so few places to post whatever it is your trying to say.. hell it's probably really difficult, like establishing a user account.. but then who wants to keep a record of gems like your post, or the replies to it.

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this

There is a time and a place for everything.

The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.

The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.

Interesting how you left out the caveat I included that was clearly part of the sentence...

Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it.

That said, I guess to me it goes back to the basic tenet that you have the freedom to exercise your rights as long as the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon others' rights. Whenever there is a conflict of rights that cannot be resolved by the people involved, the next logical step is to take it to agents of the law who will resolve the issue as best they can within the framework of the minor laws while attempting to hold true to the greater principals. Must compromises be made when fundamental rights are at odds? Yes. Is this the same as "The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn"? I don't think so, but of course I am a mere interested layman. My main point was that the issue is not as one-sided as the poster seemed to be indicating.

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.

Unless you were there, I don't see how you can make that claim:
" the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp

And it's interesting how you left out all the good things he did in his career, not the least of which was taking on the Gambino crime family.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/jun/jun04a_02.html

Does anyone REALLY care that he got down with some hookers? Are we really still so prude?

Re:Irony

[mdmkolbe]

My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores.

When the AG's issue press releases instead of talking to the company about their concerns, you should assume the AG's are doing it for the media attention. According to the article, the AG's did this with both press releases. The first time, the release lied by claiming they had sent a letter to to company when the letter wasn't postmarked until five days later. The second time, the AG's never expressed to the company the changes they'd like to see made before villifying them in the press.

Maybe the article is wrong and the company is lying about the AG's behavior. The article doesn't say whether the reporter tried to get the AG's side of the story, which probably means the reporter didn't. However, if the accusations in the article are true, then then, yes, the AG's were acting like "attention whores".

Re:Irony

[Wyatt Earp]

Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times, I was going by what they'd said on July 16, 2008.

So I take back that he used campaign funds to pay for rooms.

But not that he cheated on his wife and blew over 80,000 on hookers.

If he was the governor of my state, I'd care that he "got down" with some hookers. But he never was and the Gambino crime family has no power in any state I've lived, so his taking them on really doesn't sway me either.

If you read your own link, Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.

"The case will be prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Frederick J. Whelan III, who is an Assistant Deputy New York State Attorney General in the AG’s Organized Crime Task Force, and Assistant US Attorneys Andrew M. Genser, Katya Jestin and Arthur Hui. The Task Force is headed by Deputy Attorney General George Quinlan, and supervised by Chris Prather, Assistant Deputy of the AG’s Criminal Division."

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times

It wasn't a correction. You went by the accusations, not by what was proven. There's a big difference.

Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.

Do you know about anything you say, or do you just say whatever nonsense comes to mind?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-5,00.html
(starts at paragraph 2)

He headed the three year investigation, and masterminded the operation that brought him down. He was a modern day Eliot Ness.

As far as whether anything he did affected you, I recommend you read the whole Time article. It's titled: Eliot Spitzer: Wall Street's Top Cop

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-1,00.html

Re:Irony

[Cylix]

By all means lets take them all down based on the views of a few.

In fact, while we are taking down these derogatory forums and fields of hate monger glory we should make a few more changes. We need a group of individuals to monitor television and newspapers. As well as a separate and special group to burn disconcerting books. In fact, all major media should have some over sight bodies to ensure the material for consumption meets with the guidelines of a chosen few.

Once this is complete we need to be able to identify and separate individuals who have discouraging view points.

Re:Irony

[ooshna]

If they teach soldiers not to follow unlawful orders then they really need new teachers.

Re:Irony

[Wyatt Earp]

Eliot Ness didn't lose his job for blowing 80000 dollars on hookers a thousand dollars an hour.

Re:Irony

[The Only Druid]

In many states, it's a jailable offense to knowingly drive without insurance. If you're driving, and your insurance isn't valid, it would typically be enough to arrest you in such states (which could include the impounding of your car).

Re:Irony

[The Only Druid]

Here in MD, Driving Without Insurance is 1 year in jail and I believe $1k. The non-jailable version - Failure to Maintain Security - is $280 on the ticket.

Re:Irony

[Kell Bengal]

The last things the government wants are an introspective military and soldiers that think for themselves.

Re:Irony

[Ihmhi]

You can't get fired for not racking up enough speeding tickets in the military.

Re:Irony

[dadioflex]

Well, you convinced me. However I think that as far as forums go it should be okay to ADD a moderated comment to posts, eg something along the lines of "We have, in fact, checked the birth records and John's parents WERE married to each other at the time of his birth and, furthermore, his penis is about average."

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

If he had, would it have detracted from his accomplishments? I think not. You had your facts wrong, and when confronted, you fell back into the fallacies of Ad Hominem and Hypocrisy.

Re:Irony

[Wyatt Earp]

The fact that Spitzer got caught doing the same illegal things he was against isn't up for debate though. He was just another shady politician.

Re:Irony

[paiute]

TFA says they weren't violating any laws, they just got on the wrong side of powerful people and had to deal with 35 attorneys general holding slanderous press releases.

TFA was written by the guy under investigation, so you give the FA credence at your peril. I found it disingenuous.

State AGs have a huge backload of complaints of many stripes. The fact that the author of TFA managed to piss off 35 of them enough to devote time to an investigation should be a clue that his business plan was flawed.

Re:Irony

[paiute]

The day they try to steal my car for lack of a piece of paper is the day I become a cop killer.
I don't care what the criminal gang that calls themselves the government claims "the law" is, stealing is stealing and I will kill to defend myself.

(Memo to self: Replying to ACs is a bad idea.)

Anyway, I will assume you are not a troll and that you need to try out for this show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_Wars

Re:Irony

[P0ltergeist333]

The fact that Spitzer got caught doing the same illegal things he was against...

That's just plain horseshit. Did he engage in organized crime by sleeping with hookers? Not by a long shot. Was sleeping with hookers an anti competitive practice? Not by any stretch of the imagination. You are merely engaging in sensationalist moralizing, that isn't even based on fact. Do you even know what Ad Hominem is? Probably not. Based on your comments, I doubt you'd know what critical thinking was even if you got hit upside the head with it.

Re:Irony

[Shotgun]

A notable example of this was the Democratic rally riots in the 60's, where the only thing that was shown on TV was the police beating on college students. The footage of rock throwing, spitting and taunting insults being thrown at the police were suspiciously absent. Not that it excuses the police brutality, but it is a completely different narrative. "I was sitting there, innocently minding my own business when the mean policeman started beating me with a club" is a completely different story than "I was pitching rocks at that fat-ass, when he started chasing me down."

Re:Irony

[Kestrell69]

If it doesn't offend someone, it couldn't possibly interest anyone.

Here's to New Zealand.

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope they outlaw software patents. I'd happily set my site up there and block all New Zealand requests. It would be worth it just to avoid talking to AGs.

This begs the question... To be answered!

[houstonbofh]

At some point there will have to be a decision on where an "Internet company" really is. You simply can not be subject to all the laws of all the places on the Internet.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[phantomcircuit]

Just require users to swear they are all in one state.

Magic

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

Sure you can. At least if your company is actually "doing business" in those places. Everybody else has to do that... why should internet companies be different?

If you do business in Michigan, you obey Michigan's laws. Chill and deal or get out.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[dkf]

Sure you can. At least if your company is actually "doing business" in those places. Everybody else has to do that... why should internet companies be different?

If you do business in Michigan, you obey Michigan's laws. Chill and deal or get out.

The only problem with that is the case where you have no physical business presence in that jurisdiction. Would you want to be subject to all China's laws, and simultaneously all Iran's, just because you happen to have someone use your service from those countries? No? Then physical location must matter.

What does that mean for all those state AGs? I have no idea, TBH. However there must be precedents with things like mail order firms; they must have been facing the same sorts of problems (though slower) way back...

