Slashdot Mirror
Legal Threat Demands Techdirt Shut Down
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this month, the US approved a new law to fight against so-called 'libel tourism,' the practice of suing US companies in foreign jurisdictions (quite frequently, the UK) which do not have the same level of free speech protections. The new law, the SPEECH Act, may now get put to the test, as lawyers for a guy named Jeffrey Morris in the UK, who was upset about some comments on a 2004 blog post on Techdirt, have demanded the entire site shut down due to those unidentified comments."
Isn't there a statute of limitations in the UK on libel/slander? I know that if a case is brought more than 2-3 years (depending on type of libel/slander and state), a judge would laugh it out of the courtroom.
people crying that free speech here isn't as free as that in Europe. It's not true! It's legal in the U.S. to be racist, homophobic, a Holocaust denier, to be for or against abortion, or any other issue. Hell, it's legal to film sex and sell it here! In Europe, there are a lot of places it's not legal to be any of those things. While they're hateful positions that we can silence by not giving any attention to, the fact you can speak anything without fear is our greatest treasure, in my opinion. In several places in Europe, you go to jail for denying the Holocaust. You go to jail for preaching against homosexuals from your pulpit.
I'm sure I'll be modded down for saying it, but it needs to be said. Free speech is damn free in this country, and I'm glad we're going to even further lengths to protect it!
Regardless of statute of limitations, a judge in any state in the US would laugh it out of court on merit alone.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Test? What test? The Act pretty solidly protects techdirt from the UK parties seeking to enforce a judgment in the US. It doesn't protect them overseas though, but as long as they don't have assets in a country where the judgment can be enforced they shouldn't have a problem. But you're not going to see some dramatic legal case where this is tested.
"So, uh, yeah, go ahead and sue. And tell them they can rule that I need to shut my site down. Oh, wait, what country were you in again?"
Whale
Is a fucking asshole.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It would seem a strange turn since the USA allowed a one of its firms to sue a foreign entity not that long ago: http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/statement.lasso?ref=3
UNIX/Linux Consulting
To loosely quote Russell Brand (British comedian):
I'm not liking this. I'm REALY not liking this.
Instead of turning off this offensive material I think I'll write an angry letter!
Neither. In two days you will be visited by an old man with a bowler hat and a handlebar mustache. He will knock on your door and ask if you have any ketchup. The next day the same man will appear dressed as a clown sitting in your car. For your own safety just ignore him. You won't see him for two days, and then he will appear in your living room dressed as a devil. Don't worry. He will leave immediately.
After that I can't be sure what will happen, but it will be one of two things. Either you will never see him again, or he will appear in your bedroom just as you're going to bed. I won't describe his appearance. If you're not going to find out, it's better to not know.
If he does appear that one last time, do not fall asleep or you will never wake up again.
Such are the consequences of a first post.
Sweet dreams.
Get a court order in the other. See which hand fills up first.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
How mankind absolutely cannot recognize the fact that he lives in a global society, and that the internet is a global medium. I'm currently writing this post from Costa Rica where, as a born Canadian citizen and an adopted British and EU Citizen (my mother is Scots) I hold legal residency, and have for 20 years.
It's unfortunate that the ignorance of different laws and customs among those (supposedly) smart people we elect to represent us and judge us leads to this kind of mess. Why can the US enforce it's own very restrictive copyright laws and extradite people from oh, I don't know, Australia for example, to face criminal copyright infringement charges; only to turn around and then prevent its citizens (real or corporate) to be shielded from other countries' laws?
A decision must be taken: to enforce either the weakest possible or strongest possible law in every case, in order to avoid the arbitrariness not doing this would lead to; or to disconnect the internet.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
the BEST thing is that the sockpuppet defending Mr Morris on the thread that the case is about is called 'Dirk Manly'.
Congratulations Mr Morris, your silly attempts at intimidation have now hit /. and blown up in your face and the original article is available for all to see. FYI the comment was posted after a blog entry related to Jeftel so it is all the more incredible that the guy behind these demands might be associated with the funding & running of an ISP. Here is the body of the offending comment quoted in the complaint and appended to the blog entry along with other very silly stuff:
the unchosen one, Apr 16th, 2010 @ 6:30am
my name is adam gould son of doctor gould in leeds.
I get bollocked by jeffery everyday. He makes me feel stupid, maybe because i am?? I get paid 30k a year to get slapped about like a whore by jeffery. Who only looks after his own 'jewish' workers. the rest treated like shite.
Jeffery Morris has young people around him, they are so so fooled by his 'brainwashing' ways!! tels them anything to make them sell..many people are educated but caught in a 'dream' that he will make them rich. Hahah what a joke!!
The guy who runs wamey now is Dennis Carr, who owns a bar in manchester. Complete conman, check him out on google, inside track. He tries to get into your head like the demon headmaster, but he is just a working class plasterer who earned a few quid scammin people in property. Jeffery Morris what a wanker, scammer. Dennis is gettin a dose of his own medicine by jeffery..where is your workforce? left because dennis is a conman
the fact you can speak anything without fear is our greatest treasure, in my opinion
Good luck talking about terrorism, bombs, Islam, or airplanes.
