Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
And how would that be remotely legal at all?
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.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
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.
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?
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.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
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.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
>>>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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"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.