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[AusIV]

For a website like a forum that doesn't have any physical presence in a particular location, what constitutes not doing business in a state? Do I have to do IP geolocation and block users from that state, or can I just put in my terms of use that users from that state may not use the site?

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[jonaskoelker]

Everybody else has to do that... why should internet companies be different?

I hear the have internet in east bumfuckistan. Should all the world's internet sites obey east bumfuckistani law?

Try these on for size: The Middle East (no depictions of mohammed), Thailand (I hear they have a lot of respect for their king), France (got a thing against Nazi memorabilia), China (Tiananmen square is a touchy subject), [...].

What is the cost of making every website in 192 different versions? How do you vet user-supplied content for legality across 192 different jurisdictions?

So, to answer your question very explicitly: Internet companies should be different, one might argue, because your office or shop tends to not be built on the border between country A and B but the internet is, for every value of A and B.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[MadnessASAP]

If you don't want to be subject to Chinese laws then don't do business with Chinese customers. Now on a related note if you happen to do business with China but have no physical presence there then China would be forced to extradite you OR attempt to sue you in your jurisdiction. (I believe this is true anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct me) UNLESS you happen to be stupid enough to travel to country that has a warrant for your arrest, theres been a few poor bastards that got nabbed by the FBI because they had a connecting flight in the States even though USA was not there intended destination.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[mysidia]

Probably, registering the domain through one of the massively popular proxy services to anonymize whois, and going through great lengths to not disclose the identity of the company, would help with these types of things.

Can a Kentucky attorney general get a court order or subpoena to make an ISP in California reveal the identity of the company operating the web server, without a specific suspicion or even California law being alleged as broken?

Maybe.

Can a Kentucky AG get an ISP in Mexico, Canada, or Newfoundland to do the same? Probably not.

If Slashdot can have Anonymous cowards, why have forum sites not taken a similar stance, if it can offer them some minor protection against having 33 AGs suddenly going after them when they didn't even break any laws.....?

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[mysidia]

I think the AGs from other states are playing an intimidation game here

They might not have a legal leg to stand on, and no charges they can bring successfully... but their concerns and the way they keep publicizing them may harm the reputation of the site.

It would be interesting to see Topix Suing 32 state AGs for defamation and some type of abuse, instead of caving in.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[mysidia]

China cannot sue you in the US for laws broken in China.

China also cannot extradite you, unless you were physically in China, broke laws when in China, and fled from justice there.

Even if you did, the US might not hand you over for extradition.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you don't want to be subject to Chinese laws then don't do business with Chinese customers.

No citizen should be held liable to a legislature where he/she has NO representation. If I sell ebay goods to a Chinese person, I am not liable to their law. If they don't like these goods for some reason, let them block the good at the border (and arrest the Chinese purchaser for breaking the law). But me? No jurisdiction without representation.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[sjames]

And if someone in China takes an extended vacation in the U.K. and visits your site from there, should you THEN be subject to U.K. laws, Chinese law, or the law where you are located. All of the above plus any other jurisdiction the packets may have gone through? If you are to be subject to U.K. law, will you also be permitted to vote in their elections? Will you also gain the protections of U.K. laws?

What if the Chinese person in China uses a proxy in some other country to complete the transaction (complete with a parcel forwarding service)?

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Kjella]

No citizen should be held liable to a legislature where he/she has NO representation. If I sell ebay goods to a Chinese person, I am not liable to their law. If they don't like these goods for some reason, let them block the good at the border (and arrest the Chinese purchaser for breaking the law). But me? No jurisdiction without representation.

By that logic Osama bin Laden can not be held liable to US law for the 9/11 attack because he wasn't in the US. Even though you are not in China they can consider you to be conspiring with someone in China to break Chinese law. Now China probably won't ask for and won't get you extradited, but I have no problem seeing how they could consider you an accomplice to the crime. Otherwise mail order companies could e.g. send you illegal prescription drugs with impunity, as long as they're not illegal where they came from.

I consider Internet servers do be different. I do not generally know where any IP is from nor what route it takes, and GeoIP databases are a costly and inaccurate extra service that is generally not available with most hosting solutions nor generally implemented as a filter. I consider that equal to packing a delivery for shipment, then some courier will come pick it up and take it by smoe unknown route to an unknown destination. If that happens to be smuggling it into China, it's not my fault and not my problem.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Skapare]

Just tell users if they want your online services, they have to come to your server in (whatever state or country). Isn't it great that the internet allows people to go to so many places where so many companies are.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

Then physical location must matter.

I disagree, with the sole exception of taxation. The fact of the matter is that if you are doing business in Michigan -- or any other state -- and regardless of whether you are selling via internet or mail order, if you don't have a physical presence in that state, that state cannot tax you... BUT you still have to obey all other laws of commerce in that state that apply to your business. Those laws already apply. Saying that the internet should be immune would be to actually change existing law.

That is why, when you see "contests" and "sweepstakes" online, they will typically say in fine print "not valid in states xxx, yyy, and zzz."

And so it is with other countries, as well. Man, it sure would be nice to be able to do business in a country without having to pay any attention to its laws. But that's not reality, or even realistic. It's not likely to ever happen.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

Having a website that others can visit is not "doing business in" that state or country. But if you are selling goods, or memberships, then yes you ARE doing business in that location. That's just the law, man. I didn't make it. Look it up.

And the same laws apply if you are selling via mail-order rather than online. I ask again: why should the internet be an exception to well-established laws? Everybody else has to obey them.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

You have to be charging money for goods or services. That is what is generally accepted as "doing business". There may be a few minor exceptions, but that's pretty much it.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

I find it amusing when I am modded "troll" for simply stating a simple truth.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[JWSmythe]

    Don't be too sure about this one. You may be sued or arrested almost anywhere for anything, regardless of the location it occurred.

    There have been actions that would have been crimes in the US, but happened on foreign soil where it may or may not have been against the law. The individuals were arrested and tried in the US for those crimes.

    The reverse could very easily happen. Since the US and China aren't exactly on the best of terms, it is doubtful that you would be extradited between either of the two nations to each other.

    A few examples to consider are (in no particular order)

    Manuel Noriega (... do I have to make a list?)
    Jon Lech Johansen (DeCSS)
    Paul Hillier (British citizen, arrested in US for not paying child support in the UK)
    Jack Sporich, Erik Peeters, and Ronald "John" Boyajian, (Operation Twisted Traveler)
    Dmitry Sklyarov (Hacker, DMCA crimes)

    I do not know of any inverse cases, but I strongly suspect China would be more than happy to deal with people who have done illegal actions in other nations. Those just won't make the state run news.

    I do totally agree with your ideal of the international legal system. A person, regardless of nationality, should be tried where they committed the crime. It is completely inappropriate to apply laws of another locale to a person. Cultures and societies decide their laws, and it is not up to the global community to decide them for us. While it may seem like a good idea to set a high moral standard for all citizens of the world, it only seems like a good idea as long as they match your own ideals. Those who don't agree should be allowed to leave that culture or society, and join one which does match their own beliefs. In times long since gone, we were. There was once a place where you could escape to, where you were free to speak, to believe, or to act (within social norms). You could leave your homeland, and travel there for a new start, to live your dream. From 1776 to 1875, there were no restrictions on entry to the US, other than getting there alive. In 1875, laws were created to protect individuals from human trafficking (Chinese slave labor, and women being imported for prostitution were made illegal). It ramped up over the years to exclude everyone, where they are daily wondering if they will be returned to the place they escaped. But I digress.

    I've been to coffee shops in the Netherlands, and perfectly legal brothels in 3 different countries (other than the handful in the US). Before you get your hopes up, I don't smoke pot, and I didn't partake of any services at the brothels. I was more than happy to drink perfectly legal alcohol (legal in both the US and those countries), and observe. In all cases, I was brought along with locals to see some of the local life. Should I be tried in the US for being to such places? I hope not.