IANAL, but isn't there any kind of jurisdiction regarding stuff like this. Why is a law needed for, "Courts that have no jurisdiction here can't have jurisdiction here."? From the ISP's perspective: 1. The ISP is American (I assume), and 2. The client is American, and 3. If the client and/or ISP haven't broken any American laws why should they use a UK cease and desist for anything other than toilet paper? If the client and/or ISP HAVE broken American laws, the person should sue using the American court system.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
As much as I'm against filtering at all, if your country/government doesn't like what's said in another country, it's up to your country to filter it out.
We aren't going to bend to your will or around your laws when on our soil, Mr. Dickhead in the UK. Don't like my opinion and what I have to say? Know what that sounds like? It sounds like a tough break for you.
The story looks to be about this post http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041001/0941211.shtml regarding Jeftel in which the company is called out for being a spam sham. This guy doesnt exactly look like the next Richard Branson :) Jeftel.com doesnt exactly resolve to a legit operation either. Just a default holder page. Is this guy just pissed for being caught out? What a douche
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Not sure but I do know our libel laws here are in desperate need of overhaul, and many are campaigning for this. We have one of (if not, the) highest libel costs in the whole of Europe, making us a very attractive place for libel tourism, as often is the case whether you're guilty or not doesn't matter, merely defending the court action can be enough to bankrupt you, especially if it's against somebody who has the money to throw at it. I know that can be true in many areas of law, but such is the cost of defending libel cases here in the UK, that the effect is far more exaggerated.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
cf McKinnon, the OFFENCE took place in UK!
Take that, 'merkins!
Perhaps it is my lack of understanding of law but I fail to see why any firm should care about being sued in a foreign court when they have no presence in that foreign country. First there was the UK spam filtering company sued in the US, now there is this reverse case. Why did the US congress even need to pass the SPEECH act? Aren't US companies protected from UK laws by merely being in the US and not the UK just as the reverse applies? Isn't this what sovereignty means? The only exception would be extradition but that only applies to criminal, not civil cases.
Neither. In two days you will be visited by an old man with a bowler hat and a handlebar mustache. He will knock on your door and ask if you have any ketchup. The next day the same man will appear dressed as a clown sitting in your car. For your own safety just ignore him. You won't see him for two days, and then he will appear in your living room dressed as a devil. Don't worry. He will leave immediately.
Well, those are the most accurate descriptions of the Slashdot editors I've heard. And it sounds like they are really stepping up their anti-First Post campaign.
Straight from simple filters all the way to the handlebar clown devil treatment. No intermediary steps at all. Now that's how things get done on the internet!
My work here is dung.
I hear Jeffrey Morris is a irredeemable pedophile who collects the underwear of his young victims as trophies. He has a couple diapers as well.
I hear Jeffrey Morris once watched The Adventures of Pluto Nash all the way through and enjoyed it.
Tell Spamhaus that. Oh, yeah, the slashdot stories all had USians turning up saying "well, they should have turned up in court, then, shouldn't they!".
Here is your other shoe, kid.
You would think the UK lawyers would learned about US laws before threatening to shut down a website that is out of their country. I guess when you live in Oceania, I mean the UK you can do whatever you want.
Someone must be reading the Holders series too much.
but you will be met by a wall of ignorance, hysteria, fear, hyperbole, and propaganda
which is fine. life is raw. i would prefer ugly truths to placid lies, which the laws in other countries apparently prefer
the alternative: forbidding people to talk about controversy, is that superior? i don't think so
as the top poster said, i am quite enamored with the usa's right to free speech
but what i don't like currently in the usa though is this melding of opinion and "news" organization, such as with fox news. currently in the usa we are drowning under a flood of misinformation and lies
in other words, i think it is ok to have any opinion you want. but what i don't think is ok is to tell people lies and present it to people as facts, which is what "news" organizations like fox do
what i would like to see is a law somewhere along the lines of "enjoy your free speech, just don't present yourself as an authority on something when you clearly are not an authority, just a bought and paid for huckster"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Great, just great.. the solicitors are from Leeds too. My home town, it'd only be a relatively short walk to get to them in town too.
Thanks Addlestone Keane Law, great way to help the international reputation of Leeds.. for fucks sake. This is going to go streisand effect, I just know it.
You are a flaming asshole. Please to go fuck yourself.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Nope, no illegal access. It was open to the public. There was no damage done. There was no secrets unearthed. There was no crime and the crime he is being extradited for did not exist in the US at the time.
So, although there are differences, there are more differences than you lead to suppose. The most important one is that when this "crime" took place
a) no such law existed for McKinnon's actions
b) libel laws existed for this case
I'm told that "if it's true, it's not a libel" does not apply to UK libel law, rendering libel defense rather onerous.
Wait, let me cover my ass anyways: I could be wrong, though. :-)
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
One of the fundamental requirements for a free market is an informed consumer with choices.
One could interpret matters like this as suppliers trying to keep their dirty laundry quiet, trying to keep consumers in the dark, keep them from making fully informed choices. Obviously if available information is clearly incorrect that needs to be fixed, but it's also not clear that that's the case here.