    While I do find it a bit morally wrong to do some things, it's up to the local government to do something about it. I hold exactly one person up to my moral standard, and that is myself. My morals are higher than some people, and lower than others. I wouldn't fit in well in an Amish community, nor would I fit in well in some of the decided seedier communities around the world. I would like to find a place that was open like the US was in yesteryear, but it doesn't seem such a place exists, nor would I likely be allowed to leave for it after writing things such as this.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[dlgeek]

By that logic Osama bin Laden can not be held liable to US law for the 9/11 attack because he wasn't in the US.

First, murder is illegal pretty much everywhere - he'd be liable under pretty much any law. Second, there's a huge difference in that the acts actually took place on US soil. He's guilty of conspiracy to commit murder because the actual crime happened on US soil and he knew that the actions he was conspiring to commit were illegal there. In the cases we're talking about, the companies are not knowingly acting unlawfully.

Otherwise mail order companies could e.g. send you illegal prescription drugs with impunity, as long as they're not illegal where they came from.

Why should they be responsible? They're not doing anything illegal where they are. So long as they accurately describe the contents of what they're selling, it's the responsibility of the buyer to not purchase them or customs to stop them at the border and refuse the shipment.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>No citizen should be held liable to a legislature where he/she has NO representation. If I sell ebay goods to a Chinese person, I am not liable to their law. If they don't like these goods for some reason, let them block the good at the border (and arrest the Chinese purchaser for breaking the law). But me? No jurisdiction without representation.
>>>>
>>>By that logic Osama bin Laden can not be held liable to US law for the 9/11 attack because he wasn't in the US.

You're right. He can't. Only the people that actually set foot on US soil can be held for trial. Obama is being dealt with through force, not law.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

You are over-complicating things that are just not that complicated. If your website sells something to someone in the UK, then it is "doing business" in the UK... no matter where that person is from. That person is required to obey UK laws, and so is the company (or individual) who is "doing business" there via a website... or mail-order, or any other means.

A company should not be held liable if somebody "fools" it into selling in a place where it never intended to do business. For example, the shipping address (if any) had better be in a country where the company is legitimately doing business. If not, no reputable business will sell to you.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

They have perfectly sound and well-established legal legs to stand on. If you are charging money for something, from somebody in a particular state, you are bound by the laws of that state. This concept was firmly established for mail-order and other companies well over 100 years ago. There is no legitimate reason that companies who do business over the internet should be any exception. Everybody else has to play by those rules... why shouldn't they?

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[sjames]

I'm not the one over complicating it. History has shown that politicians will happily contort logic beyond the breaking point if doing so will expand their power base or tax revenue.

Really though, it makes more sense to make the actual residents within a jurisdiction responsible for the laws in that jurisdiction. I can't possibly know about every bizarre ordinance a zillion small towns might pass, but the residents of the town can. Likewise, they may not even know where my server IS much less that the mayor just happily declared that it's double tax Tuesday except on coffee drinks containing no dairy products.

I am doing business right here. I live here, my inventory is here, I pay taxes here. I vote here. If you choose to visit my store, that's fine but if the items you buy aren't legal where you live, it will be YOUR problem when you go home. I wouldn't know anything about it.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[mysidia]

Is that why companies don't have to collect sales tax when people buy from them who live in a different state than they do?

Even when the state the buyer lives in has a law that the seller must always collect sales tax?

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

Right. But you aren't SELLING at their home. You're selling at your store. Seriously, this issue was settled for mail-order companies well over 100 years ago. I ask again: since EVERYBODY ELSE has to follow those same rules, i.e., obeying the laws of the state in which they are selling, why should the internet be any different? You haven't explained that.

See, so you have a storefront in your town, yes? In, let's say, Wisconsin. You sell widgets. But if you open a website and take orders from somebody in Texas, you have to obey the laws that pertain to selling things in Texas? And why not? You are selling things to people in Texas!

Now, though, I must admit that I feel a better solution would be to consider, when you are shopping online, that YOU are visiting that online store, wherever IT is located. I think that would be a reasonable approach: when you visit a website, treat it as though it were a "virtual" visit to the location of that business. But the problem we have there is: where is that business? Is it at the physical location listed on the website? Is it at the server farm where the site is actually hosted (possibly in a different state or even country)?

Until the law settles that issue, it can't work that way.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

I know, it's convoluted. But the actual answer to that is "no". The reason is that the Constitution does not allow one state to tax a transaction that "takes place" in another state. Any when you make an online (or mail-order, or otherwise remote) purchase, it is deemed to have "taken place" at the location of the business, not at the home or office where the order was placed.

But why, then, do you have to follow all the other laws of the state of the purchaser? I don't have a good answer for that. All I can say is: that's always the way it's been done, for well over 100 years. And that's not necessarily a good answer.

One issue, though, is that in the case of an online company, where actually is its "location"? The place where the company is incorporated? At the physical location of the head office (which could be in a completely different state)? Where the site is hosted (possibly in a different state or even country)? That's a bit of a problem.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[sjames]

Wow. You know, if you can't afford your meds, your doctor may be willing to prescribe a generic...

As for your most strident question, the internet shouldn't be different, but the law needs to catch up with reality. We can't start having international extradition for small claims now can we? The existing laws were put together when ordering from another country was unusual enough that the very fact of it conveyed a certain air of the exotic to the item.

It may be that courts are going to have to come to grips with the idea that physical presence (or even demanding the presence of a representative) is occasionally an outrageous requirement. It wasn't such a big deal a long time ago when it was quite unlikely that people living a great distance apart would even know of each other's existence, much less feel a need to sue them or have reason to file criminal charges against them.

They also need to recognize that these days we regularly have contact with and do business with people who live where the laws are quite different. It's not even really possible for a person to know all of the laws for the place they actually live (even a lawyer has to look these things up and specialize). How can we possibly expect people to know the laws in other countries?

As an alternative, I suppose we COULD just close the borders to business so the problem can't arise but that seems a bit extreme.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[mysidia]

I know, it's convoluted. But the actual answer to that is "no". The reason is that the Constitution does not allow one state to tax a transaction that "takes place" in another state.

The constitution is no more restrictive of a state taxing a transaction that takes place in another state, than it is against states regulating other business that goes on in a different state.

One issue, though, is that in the case of an online company, where actually is its "location"?

Companies exist where they are incorporated.

Companies have a "presence" at any place that they have an office.

Whether a company really has a presence at the location where the site is hosted, depends on whether or not they own any of the hosting facility, or any of the equipment there, OR if they are paying someone else to host their site.

Presumably, if they pay someone to host it, whoever hosts their site has to obey the local laws though.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

The constitution is no more restrictive of a state taxing a transaction that takes place in another state, than it is against states regulating other business that goes on in a different state.

Actually, yes it is. A state may not charge a tariff for transactions made in or through another state. It's right there in the document. That's why we have "use taxes".

Companies exist where they are incorporated.

Not entirely true. I could be incorporated in Nevada, but if I have an office in Oregon, then Oregon can tax me for the transactions that take place through that office.

Companies have a "presence" at any place that they have an office.

Correct.

Whether a company really has a presence at the location where the site is hosted, depends on whether or not they own any of the hosting facility, or any of the equipment there, OR if they are paying someone else to host their site.

That's true here. But what about in other countries? What if I have a site hosted in Sweden, and I'm doing business in Germany? My point was that we do not have a consistent set of such rules that work everywhere. And we may never. Who knows?

Presumably, if they pay someone to host it, whoever hosts their site has to obey the local laws though.

I would think so. But again, which laws do they obey? It's pretty much a gray area, I think. We have long-established rules within the US because of such things like mail order. But internationally? I don't know.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

I posted an apology for the messed up tag. I don't know why it didn't show up.

None of my questions were "strident". It was just a messed-up html tag.

Your answer is a bit disingenous. People and organizations have been trading internationally -- frequently and in bulk -- since before the time of Christ. It hasn't been "unusual" for literally thousands of years. There are laws and standards in place, and there have been for a long time. The only thing that is different today is that you have a large volume of new small-time players.

Personally I think it would be wonderful if we could see a uniform standard for such trading, but good luck with that. As you wrote yourself, different countries and cultures have different ideas of what is right and fair.

Still, it seems to me that the simplest, most straightforward, and fair idea is to consider that if I have an online company in Milwaukee and someone from Yakutsk or Hunan decides to buy from me, then THEY are doing business at MY location. That eliminates a boatload of expense and complications. But it would mean that more people would have to pay sales tax.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[mysidia]

Actually, yes it is. A state may not charge a tariff for transactions made in or through another state. It's right there in the document. That's why we have "use taxes".

And the supreme court determined that clause doesn't apply to taxes, but only actual tarrifs.

A tarrif is a charge that is laid only upon imports or exports to or from outside the US or between states.

For example: applying a tax to a certain product when sold only by out of state dealers.

For example: taxing all of a type of product sold in a state, and making a subsidy to local producers of the product determined by amount of product sold.

Not entirely true. I could be incorporated in Nevada, but if I have an office in Oregon, then Oregon can tax me for the transactions that take place through that office.

No. Entirely true. The corporation exists in Nevada then, but also has nexus in Oregon, due to having an office there. Both states have the possibility of regulating and taxing certain activities of the corporation, then.

That's true here. But what about in other countries? What if I have a site hosted in Sweden, and I'm doing business in Germany? My point was that we do not have a consistent set of such rules that work everywhere. And we may never. Who knows?

If your corporation is in Sweden and you are hosted in Germany, then it is up to Sweden what laws to apply to you.

Probably your site will have to follow certain laws of Germany also, to avoid being taken down by your hosting provider there, if the government asks them to, and if they would be required to.

I would think so. But again, which laws do they obey? It's pretty much a gray area, I think. We have long-established rules within the US because of such things like mail order. But internationally? I don't know.

I mean that the hosting provider has to obey laws of the country and state that the hosting provider's facilities are located in.

If the hosting provider is a multi-national, they probably have separate subsidiaries for separate countries.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[sjames]

I think we actually agree in the end, both of us believe that the trade happens at the seller's location.

Even that has a few problems, but it's a reasonable approximation that at least allows business to be conducted while it all gets figured out.

There HAS indeed been trade across borders pretty much forever, mostly it has been merchants actually crossing the border in person to do business and then re-selling to people in their own country. Later, it was the same class of person making deals via courier, then post, eventually telegraph and phone and finally by internet to import goods and resell to those in his own country.

Significant numbers of individuals making personal purchases internationally is relatively recent. I could have been a bit more clear that I was talking about small individual orders.

It's one thing for courts in multiple countries to get involved in legal disputes with and between multi-nationals doing millions or billions in trade. It's quite another for them to do the same over a trade valued at $100. Nobody in China is going to fly here just to have their dispute heard by Judge Judy and she is not going to attempt extradition.

It does seem that within the U.S. at least there should be SOME provision for dealing with disputes across state borders that doesn't involve people having to appear personally or hire an out of state attorney, particularly in cases where the cost of doing so exceeds the reasonable value of the dispute.

Sorry about the mis-understanding on the bold tags.

Re:This begs the question... To be answered!

[Jane Q. Public]

No problem; it was my mistake. I had posted a comment about it but it didn't show up for some reason.

In any case yes, I think we are actually pretty much in agreement.

The answer is already here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the company outside the jurisdiction of concern.

Re:The answer is already here.

[commodore64_love]

Under current laws internet companies are treated the same as mail-order companies -

They are subject to the laws of whatever state they reside (say: Vermont) plus the central, general government if their goods (say teddy bears) cross state lines. (If they don't cross lines, then only Maine has authority.) In my example the business would not be subject to foreign government outside of Vermont, just the same way a Polish business is not subject to the governments of Germany or France or other EU states.

And there's a good reason for that: No seller or citizen (like me) should be subject to a government where he has no representation.

Re:The answer is already here.

[westlake]

They are subject to the laws of whatever state they reside (say: Vermont) plus the central, general government if their goods cross state lines. In my example the business would not be subject to foreign government outside of Vermont, just the same way a Polish business is not subject to the governments of Germany or France or other EU states.

You've forgotten that goods crossing international borders have always been subject to export controls and export duties, import controls and import duties.

The wood stove you import from Vermont still has to meet local fire codes and emission standards.

You may own it, but you can't get a permit to install it. If you install it anyway, your fire insurance goes up in smoke.

Re:The answer is already here.

[commodore64_love]

>>>You've forgotten that goods

Good grief. You didn't understand a single word I wrote. I wasn't talking about the good. I was talking about the company. The man who owns Vermont Teddy Bears is subject to VT and US regulation, but not California or any of the other states. Those governments haze zero jurisdiction over non-citizens.

As for other brilliant ideas, like New York State wanting me to collect taxes from my ebay buyers and file a tax return, they can rot in hell. I owe zero allegiance to that government, nor do I have any voice speaking for me in its legislature.

Re:The answer is already here.

[KiahZero]

Then you can choose not to have contacts with those states. New York isn't forcing you to sell your products to residents of New York.

If you have contacts with a forum state, you're subject to that state's jurisdiction in matters related to those contacts.

Re:The answer is already here.

[Entropy98]

As for other brilliant ideas, like New York State wanting me to collect taxes from my ebay buyers and file a tax return, they can rot in hell. I owe zero allegiance to that government, nor do I have any voice speaking for me in its legislature.

Well its only a matter of time before your state does the same thing. Maybe all the states will get together and do it all at once.
 
--Windows Media Codec Pack

Re:The answer is already here.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can go outside my state and start raping the shit out of everyone, and I can't be prosecuted? Brilliant!

You first.

Re:The answer is already here.

[kabloom]

Well, at this point it was just an investigation, but presumably the Attorneys General have the power to bring a case against Topix in federal court for some alleged violation of federal law.

Re:The answer is already here.

[ensignyu]

Hmm, what about services? Since most non-retail websites are more like a service, assuming they even charge money rather than operating on ad revenue.

And then there's virtual goods, which you might manipulate entirely on a single server farm in, say, Vermont, even if you live in another state.

Re:The answer is already here.

[Svartalf]

In all honesty, I don't know why you got modded "interesting".

The jurisdiction of a state ends at it's state lines- period. A law in New York does not apply to me unless I'm physically IN the state, regardless of what the state says on the matter. Civil stuff won't have you extradited to that state- and there's strict limits to what they can/can't do to you when you weren't in the state to begin with. They also have strict limits on what they can/can't do to you if you're not currently within the state when the trial is held when you are subject to their jurisdiction. (For example, if I am not properly served (and there is a process even for out-of-state parties...), any default judgement is void out of the gate. There's a few other roadblocks like this on this same front- there's a reason nobody bothers with this stuff...usually...)

If I do business with a citizen within that state, there is really only one way that I can expose myself in a manner that the State's actual laws might be fully and properly applied against me (and only IN the Federal courts...) by "remote"- if I have some civil matter that exceeds $75000 in that state, they may drag me into the Federal court of their district and have it tried there. There's a due process item in the mix and they can't just arbitrarily sue you for something out of state just because you had a contact with a person present in the state or residing therein.

What I suspect has happened with Topix, is that they violated some Federal statute in the small and the AG's went after them with a nasty PR campaign more than anything else for political gains.

The real moral of the story here is the same one that Professor Duane's lecture covered- you are under no obligation to give ANY official of the government any information without a proper Warrant signed by a Judge. While I strongly suspect that they were quite guilty of the "offense" in question- had they not "complied" with the request they got from those AG's they'd not have been in the mess we're now discussing- because they wouldn't have had anything for the PR campaign they ran against Topix and they'd probably not have anything to go on for the Federal suit they were threatening.

Re:The answer is already here.

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you have contacts with a forum state, you're subject to that state's jurisdiction in matters related to those contacts.