Most people have been looking at this from a freedom-of-speech point of view, and that's valid. But there are other problems with it as well, and the free market implications are one of those.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"It is entirely possible that the lawyers were unaware of the SPEECH Act, but it does seem like a law firm making legal threats in a foreign country should be expected to have researched the legal barriers to making such a claim before using billable hours to make threats they cannot back up."
The law firm doesn't care if their threats are stupid:
Client: I want to sue!
Attorney: Well, you don't have grounds and probably can't win.
Client: I don't care! I want to sue!
Attorney: Okay. (Now with a clear conscience, turns on the clock.)
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
it's ok for europeans to hate americans. its ok for anyone to hate the usa for any aspect of our history or national character they find repugnant. you're completely welcome, be my guest, it's a free world (or rather, it should be a free world)
but what i dislike is when americans are held accountable for crimes and weaknesses that basically every human being is guilty of. or when the atrocities of the american government are given special analysis for high holy indignation, while much worse atrocities of the same form from other governments are completely ignored, minimized, or excused, including from their own government. not that a crime committed by another government excuses the crimes of the american government. but it doesn't excuse critics of the usa to focus their high holy indignation on the usa alone, when whatever ugly game in question is played by everyone
your criticism must be intellectually honest, or your criticism isn't valid
i repeat: there is plenty about the usa to hate. but what about the usa do you hate? if your answer is that you hate the usa for what everyone does, then that merely means you are propagandized and out of touch with the reality of the world you live in
the full force of your criticism should be based on principles, and principles alone. you will find then that the targets for your criticism flwo freely all over the world, and not along the lines of geopolitical tribal entities. but if your criticisms adhere too strongly to geopolitical boundaries, where what your country does is excused, but what their country does is not, then your own attitude is part of the problem, perhaps even more that that of americans or the usa
and, btw, my words here apply equally to americans who view the usa as untouchable and squeaky clean, and some other place or country the root of all evil: the inverse of irrationally hating the usa: irrationally loving the usa, is equally wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I have to say, Jeffrey Morris is a twit, he got my dog pregnant, he pissed in my refrigerator, and I'm pretty sure I saw him talking to Osama Bin Laden and Mel Gibson. Jeffrey Morris smells funny, kind of like fermented horsepiss and turnips. Jeffrey Morris's girlfriend left him for quadriplegic asexual carnival freak.
Ha ha, my plan to shut down /. is practically complete!!!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
The Internet is not an open-air medium. I am not broadcasting anything to you, as I would by speaking it audibly into airspace or transmitting it into the electromagnetic aether.
I am placing words on a server with a known location. In order for your precious subjects to come across my words and be offended/libeled/scandalized/blasphemed by them, they have to find the server, access it, request the information, decode it, and present to themselves it on their equipment.
And likely their request has to cross an international boundary to reach the server.
Therefore, what I type into my computer that they are not allowed to read in your country is not for you to stop me from posting, nor for you to stop the server from serving. It is for you to tell your subjects not to read, if you choose to have laws that make certain forms of speech illegal in your country.
That's quite aside from the fact that it is likely that making such things illegal makes you a freedom-hating tyrant who can just fuck off.
Something like that yes. I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage, and that that reputation has been damaged (eg, if you have a reputation in one area, but the libelous words were spoken elsewhere to someone who'd never heard of you, that wouldn't count).
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually, you may be correct in that that is somewhat considered secondary ... the damage is damage. However, what the court awards you for the damage is likely to be affected by this. You may win the case but only be awarded £1 + legal costs. The problem is that the legal costs are likely large enough that even if the court say you don't have to pay damages, you're still ruined. This is why it desperately needs change, because it is just a weapon for the rich.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
true
but there is a huge difference between a news organization that tries to be as neutral and objective as possible, letting through only the inescapable theoretical bias, and an organization which makes no bones about its attempts to manipulate, distort, tell half-truths, and purposefully push an agenda
so no, sorry: cbs, nbc, abc are NOT the liberal counterpart to fox news. cbs, nbc, and abc are traditional fact based news sources, and are moderate
meanwhile, fox news is blatantly and purposefully right wing, and they are able to paint the traditional news sources as left leaning only because the middle is to the left of the right
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I seem to be a bit of a spastic:
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually true, you may be correct...
and
that even if the court says you don't have to pay damages, you're still ruined
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Actually, *you* will be visited by a tall thin man dressed in a top hat and dark clothing. He won't bother to knock; he will simply flood your room with knockout gas.
You will wake up in a lovely seaside rehabilitation village. You will be chased by an overgrown weather balloon and a series of administrators.
PS the access occured here in the UK. In both cases.
And, in both cases, the server accessed by the actions were in the US.