Only to a certain extent. They can block my ebay advertisement from being viewed in New York, or block my shipment from entering New York, or arrest my buyer for making an illegal purchase, but they have as much authority over my body as the government of China (i.e. zero). They have no authority to arrest non-citizens.

And if NY doubts that, then they can send the NY militia (or police) across PA and MD to collect me. I'm sure these states will consider it an act of invasion and respond in kind (i.e. fire back).

Re:The answer is already here.

[sg_oneill]

Not if your trading internationally.

In international trade its the clients state that has juristiction (under Gutnick et al). So for instance if your dealing with an Australian customer, Australian law is what applies. If your dealing with Brits, brit law applies. If you dont like, dont enter a contract with them.

That was established in the Gutnick decision where it was held that the place of publication in defamation is wherever the reader was. The principle was loosely portable outside of that.

No laws were broken

[schwit1]

The AGs should not be able to do this until they can demonstrate laws were broken. Otherwise they are making up the rules as they go along. Rules that have not been approved by a law making body.

Topix should be able to petition a judge to shut down any talk of remediation until the AGs present formal charges.

Re:No laws were broken

[Peach Rings]

AGs shouldn't be able to do anything at all. The California attorney general has jurisdiction. The rest of the world (except the federal government) has no say whatsoever.

Re:No laws were broken

[Mashiki]

Well then I guess they only provide services to people in the state of california. In reality they don't, you know it, I know it, they knew it. It's the same reason why FB has drawn the ire of both the german and canadian governments. Because the internet removes borders, and as such they become subject to the laws of other places.

Re:No laws were broken

[commodore64_love]

It's amazing how dumb people can be (at least in regards to the law and jurisdiction).

Let's say an owner is located in UK but his website is visible all across the EU. That means he's subject to the laws of UK, the EU, and nothing else. It does not matter that his site is visible in France, Germany, Poland, and so on..... he is not subject to their laws. LIKEWISE: An owner located in CA but visible all across the US is subject to the laws of CA, the US, and nothing else. It does not matter that his site is visible in Arizona, Missouri, Virginia, and so on..... he is not subject to their laws.

No jurisdiction without representation.

Re:No laws were broken

[sjames]

That's exactly what they do though. The users travel to California using their packets as an intermediary.

Re:No laws were broken

[Animaether]

Being visible to is one thing. What if he starts offering his site in French as well? What if - prior to the adoption of the Euro - he offered his services available by payment in French Francs? Can you still argue that It's just a site in the UK that is only subject to UK legislation?

I agree that a line should be drawn, otherwise pretty much every site is going to be breaking a law -somewhere- and being subject to that law by default would be insane; but I'm not so sure that the line should be drawn so black-and-white as to say "the server is in" or "the owner of the site is registered in" being the discriminating factors in terms of what state's law applies.

Re:No laws were broken

[Xaositecte]

Being visible to is one thing. What if he starts offering his site in French as well? What if - prior to the adoption of the Euro - he offered his services available by payment in French Francs? Can you still argue that It's just a site in the UK that is only subject to UK legislation?

Yes.

If the owner of the site decided to start accepting Chinese currency and offering his site in Chinese, he would still not be subject to Chinese laws. There's going to be an arbitrary line drawn either way, and we cannot have a chaotic mishmash where nobody is sure what jurisdiction applies to a website.

Re:No laws were broken

[commodore64_love]

>>>Can you still argue that It's just a site in the UK that is only subject to UK legislation?

No British citizen who lives on British soil should ever feel the cold steel of a French guillotine, especially if he's never left the British Isles. Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause?

"We the French assembly have determined that all web owners that displayed nudity, even prior to passage of this law, shall spend 10 years in jail." You'd end-up deporting British web owners to France where they would be jailed by a foreign government.

Yeah I know I exaggerated, but it seems with some people you have to hit them with a hammer to make them understand the implications of subjecting citizens to foreign Governments where they have Zero representation and Zero voice. Ya know, I don't feel like having my head chopped off just because an Iranian purchased an Ebay hard drive from me that showed women in bikinis.

Re:No laws were broken

[commodore64_love]

When the telephone was invented, the US Supreme Court already ruled that just because a person's voice carries into a foreign state does not mean he/she is subject to that other state's laws. The person is only subject when his body enters the other state.

Re:No laws were broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice.

Doesn't this make the English legal system illogical?

Re:No laws were broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Things aren't so simple as you make it seem. You may even be correct in your examples (I'm not familiar enough with the laws of the UK or EU to comment) but they're still over-simplified.

The reality is, each "body" makes up its own rules regarding jurisdiction. If I were the dictator of Dhalkaville, I could pass a law stating that anybody anywhere in the world who wears a blue shirt should be executed.

The practical effects? Few, because nobody is going to extradite you to me for wearing a blue shirt. However if you stepped foot off an airplane in my country wearing a blue shirt, there's nothing at all stopping me from arresting you, declaring you guilty (hey, it's my country so I get to determine the rules for trial as well) and executing you. At that point if they really want to stop me, they're declaring war.

Now obviously this is a ridiculous and wholly contrived example, but it applies equally to more mundane things. It's how, for example, Google executes could be indicted it Italy under Italian laws despite being US citizens and a US company. Practical effect? Little. Effect if they happen to visit Italy? Could be large.

The situations are further complicated by various treaties. The entire EU is essentially one big treaty, for example. They may have some sort of law stating that any indictment in one member nation is binding in other member nations; essentially a huge, multi-national agreed-upon extradition framework. (Or, hell, they may not. Like I said, I don't know.) If Dhalkaville happens to be friends with Commodoreland that blue shirt decree is suddenly twice as bad.

Re:No laws were broken

[Peach Rings]

The state department protects US citizens abroad and will rain hell on anyone who harms someone carrying a US passport.

Re:No laws were broken

[Animaether]

Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause?

It would cause no particular chaos. You would be answerable (presuming a law was broken) but that doesn't mean you don't have a voice there. You can get representation to show up in their courts (potentially arguing that the seat of the court be moved to your state).

This is exactly the situation that applied in the BREIN vs Sunde et al (The Pirate Bay) case in The Netherlands. They were subpoena'd, they didn't show up, BREIN won by default. They then appealed and got representation into the court to argue their case. The judge did not buy several arguments and found that TPB was 'doing business in' The Netherlands and catering to the Dutch. Of course it helped BREIN's case that there's EU-wide agreements on these kinds of things as well. I'm not sure what the latest on that case is, other than the lead of BREIN going to Sunde in Austria to hand him some papers regarding the non-payment of fees (and Sunde filing charges for illegal filming by that lead and blablabla).

Now, just like Sunde, you're probably welcome to ignore what that French court finds. Odds are that your government isn't exactly going to extradite you either (depending on the severity of the charges; unless you're an American in America, of course). But you may have to give up those vacations in France or countries amicable to France who may hand you over to them.

Ya know, I don't feel like having my head chopped off just because an Iranian purchased an Ebay hard drive from me that showed women in bikinis.

Well the same as the above applies.. I guess you'd have to stay out of Iran - that shouldn't be a problem, right? That said.. your argument is flawed within the apparent system - *unless* you were directly marketing the drive to Iranians.

Re:No laws were broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice There but the The law does not care that there is an internet. If you are in California and choose to swindle people in other states. The can extradite you. You can choose the Phone or the internet same rules ( Mail is a special case in the U.S.)

  If the 33 A.G.'s had no right to or legal standing to present charges, then his lawyers should have said something.

Re:No laws were broken

[random_ID]

This is rapidly becoming a classic problem - we have not yet evolved a legal structure that handles borderless cyberspace well.

Re:No laws were broken

[Anonymous Coward]

No British citizen who lives on British soil should ever feel the cold steel of a French guillotine, especially if he's never left the British Isles.

You're so right.
Though I sympathise, somehow I'm not convinced your (noble) views match current reality.

Re:No laws were broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause?

Well, you're not going to see me display much sympathy for stupid net censorship or other sumptuary laws.