I think I picked quite a good comparison.
the truth is often ugly and difficult for people to come to grips with. in fact, because of the cognitive dissonance, many would prefer to accept or tell themselves placid lies, rather than face an ugly truth which upsets their beliefs and point of view
the truly intellectually honest person, who is willing to challenge their beliefs, is unfortunately rare: they are investing a lot of time and energy into an endeavour with little payoff and a lot of pain. meanwhile, those who wall themselves off from truth and maintain pleasant lies have a pleasurable, effort free life
so you wind up with these people who are so closed minded, they will only live in their walled cognitive garden of placid lies, and anyone that faintly smells of ugly truth must be attacked and cast out immediately, to preserve the status quo of current belief, lest you have to face the difficult and painful task of rebuilding your belief system. propaganda outlets like fox news helps maintain that walled garden of denial for many people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, *you* will be visited by a tall thin man dressed in a top hat and dark clothing. He won't bother to knock; he will simply flood your room with knockout gas.
You will wake up in a lovely seaside rehabilitation village. You will be chased by an overgrown weather balloon and a series of administrators.
jesus christ I couldn't take that, I would feel like some sort of ....... prisoner. And I would of course want to speak to the number 1 person in charge right away.
I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage
How the fuck has Tom Cruise managed to succeed then? His only reputation is that of an insane, fucked-up loser who joined a criminal scam cult.
I mean ok, sure, he could descend to the level of Mohammed or Warren Jeffs or his current cult's founder L-Ron and try to start his own religion too, but...
Wikileaks? AllofMP3? Antigua net gambling? Canada "piracy" sites? DeCSS and IndyMedia/G5 summit? The list goes on. Of course, to some extent these are the US pressuring foreign countries to do the closing down, but the US is using ITS effort to do it, so it's rather like buying a heavy to beat someone up: YOU are still the criminal, even if you didn't hit a person.
I'm Jeffery Morris and I support these statements...hey wait!?
Not Jeffery Morris, but had to be said.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
it never was. i'm sorry that YOU at one time thought it was
but don't hold it against me that your idealism about the usa was shattered, as i never had such idealism
if some asshole once said to you "america is the best! believe in it!" i'm sorry you got sold a bill of goods. right now, there are assholes in every country: china is the best! russia is the best! india is the best! etc., selling the same crappy merchandise. why don't you believe what they say? why don't you hold it against them that they have tribal chest thumping ultranationalists? there's tribal chest thumping ultranationalist for every nationality. why do you only hold the usa guilty for a crime every nation commits?
you should be mad at yourself for ever believing such nonsense in the first place, you should be mad at your own gullibility
you're nothing but an ex-fanboy, you've fallen out of love with my country. fine. i didn't ask you to love my country, that's your own fault
likewise, that you hate my country is your own fault too
the only valid way for you to feel about my country is completely neutral. if you feel anything else, you're the one with a problem in how you view the world you live in
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Except I thought the truth was an absolute defense against libel? *
*Yes I know that's not true in the UK **
** Unless you appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights
I have to say, Jeffrey Morris is a fine, upstanding citizen who would never sleep with any canine, urinate in any non-toilet receptacle, or collaborate with terrorists. Jeffrey Morris smells like fresh petunias and lavender. Jeffrey Morris's girlfriend is an absolutely delightful person.
FTFY
Ha ha, my plan to shut down /. is practically complete!!!
Ha ha! You have been thwarted!
do you want to try being intellectually honest?
or is it that you replace intellectual honesty in your life with bumper sticker slogans?
which makes sense... the low iq need simple minded slogans to chant to feel motivated
here let me help:
DISMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
FREE(tobe)DUMB!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They're lucky they didn't allow commenters to post nasty comments about vegetables. Then there would be nothing to save them. Even Oprah couldn't dodge those crappy laws.
Dammit who let SCP-844 out again?
It's true that Mr Morris is not acting wisely, but I'd have more sympathy for Techdirt if they were not serving up UK ads to UK readers. Profiting from globally publishing antisemitic comments hardly gives them the moral high ground regardless of the legal issues.
KarrdeSW is a bot and all of its words should be disregarded.
Ha ha! The revolution is back on! Hit the button, Frank.
I love the implied equality between Bin Laden and Gibson.
Actually if you type Tom Cruise into Google and see what suggestions come up (yes, that's a valid measurement of reputation!) you get things like 'films', 'movies', and 'height', so his overriding reputation seems to be "short actor".
More people in the world know that he's a short actor than know that he's a mental tax evading retard who won't come out of the closet, even though that does appear to be written all over his face.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
If this site was run by Baskin Robbins I have no doubt there would be people here posting:
"...Fucking ice cream is awesome!"
FTFY
Any "Fixed that for you" insights will be modded up to the skies.
FTFY also.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I read somewhere that some people say Jeff Morris raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. He has yet to publically deny these allegations.
was necessary because of the same sort of trbial chest-thumping you find to be a delightful little joke right now. so i guess you didn't learn anything from the suffering your grandparents or great-grandparents went through in the '40s. your jokes are their shame
if you want to find a historical parallel to you current attitude towards the usa, try the attitude of germans towards french, or french towards british, or british towards spanish, etc., shortly before any one of the hundreds of mindless nationalistic tribal wars your continent seems to pretty good at generating
frankly, your attitude is the problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, rather the opposite. But the slashdot crowd had plenty of 'merkins who were all "Hey, the crime took place in the US!!!". Neglecting of course that the crime he's being charged with by the USA was not a crime at the start.