However, that is not the only possible case. It is just as easy to say "Why should I lose the consumer protections I voted for because it turns out that the company I dealt with was in another country where the 'Fucking Legislature' made a different choice? Why are they allowed to make money in this country but not expected to follow the rules that I would have to follow if I was running a similar business?".

So what's the answer? Either businesses don't sell in foreign countries, or consumers and businesses refuse to buy from foreign companies, or you face up to the fact that if trade crosses borders, there will be inter-jurisdictional issues.

The US experience is slightly strange in this regard, because the common language, culture and very similar legal codes in different state make it very tempting to ignore the fact that they are different jurisdictions.... right until the shit hits the fan.

it seems with some people you have to hit them with a hammer to make them understand the implications of subjecting citizens to foreign Governments where they have Zero representation and Zero voice

Perhaps the problem is not that others are stupid, but because they realise that this problem has existed for literally thousands of years and requires more in-depth analysis than some hand-waving appeal to democracy and human rights, some swearing and a few hand-picked examples.

Re:No laws were broken

[macaddict]

Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause?

We don't have to imagine it. It was called The American Revolution! ;-)

Re:No laws were broken

[commodore64_love]

>>>It would cause no particular chaos. You would be answerable... ...to a Foreign Legislature and a Law where you had no voice in its crafting (i.e. to representation). That is not democracy. It is Tyranny.
It would be equivalent to the US starting to arrest Europeans for violating the Patriot Act..... and they have no voice in Congress to say, "I am against this law." That is the exact opposite of Democracy.

Re:No laws were broken

[theNAM666]

Exaggerated? You're off the board of reason ability!

It is rather unlikely that any French legislative body is going to be concerned with basic nudity. It is equally unlikely that anyone is going to be talking about an extradition treaty with Iran, over civil matters, any time soon.

But if you create a website hosted in the UK, who's intent is to sell Nazi memorabilia to France, there's at least an argument that France should be able to ask the UK to consider curtailing that activity.

As for "zero representation and zero voice..." exactly how many UK citizens have voting rights in France? A half million? It's not like you're starring across the channel waiting for invasion at any moment!

Re:No laws were broken

[Chowderbags]

Down that path there be dragons. It would make every site on the internet beholden to the most autocratic, backwater, fundamentalist, etc concerns. I know I don't want every company on the internet to be subject to the laws of China or Saudi Arabia. I don't think every indie game designer should have to implement checks on IP addresses to make sure that a customer isn't coming from Germany (where game violence is heavily censored), or Australia (where a handful of fuckwads are essentially banning some video games). Even within America, I don't want porn limited to the "community standards" of some small town of fundamentalists in the middle of Arkansas.

Today's reality

[cdrguru]

Today if you are a white male anyone can pretty much say whatever they want about you without it being considered actionable. There is libel and slander, but it is difficult to prove actual malice. Without that it is going to be a tough fight in court to get anywhere with libel or slander.

However, if you are in what is considered to be a protected group, such as women, African-Americans or other groups like this, it can easily be considered a violation of federal law to post comments which are derogatory without even getting into libel or slander. This is a side effect of "hate speech" laws that have come about.

Of course we are all familiar with the idea that if a member of a protected class is murdered and the State does not convict anyone the accused can be tried again (and again and again until convicted) under federal civil rights laws. The idea of double jeopardy has fallen by the wayside when it comes to protected groups.

I would say a web site that charges a fee to remove comments from a forum about a protected group is just asking for trouble on a federal level. Sooner or later they are going to run into someone that gets the attention of a big-name bigmouth like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson Sr. I wouldn't think you would have to go very far to find someone like Barney Franks that could exert some influence on behalf of a gay person being charged a fee to remove some anti-gay comment.

For "unsupervised" forums there may be some cover, but I would imagine it is just a matter of time before this is noticed. Sure, a Slashdot comment may be modded down. But if a unmoderated forum allows comments to stick around and be visible it better be a white male only forum because anything else can get you into serious trouble.

We all have to watch out for the civil rights of protected groups or else they will suffer grevious harm. Right?

Re:Today's reality

[mysidia]

This is a side effect of "hate speech" laws that have come about.

In the US, there is no hate speech laws, the 1st amendment of the US constitution broadly prohibits regulation of the content of speech.

Re:Today's reality

[GiveBenADollar]

This is a side effect of "hate speech" laws that have come about.

In the US, there is no hate speech laws, the 1st amendment of the US constitution broadly prohibits regulation of the content of speech.

It's called "hate crime" not "hate speech". And yes something you say can be counted as a "hate crime".

"The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting."

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.

On October 28, 2009 President Obama, signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

So if you combine all these, you end up with intimidation being a severely punishable offence if the person is a minority. Since 'intimidation' is extremely vague the law can punish you for libel or slander if it is 'intimidating' in nature. Bye freedom of speech.

This doesn't even include state laws

Re:Today's reality

[cdrudge]

So if you combine all these, you end up with intimidation being a severely punishable offence if the person is a minority

Being a minority is not a requirement to be a victim of a civil rights violation, violent crime, or hate crime. A black man being attacked by the KKK because he is black is just as much a victim as a white man being attacked by the Black Panthers because he's white. It doesn't matter if the victim is in a majority or minority, it's based on if the crime is based on race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. It just happens that minorities are more often the victims then those in the majority.

Re:Today's reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Today if you are a white male anyone can pretty much say whatever they want about you without it being considered actionable.

You're confusing the fact that white males tend to do most of the oppression in this country with the notion that there's a legal principle (implicit or explicit) that says the reverse can't happen. Of course it can, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't happen very often.

However, the fact that you seem to confuse these two points suggests pretty clearly why we still have this problem: you think that white men aren't still a privileged group. We've come a long way toward equality, but there is a hell of a long way to go yet.

And before anyone shoots their mouths off, I'm a middle-aged white male, raised affluent and pretty damn privileged. I've seen enough, both personally and in studies, to know that my personal perception of being unfairly treated isn't necessarily reality, though.

Re:Today's reality

[NeutronCowboy]

Ah yes. It is terrible to be a white man in the US. Let me give you a clue: you have no idea what it is like to be a woman, a black person, or a Muslim. Stop comparing your plight to theirs, it makes you look ridiculous. Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still part of the group in power.

Of course we are all familiar with the idea that if a member of a protected class is murdered and the State does not convict anyone the accused can be tried again (and again and again until convicted) under federal civil rights laws.

Remember OJ? Clearly, not. Civil rights apply to everyone. Thankfully.

Let me repeat that for you: as a white male, you are the power group. Not the persecuted group. The persecution you feel is the same as that of Christians in the US: completely imaginary, and only based on the fact that your power has decreased from its zenith during the last few hundred years.

Re:Today's reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me repeat that for you: as a white male, you are the power group.

This is a hilarious and false canard. Whites do not have racial lobbying groups - go start a "White Students Association" or a "NAAWP" and see what the social outcry is. Yeah, some power we have.

Discrimination against whites has been an official policy of the government and many institutions for a long time. The government has, for example, policies that prefer minority owned businesses over white owned ones. Universities often have policies that place lesser qualified non-whites above whites in the admissions process. But boneheads like you come out and say HURR DURR WHITES HAVE INSTITUTIONALIZED THEIR SUPREMACY!!!111one.

Furthermore, even though we are in the majority, it is very difficult to make the case that this majority is even explicitly looking out for its own interests. Does that 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House in any believable sense represent some sort of "white power" bloc? Maybe you'll just tell me that, whilst preaching anti-racism and often times promoting immigration (that is having the net effect of replacing whites), that they're somehow crypto racists looking to subvert the system silently. Yeah, that must be what they're doing!

Re:Today's reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the clueless preaching to the clueless. Please, sir, I want some more. This entertainment is priceless.

Re:Today's reality

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a load of bullshit. Whites do not have some sort of institutional system of privilege for themselves. Granted, there are still backwater towns and individuals out there who have these views, but the case for making it out to be widely institutionalized isn't there.