So there's some irony in how many going "Damn good, if you accessed the server, the crime took place on your computer, so your laws don't apply!" who were previously taking the opposite stance.
I am Jeffrey Morris (posting on Slashdot for the first time), and these statements are all true. I smell disgusting, and I am a pathetic human being.
"Dear Sir,
In response to your notice, we would cite the defendant's response in Arkell v. Pressdram.
Thanks."
http://countlazarus.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/arkell-v-pressdram/
a simple, in my opinion, you are a complete ass and an idiot... should suffice..
you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
Wait while I bring out the BFG: Jeffrey Morris views child porn on his computer and is a pedophile.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
They are something to read up on, if you are planning on breaking the laws in a country. Different countries will extradite to others for different reasons. Some nations have no extradition treaties and basically won't extradite to each other for any reason. Others have pretty extensive treaties. Sometimes there are provisions on it, like Canada won't extradite on capital offenses, you have to agree no death penalty to get an extradition.
It is all quite spelled out in the treaties and you can get the text of whatever one is relevant to you with a bit of work. Now if what you are doing has no impact in a country, then you don't have to worry. If you do something entirely in Costa Rica, then the US has no concern with it. However if you ran a scam from Costa Rica, that affected people in the US, that would be something they might care about.
I'm not familiar with the copyright case you are talking about but if someone was doing something such as copying works made in the US and then distributing that (especially selling, as that is criminal infringement) to people in the US, that would certainly be the kind of crime Australia would extradite for. Basically the US says "We are charging this guy with these crimes and we would like to have him." The Australian courts have a look, see if it meets with their standards and then if it does says "Ok, everything is in order, here you go."
Yeah, what the hell, Bin Laden doesn't deserve that.
Did you ever notice that there were only two people parodied on South Park where they use a picture of their actual face instead of a drawing? Mel Gibson and Osama bin Laden.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If I post something on my US computer repair company website and someone in Uganda sues me over it, what are they gonna do? The US won't extradite me for something so stupid, they can't fine me (and actually make me pay the fine) without coming to a US court, and what are they going to do, block my business from operating in Uganda? I say if some foreign jackasses try and sue you, just ignore it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Think of the children!!!
Didn't Matt and Trey say in a commentary that there was a point where they felt they had gone too far in mocking Gibson, but then his behavior continued far past what they were mocking? "But first, you will blow me!"
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The US exported a huge amount of our manufacturing might to the developing world, tens of millions of jobs, basically for free, when there was no need and we would have made out better keeping those jobs.
We don't require balanced or equal tariffs, and have some of the lowest import tariffs in the world.
And xenophobic? Please name your nation and your "anchor baby" instant citizenship law. Oh ya, that's right, the US is the ONLY nation to have such a liberal law, where anyone who can make it across the border then pop out a kid gets the kid automatic citizenship. We let in more outsiders to come here and work than any other nation, by raw numbers, no one else comes even close. Although technically illegal, it has been just plain non enforced except at a joke level for decades now. Ten percent of our population are now so called "illegals", with another five percent being "legal", that's 15% of our modern population. What is the status with your nation? What percentage are immigrants? What are your tariff figures on trade? How rqcially mixed is your nation, how many different languages spoken there, how many different colors of people, how many different religions exist? Go ahead, name your nation so we can compare.
And copyrights and movies and music...if you stuck to your own "superior" nation's movies and music, then it wouldn't matter, would it? Why do you want to watch or listen to inferior and copyright restricted US products?
Name your nation so we can drill down deeper and find out some more exact little data points to compare.
Financial "products", again, name your nation and we will determine if your central bankers are as deep into it as US bankers are..chances are..this is correct.
Dictators? Name your nation, we'll see who you trade with, who you allow tourism with.
Maybe everyone can learn a lesson in Personal Responsibility from Jeffrey Morris.
Thank you JM
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
Nope, no illegal access. It was open to the public. There was no damage done. There was no secrets unearthed. There was no crime and the crime he is being extradited for did not exist in the US at the time.
The NASA systems in question were hardly open to the public. For him to do what he did, he had to hop multiple hosts from multiple networks. These were not public-facing systems.
His access was certainly illegal - even at the time that he did it. People have been convicted of illegal access since at least the early 90s.
Whether he intentionally damaged anything is up to debate - prosecutors say he deleted crucial files, he claims otherwise. Clean-up after him would certainly cost additional money (I don't know how accurate the claimed amount is).
Nice try. But to be a really good troll, you're going to have to skirt closer to the truth than this attempt did.
What about Sadam?
Yeah, hehe, they mocked him way before this latest round of insanity, for his Passion of the Christ. It was pretty harsh, they wrote Mel as batshit insane, begging people to torture him and sharting in Cartman's face. And like I said, he was the only other guy besides Osama to have a scan of his face instead of a crude drawing.
Turns out, they were absolutely right about how crazy he is, almost prescient.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
About as much convinced as an American thinking he knows about Europe. I mean we are speaking of a collection of country which have an extreme diversified language and culture. Even as an European *I* don#t even grasp at the richness of the European culture. And you think you can put us in a sack and label us ? American is thousand far more homogeneous despite its size than Europe will ever be. And Europe culture is also much older. There is a funk of truth in the view that the American culture is more limited than the European one, it isn't an insult it is a pure quantitative and timely fact based assertion. And home of what, two world war main theatre, and about zillion of pan European war. I take over the non puritan speech of Europe where you can see boobies at prime time and not rise an eyebrow, to the closeted think-of-the-children culture where everybody has free speech, but in reality are about as free as in Europe. See nipple-gate. The difference is that *WE* know where our speech limit are, whereas you THINK you have free speech, without understanding the limit of your cultural Puritanism impact on the reality of free speech. Don't get me started on atheism, a lot of my US friend are closeted atheist for an excellent reason : avoiding ostracism of their family, friend, colleague. That sort of situation is excruciatingly rare in Europe. Free speech sure, the government can't punish you. the culture (your acquaintance) do it. And frankly, we don't support TORTURE and "illegal combatant", we see it as anti democratic and barbaric.
Oh yeah, Saddam too. Only total lunatics get the facial treatment in South Park.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
David Hasselhoff too I believe. Though to be fair, it wasn't supposed to be Hasselhoff himself, but Mr Garrison after a nose job.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Don't you mean; Jeffrey Morris does not beat his wife or molest his children. As far as I know. And I have never seen him taking indecent liberties with a horse.
I dislike the US trying to tell the UK what Constitution it should have, particularly as the US has actively condemned any interference by other nations in the US' legal system. (Including, I might add, efforts by the UN to prevent a Mexican being executed. Seems to me the death penalty is just a tad more severe than the UK's libel system -- even after factoring in listening to the lawyers.)
I doubly resent this clamp-down because the US has profited greatly from countries like the UK exporting civil cases to the US where the US' laws would be better for the plaintiff. Indeed, the US actively encourages lawsuit tourism when it is the money-maker. I'm sorry, but double standards don't wash.
If the US wants to impress anyone with this effort, then it must cut both ways. If they want other nations to respect US Constitutional rights, the the US has to respect its international obligations as well. That includes not letting the RIAA order "DeCSS Jon"-style stormtrooper action, not pressuring India to drop all action against American companies over Bhopal, not pressuring other nations to come up with bogus charges against people like the owner of Wikileaks, honoring the warrant against the 22 CIA agents in Italy for kidnap, etc. Further, if they want cases that are fundamentally American in nature to be heard in America, they must prohibit cases that are fundamentally the property of those nations to hear those cases.
The reality is, we know damn well that the US won't ban foreign lawsuits and will continue to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations. As, indeed, will all other nations. It's not uniquely a US problem. However, just considering the US, it is insanity to have these kinds of one-way barriers. That infringes on freedom far more than the libel cases ever did, especially given the sheer magnitude of some of them. (Any one of the ones I noted are way worse than all of the libel cases exported from the US combined.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one too. But they weren't really making fun of the Hoff, more like complimenting him. The ladies all went crazy for Garrison when he looked like Hoff.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wait a minute. Your plan to get /. shut down is to say stupid, inflammatory things on it? Are you for real? /. beside stupid, inflammatory statements?
Is there ever anything else on
wake up and hold your nose
So he wants them to shut down the site otherwise he's going to sue and have the site shut down? Sounds like a bit of a twat to me.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I think the GP was saying that he was thinking of the children...
No you stupid dumbass
:P
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
For one, I do not believe that Morris molests little girls. I see nothing in him to confirm such notions. Now if the rumor had been that he molested male children I would have given it more consideration. ( did I slander him?)
Damn, there'd have been a whoosh, but that one went so far over your head it must have been launch at the Cape.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
To be fair, AFAIK the US is actually the only country in the world which has the "if it's true it's not libel" defense.
In most places it not only has to be true, but it also has to be the public's business in the first place. So for example if you out a business rival and that damages his or her reputation, even if he or she actually is gay, then you still might be able to be sued for libel/slander because it wasn't anyone's business and you caused damage. On the other hand if you out someone who is campaigning against gay rights or something along those lines, you'd be fine because finding out that the raging homophobic twat is gay would be in the public interest.
The rest of the situation is actually not all that different though. Going to court is rather expensive for anyone, and if it's not immensely easy to prove the truth of what you said, you're likely to be bankrupt in the states by the time you're done anyway. You can of course get court costs awarded both in the US and the UK, but AFAIK there generally has to be some degree of bad faith for that to happen.
Plus, my teeth are in surprisingly good condition, meaning I am not truly British (or Appalachian, but the latter was not in question).
So people are free to say hateful things...
And other people are free to respond like those at Columbine.
Is that the freedom American worship? The freedom to cause hurt to the level that people go off and kill 20-30 people in revenge?
Free speech for violence....
I would tend to like to see some limits, but understand why not having any is better than having someone else decide what those limits might be, though we do have limits, on people viewing or showing *legal* things like having sex, but have no limits on showing people doing illegal things....