My white skin did not get me to where I was today - I had to work my ass off to get here, and I consider myself very fortunate knowing that there are lots of other whites who are unemployed because of the recession.

You want to talk about privilege? Why don't you go up to the countless numbers of poor working class whites (it only seems to be the suburban whites who go on this "white privilege" guilt trip, thinking that all whites are affluent, employed, and live in McMansions like they do) who can't find jobs because of the recession and/or because their jobs were outsourced to factories in China. It's really ridiculous to hear this sort of garbage day in and day out. It also grinds me because one side of my family comes from a rather impoverished background - perhaps it would be a little more humbling for assholes like you if you were to see the conditions that many ACTUAL WHITE PEOPLE live in but often are ignored because, hey, they must still be privileged due to their skin color somehow.

The problem with terms like "oppression" and "racism" is that they seem to be arbitrary definitions that change based on who is making the charge and who the target group is - so I'm not going to get into a debate of who is "doing all the oppression".

Re:Today's reality

[Kjella]

In the US, there is no hate speech laws, the 1st amendment of the US constitution broadly prohibits regulation of the content of speech.

It's called "hate crime" not "hate speech". And yes something you say can be counted as a "hate crime". (...) So if you combine all these, you end up with intimidation being a severely punishable offence if the person is a minority. Since 'intimidation' is extremely vague the law can punish you for libel or slander if it is 'intimidating' in nature. Bye freedom of speech.

Hypothetical mob: "This place ain't for the likes of you, get the fuck out of here before we beat the crap out of you. If you or any of your n*gger friends ever show their ugly face here again you're dead meat. I'll give you to the count of ten. One. Two. Three..."

Not all speech is protected, death threats are not. Combine that with hate directed at a minority you've got a pretty clear case of hate crime if you ask me. "Intimidation" is not a general insult, it's a threat of harm and I can't really imagine the courts having much trouble telling those apart.

Re:Today's reality

[GiveBenADollar]

If this were true then high schools or colleges would have no problem establishing "White spirit" clubs. Also I would be able to start the Nation Association for the Advancement of White People, or White Entertainment Television. There is a double standard, and it is very slanted.

Re:Today's reality

[Anonymous Coward]

It also just happens that there is close to zero enforcement of 'hate crime' laws if the victim is white and the perpetrator is in a minority group.

Re:Today's reality

[Ihmhi]

White Entertainment Television

We had it. It was called PAX.

Re:Today's reality

[macaddict]

Here's what you sound like: "I'm rich and it's not fair that poor people have homeless shelters and food banks! Nobody gives me a cot or a bowl of soup! It's a double-standard, and it's very slanted! *sobs*"

We actually do have "White Spirit" Clubs: you can see them in the US as "Scottish-American Club", "Polish-American Club", "Italian-Amerian Club", etc. and they have been in existence a helluva lot longer than the NAACP. Do you cry when someone of a different (white) ethnic background has a club and you don't? Or do you only whine about non-white ethnic clubs?

We already have White Entertainment Television. It's called "the vast majority of TV shows ever made".

We already have the National Association for the Advancement of White People. It's called "the status quo".

How dare they want to see people they can identify with on TV! How dare they band together within an organization to crack through the status quo! How dare they! I'm sure it's very stressful for you, having to deal with those uppity minorities threatening your default privilege. Would you like me to call you a Waaaaaambulance?

Re:Today's reality

[GiveBenADollar]

We actually do have "White Spirit" Clubs: you can see them in the US as "Scottish-American Club", "Polish-American Club", "Italian-Amerian Club", etc. and they have been in existence a helluva lot longer than the NAACP.

References please. How long have they been in existence. Are they specifically for the advancement of their own race? And if so, do they exist on high school/college campuses?

We already have White Entertainment Television. It's called "the vast majority of TV shows ever made".

Ahh, so if I started a network named White Entertainment Television it would be ok because it's already the status quo?

We already have the National Association for the Advancement of White People. It's called "the status quo".

Listen to yourself. Doesn't that sound the least bit racist to you? Tell me how 'white people' get better chances in life. Tell me how 'white people' from poor families have it any better than minorities from the same circumstances. If there is any status quo it is due to education and values not skin color.

Re:Today's reality

[dwye]

> It's called "hate crime" not "hate speech". And yes something you say can be counted as a "hate crime".

And so far, most prosecutions have been against minority criminals targeting majority victims. There is no open season on us white, northern European, protestants, yet.

Re:Today's reality

[Shotgun]

Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still part of the group in power.

Really? And not having a wad of cash in order to make a campaign contribution, just exactly how much of an audience to you think I will get from the 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House?

And what does OJ have to do with anything? He was tried for murder, and got off because one of the investigators forgot that he had use the word nigger as an actor in a documentary movie about racism. He was then sued in civil court because it was so damn obvious that he had murdered his ex-wife. I went to a majority black college, and had a professor rant at me in front of the classroom about how the "whoring bitch" (his words) deserved to have her head cut off. When I reported the intimidation to the civil rights office of the college, I was told that some of the faculty got a pass on this sort of thing because they had been around so long and had marched with Martin Luther King. A white professor would have been looking for a job the next day. Hell, if you're a white talk show host, where you JOB is to be inflammatory, you can't even say the word nigger in the context of asking why is it OK for only one group of people to use the word nigger. Where was the white power structure when Dr. Laura needed them?

If you're rich, there may be some power structure to support you if you don't step out of line; otherwise, forget it. You're on your own.

yeaaah federal is freedom yeaaah !

[unity100]

you americans were fucking my head with this, when talking about all the recent political developments.

enjoy your federalism now. with this kind of 'freedom', people in one state will or will not be able to do things that are legal and free in their state, because it isnt in another. so, people in that state will live by other states' laws.

enjoy federalism. it is freedom. self-conflicting freedom.

Re:yeaaah federal is freedom yeaaah !

[paiute]

you americans were fucking my head with this, when talking about all the recent political developments.
enjoy your federalism now. with this kind of 'freedom', people in one state will or will not be able to do things that are legal and free in their state, because it isnt in another. so, people in that state will live by other states' laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

In defense of Topix...

[johnhp]

A friend of mine came to me when she found disparaging things were posted about her on one of the Topix threads, and wanted me to help her to use her debit card to pay for having it removed. Being unfamiliar with Topix's extortion, I was naturally very surprised to see that they offered this "expedited investigation" or whatever it was called. I convinced her to wait a few days and see whether the normal channel of removal worked.

Oddly enough, it did work. I was able to flag the post over the course of a couple of days, and it was eventually removed. So don't say that they *never* removed posts based on the free system. They did at least once.

Perfect statement

[Anonymous Coward]

'Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up.' This is truly a perfect statement, showing the gross injustices be performed within America's and the rest of the worlds justice systems. Think Eliot Spitzer of New York. He went after everyone he simply thought he could get his claws into. Thank God he fell into the pit of a whore.

Attourneys General?

[jez9999]

Seriously, can we stop with the French throwbacks, and say things the English way? What's wrong with General Attourneys?

Re:Attourneys General?

[electrostatic]

Seriously, can we stop with the French throwbacks, and say things the English way? What's wrong with General Attourneys?

Yes, that would make the singular and plural possessive cases easier.

For example, an AG and her staff are having lunch and the waiter arrives with sandwiches.

Should you tell him "that's the attorney's general ham and cheese"? Or should you say "that's the attorney general's sandwich"?

In TFA, should it be "the 33 attorneys' general lying venality"? Or "the 33 attorneys general's mendacity?"

Re:Attourneys General?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with General Attourneys?

It's misspelt.

Re:first post

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Sure.

Anyway, should it read "33 Attorney Generals"? Plural is in the wrong word.

OP there is no 'u' in attorney too. ;)

Re:first post

[bar-agent]

"Attorneys General" is correct. This is because English is f'd up.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm

Who gives a rip?