So, why in all this talk about freedoms are there so many limits on sexual content in the media in the US?
Are americans really free to show their own porn movie on their front porch where anyone can watch? I don't think so.... How about putting on a free show? Nope...lewd and lascivious behavior! So much for that freedom of expression thing -- if it doesn't involve violent fighting words, it's fair game for censorship. OR if you are 'a student' (on public school grounds)...how you aren't really allowed freedoms of everyone else (where does it say you only get constitutional rights when you are 18?)
The US is pretty twisted -- not that I'm saying it's any worse than any place else, though.
But real freedom of expression? In the US? That's a laugh. Free to insult & criticize isn't the same thing as freedom of expression.
IANAL but... The big thing in the US is that the burden of proof is on the plantiff. The plaintiff must prove that what was said is false, and that the defendant knew that it was false at the time.
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6862/28463stripsunday.gif
Dilbert Explains it best
Saddam had a photo as well.
"GO AHEAD sue m there all you want"
Erm, no, thanks for the offer but... I have like, stuff to do, plus I think 'M' is actually just a fictional character, and I don't think courts lets you sue fictional characters, unless the court is fictional as well and... well basically, it just sounds like too much work cuz as I said, I've already so much stuff to do. Thanks though, for granting me the freedom to, that's very American of you.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
IANAL but from what I recall the libel law in the UK is horrifically broken and needs amending and the following is true; 1) If any part of a publication is printed or reprinted in the UK you have a case for libel, and whilst the definitions of printed have changed so it includes electronic media this crazy system has not. 2) You are under a reverse burden of proof, if I say David Blaine is a gitwizard it's up to me to prove that he is indeed a gitwizard, he can just sit back smile polietely and I have to do all the work. 3) Indeed even if I can prove David Blaine is a gitwizard I might still be fined for having caused damage. http://www.libelreform.org/ has more details on how broken UK libel law is.
and Mel Gibson...
He'll go all Mad Mel on the Jewish judge he gets...
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
Unless I'm drastically mistaken, "truth" is a positive defense. The plaintiff must prove that what you said was damaging, but you're the one who has to prove it's true. Otherwise you could make up all sorts of crap about anyone since it's almost impossible to prove a negative.
However, the proposed overhaul regarding "libel tourism" wouldn't help here. The would-be plaintiff appears to be based in the UK, so this wouldn't be considered tourism (or "forum shopping").
I've heard that www.jeffreymorrisisapussy.com is up for grabs!
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Yes, but sadly part the reason we have such a fucked up libel system though is because we have a press that's historically been allowed to get away with basically just outright lying about people in their publications and never having to post a retractment, hence why we got tough libel laws to counter that.
I want the libel laws reformed as much as anyone, but they better come with stronger accountability for false press stories, so that we don't go back to a situation where papers can perform character assassinations freely or cheaply (i.e. for much less than it earns them in profit).
On one hand you've got retarded libel laws, and on the other you've got papers like Murdoch's Daily Mail just gagging to be able to write stories about how Richard Dawkins raped 20 children in a drug fuelled satanic orgy that immigrants and muslim terrorists supported whilst all simultaneously saluting an effigy of Hitler. The scary thing is, knowing the Daily Mail that's probably not a far fetched story for them at all. See her for example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-550109/Formula-One-boss-Max-Mosley-exposed-sadomasochist-Nazi-orgy-prostitutes.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-553408/Under-fathers-shadow-The-truth-disgraced-Max-Mosley-son-Nazi-sympathiser-Oswald.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html
How did it turn out? Well, the whole event actually had fuck all to do with "Nazis", that was entirely made up by Murdoch's papers (Daily Mail, News of the World etc.). The courts ruled in Mosley's favour.
Whilst we don't want to muzzle the press, or prevent it writing controversal, but factual stories, we clearly do need massive penalties for papers like this, that just make extremely over the top shit up to try and grossly defame people. S&M may not be to many people's taste, but at the end of the day what he did was in his own time, in a private place, with his own money, with the consent of the people involved, and importantly- without any kind of fascist theme to it, it was that, that libelous part that had to be added to make it a story, and libel for the case of making a story is just wrong.
Again, I really hate libel laws, and I'm cautious of the danger of any extra accountability for the press being used to muzzle them when they tell the truth. But clearly libel reform can't allow papers to get away with this shit even more easily than they do now either. The court system seems the right place to decide these cases, and libel seems the right tool to deal with them, so it's a tough problem to solve- you could just add extra penalties when the press are guilty of libel as opposed to private individuals, but then are web pages classed as press and so on? I don't know what the solution is, and I'm concerned the politicians don't either such that any changes to libel laws may cause other problems. This is something that needs to be thought through and done properly.
If you RTFA and look at the legal note from the lawyer, you can see what they are talking about, and they're not talking about a 2004 article, they are talking about comments from april 16th 2010 from a guy named "the unchosen one" claiming to have worked for the Jeffery guy.
The comment post the lawsuit threat is basically about: http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20041001/0941211&threaded=true#c1102
There are a couple other posts about the jeffery guy too, but this is the one they are trying to sue for it looks. But heres the paste.
"my name is adam gould son of doctor gould in leeds.
I get bollocked by jeffery everyday. He makes me feel stupid, maybe because i am?? I get paid 30k a year to get slapped about like a whore by jeffery. Who only looks after his own 'jewish' workers. the rest treated like shite.
Jeffery Morris has young people around him, they are so so fooled by his 'brainwashing' ways!! tels them anything to make them sell..many people are educated but caught in a 'dream' that he will make them rich. Hahah what a joke!!
The guy who runs wamey now is Dennis Carr, who owns a bar in manchester. Complete conman, check him out on google, inside track. He tries to get into your head like the demon headmaster, but he is just a working class plasterer who earned a few quid scammin people in property. Jeffery Morris what a wanker, scammer. Dennis is gettin a dose of his own medicine by jeffery..where is your workforce? left because dennis is a conman"
The Daily Wail isn't Murdoch; Sun, News of the World and The Times are Murdoch.
That's not to say that it isn't appalling though.
FGD 135
Well speaking only for myself here (I regret to say) I didn't bother clicking your links and you needn't bother trying to convince me of this. Thinking I should pay more attention to what's going on in the country and in the world, I started watching BBC News 24. I have now unplugged my TV and cancelled my TV license. What I saw disgusted me so much that I could no longer in good conscience put money into that organisation, no matter how much I love and support some of their other works (such as their world class science documentaries). And somehow, BBC news are actually one of the best in this country. It's a horrible, horrible state of affairs, where our news 'n media outlets are even more corrupt than our politions, and I don't say that lightly, and I try to point this out, backed by solid examples (swine flu was an excellent one) of where this is true, to people every day. Is good to know I'm not alone with this passion.
The way I also see it is that unless we can find some way of making our press responsible for the information they put out there to motivate them to quit perverting the truth in the way they do (even when they're not outright lying, they have ways of twisting the truth to the extent that the truth is no longer recognisable) - we have to keep the House of Lords, because the Commons are too malleable, because they are affected by voters, who are being mislead by the press, who basically like shittin on people in a Cartman style "I told on you!!!" and too many people are allowing themselves to be mislead! Until voters, in one way or another, discontinue being mislead, we must insulate our government from its voters. This is a sad, sad, fact. Public policy must not be dictated by the fear markets, and trial by media must end. But then, I've always been a dreamer :-)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
You're right. I checked a few months ago which papers were owned by Murdoch on mention of his attempt to increase his stakes in Sky and could've sworn the Daily Mail was always one of them, but it appears not!
I guess I must've got the impression partly because The Daily Mail always follows an identical line of thought to Murdoch's papers anyway and were clearly part of the pre-election joint attack on the likes of Nick Clegg after the first leaders debate and such.
Needs a "slowpoke" tag
Well, isn't that the whole point of law?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I was reminded of that by another poster, too, but that still fits my thesis. So did David Hasselhoff, which wouldn't fit, but that was actually just Mr. Garrison with a nose job.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What about Ben Affleck in the "How to eat with your butt" episode?
Did he have a face too? Damn, my thesis is getting watered down with all these inconvenient facts. Or wait, wasn't it on a milk carton? I think that puts it in the same category as David Hasselhoff, who had a picture in the show, but was actually Mr Garrison with a nose job.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
. . . Unless you have assets in the UK that can be seized.
Here's why:
No U.S. court can affirm the decision of a foreign court that offends Constitutional rights. A libel case wherein free speech protections aren't granted, as they are not in the UK, cannot be domesticated by a U.S. court. Therefore, even if there is a judgment against Techdirt in the UK, a U.S. court cannot enforce that judgment because it offends Techdirt's First Amendment rights.
People who worry about libel tourism have not presented any case wherein a U.S. court affirmed a libel case in the UK wherein First Amendment issues, such as freedom of the press, were at stake.
There is, however, concern for multinational companies who have assets in the UK. A Plaintiff might not need a U.S. court to domesticate a verdict in such a case. Authors seeking to publish books or magazine articles in the UK may also be affected.
The recently passed law in the U.S. does nothing to change current law. It is redundant. It cannot overcome the fact that a UK judgment may still be rendered in the UK. This means assets in the UK may be affected, and publication in the UK may be stopped.
In short, 'libel tourism' is a tempest in a teacup. On the other hand, the tempest has gotten enough press and caused many in Britain to begin eyeing ways to change their libel laws to provide more free speech protections.
That's not a bad thing.
Basically, Jeffrey Morris got upset because the 2004 techdirt article and comments imply that he sells a phony "secure email solution", which actually just phishes email addresses which he then sells to spammers. He also doesn't pay his workers who do the dirty social engineering for him to get said email addresses. I guess the Internet got back at him by revealing him for what he is. No wonder he got mad.
If that really is the wording and effect of the law, I actually approve of that version more than the U.S.
Things can be true but serve no relevance to the public except to damage someone.
Maybe that is why you guys have reporters who still try and print news stories :)