[sdnoob]

Topix is a horrible, searcn-engine spamming, pop-up and advert-ridden site whose very existence depends entirely upon leeching other sites' content.

Not worth the mention here or anywhere.

Sandwiches? I didn't know Attornies eat food.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that would make the singular and plural possessive cases easier.
For example, an AG and her staff are having lunch and the waiter arrives with sandwiches.
Should you tell him "that's the attorney's general ham and cheese"? Or should you say "that's the attorney general's sandwich"?
In TFA, should it be "the 33 attorneys' general lying venality"? Or "the 33 attorneys general's mendacity?"

You are making a mistake on the penmanship; by convention of it's usage, it needs be writ Attorney-General as the form of an General Attorney. Also, it is helpful to know the word flow-control difference of using either a dash or a hyphen.

a State of the United States != State of America.

[Anonymous Coward]

Know the difference.

US Code says nothing about a State of America, other than that those are foreign nations with foreign principles of a forein country and continent.

You've been hornswoggled.

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[Anonymous Coward]

That persons in government actually listened to their constituents and moved to protect the interests of the people who they're supposed to serve!

Surely that's not the way things are supposed to work!

Seriously, these guys are doing their jobs, and that's fine. You can lament all you like about the horrors of a company being subjected to the jurisdiction of a place they aren't, but it's not like companies haven't tried to take advantage of escaping enforcement before.

Want to know why there's a movie industry in Hollywood California? It's because they went out there to get away from Edison's patents. You can bemoan all you want about how it's unfair, but if you don't want to at least recognize another country's (or state's) authority, don't do business of any kind with its residents.

And if you want protection from them say, extraditing you, then make sure wherever you live has some way to protect you from when it happens. Just don't expect it to be absolute.

Re:first post

[pushing-robot]

No, it's because we're referring to 33 attorneys, not 33 generals. You modify the basic noun, not the modifiers. English would be more f'd up if you didn't.

Imagine if this was correct english:

"I'm a rebel without a cause. You're a rebel without a cause too. We're rebel without a causes!"

Anybody ever read their TOS Agreement?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, that's the thing about corporations. They try to get you to sign away ever right and protection you might have, they do their best to keep things out of court, to keep you in a position where you can get screwed by them.

So no, I'm not sympathetic to their complaints about some state authorities taking an interest in them. It's not like you can do it yourself.

More corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "Too often, we've found, the office of attorney general is used for little more than a way to advance one's political career."

"Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up."

"Unlike most other people in business who will attempt to reach out to you to get what they want, and use the threat of going public as a tool, our experience is that the offices of the Attorneys' General seem to be most happy communicating via press conference, without any sort of preliminaries. This is primarily a political exercise, and you're dealing with people who are very empowered to make life difficult for you."

"At no time during this process were we accused of breaking any laws."

"...an AG essentially is a state run law firm employing hundreds of people."

The political system in the U.S. is extremely corrupt.

Re:More corruption

[gd2shoe]

The political system in the U.S. is extremely corrupt.

Very true, but not nearly as corrupt as many other countries around the world (Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc...).

We cannot accept the corruption that we have, but I wouldn't trade it for theirs.

(Just asking for perspective)

Re:More corruption

[Alex Belits]

There is "less corruption" in US because most forms of corruption are perfectly legal there. You have to do something truly monstrous to be accused of corruption in US -- and having political parties literally on your payroll does not count.

Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean the AsG.

Pay to Play?

[NemoinSpace]

"...Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up.'"

I'm as suspicious of politicians as the next guy BUT Taking complaints from your citizenry and acting on them is kind of in the job description.

Besides, it might of occurred to the company in question, that taking payola to take down what might be considered liabelous posts exposed them to even more liability since they could no longer claim a lack of resources was the primary holdup. Suddenly they became paid editors. Maybe they should just use a moderation system if they want to ignore it and a subscription model if they want more money.

I got one of those suits.

[h00manist]

I now sometimes think Tor should come built into modems and routers.

We care about hypocrisy and conflicts of interest

[LrdDimwit]

Yes, we care about the hookers. Not because they're hookers, but because when an Attorney General is involved with an organized ring of anything illegal, then he's a hypocrite and has huge conflict of interest problems. And when a hypocrite gets to make the rules, he isn't affected by them - so he has no motivation to make sure they're just and practicable. He got caught by a money laundering law that he had passed so he could catch other people doing the same thing. He demanded very high standards from everybody else, it's why he was elected Governor in the first place. So now he gets to pay the piper.

You honestly don't see a problem with the Attorney General of a state being involved with a madam? Because it was going on while he was the Attorney General - the person in charge of prosecutions across the state. The conflict of interest posed by a state's top prosecutor being involved in an organized criminal enterprise is simply unacceptable, even if you think that the particular crime in question ought not be a crime at all. Was Spitzer protecting his call girls from prosecution while prosecuting others? What would have happened if the criminal enterprise in question started to blackmail Spitzer? Things can go seriously south in all kinds of unpleasant ways from here. Supposing the outfit he got the call girls from hired thugs to shake people down. How is Spitzer supposed to put a stop to that?

Expedited warranty service

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's such a serious offense to take what is, essentially, a bribe for letting you skip the line to get access to something they're obligated to provide, how come there is not a peep about outrageous service fees for "expedited" warranty, where you don't see your equipment for months if you don't pony up a vast portion of the repair bill?

First line from the CEO should have been

[mveloso]

The first line from the CEO should have been "what can I do to make you guys go away."

The second line should have been "I'll put this lube on right now so it'll be easier."

Subject

[Legion303]

"Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up."

On the other hand, a company doing shitty things that piss off consumers is a good way to get attention from attorneys general.

attournies-general is the correct way. AllURWrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn the difference between a dash and a hyphen.

Also, learn how to properly plural a word.

Re:We care about hypocrisy and conflicts of intere

[P0ltergeist333]

Simple fallacies of Ad Hominem, Hypocrisy, and What if.

The funny part is I was not even arguing whether he should have lost his job if he had been caught when he was AG (he didn't.) My argument is that you cannot judge all of a man by one deed, after the fact. I fully acknowledge what he did was wrong, and COULD HAVE had wider ramifications. But the main point of my post was to correct the misinformation being spread, and point out that he did some good things, and that in actuality the good he did for the public way overshadowed any ACTUAL harm.

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's not a good example. "We're rebels without causes" is perfectly fine. In either case, "cause" is a noun and not a modifier.

The confusing part about "Attorney General" is that, in English, the modifier generally goes before the noun. Plus, "general" is a perfectly good noun in other cases.

Re:first post

[paiute]

i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]

Some sigs just aren't the same without a picture to refer to.

SO ?

[unity100]

difference is ? if your freedom is limited through a commerce clause, or, through a central law, what fucking difference will it make ?

Re:first post

[theNAM666]

Your example is odd, though I'd take a bet that there are languages where modification of the adjective and not the noun is appropriate.

In many or most languages, there would need to be accordance between both the substantive noun, and the adjectives, including in general: Des Avocats Rouges et Bleus, for example.

The major confusion here seems to stem from what you say, that they are 'general attorneys,' where general is the adjectival modifier, but the older form where the adjective follows the noun is preserved, 'attorneys general,' which can both sound a little odd and make the reader think that the entire phrase 'attorney general' is the substantive, as in a compound formulation such as 'attorney-general'.

And of course, you refer to 'correct english,' a rather schoolmarmish concept. Exactly whom are you referring to?

Are we really still so prudish? YES!

[theNAM666]

Are we really still so prude?

You're talking about the US, and the answer is yes. As well as petty and trite, and above all, ready to enjoy the spectacle of destroying a high public figure by any means possible.

Re:first post

[dwye]

> This is because English is f'd up.

English has been "f'ed" up since it became a Danish/Anglo-Saxon pidgin, before the Norman Conquest. If you don't accept that, there are still hundreds of other languages in which you can write (assuming someone else can write back -- there aren't many Pequot-literates, anymore :-)