The Ongoing Case of Rakofsky vs. Internet

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Ongoing Case of Rakofsky vs. Internet

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 9, 2011 @06:20AM from the oj-simpson-was-a-duffer dept.

Chmcginn writes "Joseph Rakofsky, a New Jersey lawyer whose claim to internet fame is filing a lawsuit against the Washington Post and the American Bar Association for criticizing his performance at a Washington, DC murder trial, has amended his suit to include a number of bloggers and internet forum members — for criticizing the lawsuit. Which is a bigger threat to free speech — direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?"

125 of 157 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In my opinion . . . by OverlordQ · 2011-06-09 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative

. . . Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
1. Re:In my opinion . . . by uncanny · 2011-06-09 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  It's not libel if it is the truth!
2. Re:In my opinion . . . by ByOhTek · 2011-06-09 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Hey! Be fair! I'm sure there are a lot of goats that take offense at that.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
3. Re:In my opinion . . . by mandark1967 · 2011-06-09 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  . . . Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat.
  OverlordQ, of Slashdot was quoted today stating that, "...Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat."
  while un-named sources differed in their opinion, stating, "I think he is excellent. There a balance of posts so /. should be all right ;-0"
  Personally, I have no opinion either way. His method of handling this situation, however, could lead one to the belief that he is, indeed, an asshat.
  
  --
  Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
4. Re:In my opinion . . . by robmclarty · 2011-06-09 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hear hear. I believe this type of litigious leach should just eat shit and die (imho).
5. Re:In my opinion . . . by AliasMarlowe · 2011-06-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, Joseph Rakofsky is the kind of goat-fucking son of a bitch who ought to be disbarred immediately for abuse of the legal system.
  Every other goat-fucking son of a bitche worldwide (including homo-pedo goat-fucking moronic sons of poxed bitches) are gravely offended by this implicit association with Rakofsky.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
6. Re:In my opinion . . . by t0qer · 2011-06-09 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  . . Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat.
  Granted you're right, but why do we hold newspapers accountable for what they publish, but we don't hold sites like Yelp accountable?
  One serious oversight I have seen with the DMCA is parts of the safe harbour provision allow sites to not be responsible for user generated content. I think this needs to change, and content should in the least be moderated by the community if they want DMCA safe harbour coverage(works here, works on reddit doesn't it?)
  If a site owner doesn't use some type of meta-moderation, then they should put comments in a moderation queue, and wait for moderator approval before it goes live on the site if they want the same safe harbour coverage. Profiting from libel (like yelp) does while hiding behind DMCA is chicken shit.
7. Re:In my opinion . . . by kimvette · 2011-06-09 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion Joseph Rakofsky is an incompetent attorney who should not only see these suits dismissed with prejudice, but should be disbarred, and also countersued by every target of these frivolous suits for harassment, fraud, and anything else which might apply. I would also like to state that it is my opinion that Joseph Rakofsky is a douchebag. I would even go so far as to say that I suspect he is mentally retarded, except that would be offensive to the mentally challenged.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
8. Re:In my opinion . . . by Runaway1956 · 2011-06-09 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  What in hell does a moderation method, faulty or otherwise, have to do with the subject of this article? The subject happens to be an asshat, of the "goat-fucking son of a bitch" variety.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
9. Re:In my opinion . . . by t0qer · 2011-06-09 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  You really haven't been here long have you?
  Because of DMCA, a user generated content site can publish anything, without fear of direct reprise from the person libelled.
  Despite TFA being about an asshat, who probably deserved bad reviews/blogs, for everyone Joseph, there are 1000's of legitimate business that are getting slandered on review sites by their competitors.
  If you read my link(RTFL), you would understand that the business I work for, was in the same boat with Yelp. Another business was recruiting people to libel us on yelp, but yelp rather than investigate it told us, "Pay us money, and we'll make those reviews sort to the bottom"
  When we refused to pay, yelp floated the bad reviews towards the top, and persisted trying to extort us.
  I don't think DMCA safe harbour was intended to be used this way. Claiming, "We didn't post it" would be like if I spray painted the word "Nigger" on your house, but instead of YOU cleaning it up you tell all your neighbours, "I didn't create it, fuck it, I'm not gonna do anything about it unless you pay me" The extortion racket that yelp has set up, is starting to be reproduced by less reputable firms, and the same "Pay us, or these libels stay up" is becoming a new business.
  Yelp (and blog sites) aren't completely powerless to let astroturfing happen. That's a crock.
10. Re:In my opinion . . . by mjwx · 2011-06-09 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's not libel if it is the truth!
  Find me a picture of a donkey wearing Mr Rakofsky on it's head then.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
11. Re:In my opinion . . . by russotto · 2011-06-09 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Find me a picture of a donkey wearing Mr Rakofsky on it's head then.
  Here you go:
  No sorry, nevermind, you can find your own goatse link.
12. Re:In my opinion . . . by russotto · 2011-06-09 15:00 · Score: 2
  
  Because of DMCA, a user generated content site can publish anything, without fear of direct reprise from the person libelled.
  Actually, no. It's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which provides this immunity, not the never-sufficiently-damned DMCA. A good thing, too, or else few uncensored user generated content sites could exist thanks to people like Mr. Rakofsky... and apparently yourself.
13. Re:In my opinion . . . by t0qer · 2011-06-10 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's covered in section 512 of the DMCA
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
  So I'm right, or your wrong, or we're both right. (or both wrong, pick one) I think it's joint time.
14. Re:In my opinion . . . by t0qer · 2011-06-10 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for uncensored sites to a point BTW, it's just that I know yelp is a bunch of sleazebags and is using DMCA (they actually quoted it to me over the phone) as leverage to extort money from people.
  I guess you're OK with extortion.
Will I get sued if I post? by mibalzonya · 2011-06-09 06:24 · Score: 1

Would posting Anonymously help?
Clearly, the guy has a case of... by msauve · 2011-06-09 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

SLAPP.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1. Re:Clearly, the guy has a case of... by pavon · 2011-06-09 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this is hilarious. Filing frivolous lawsuits against the Bar Association is not a good way to keep your law license.
DGA by JBMcB · 2011-06-09 06:26 · Score: 2

Direct government action. A lawsuit from an individual, you have a chance of defending against. The government makes the rules, interprets the rules, and arbitrates the rules. The deck is pretty well stacked against you.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
1. Re:DGA by ByOhTek · 2011-06-09 06:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But there are times one branch of the government will side against the actions of the government.
  That's one advantage of a government that isn't a cohesive whole, it significantly reduces the cases of the government getting away with abuse.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
2. Re:DGA by realityimpaired · 2011-06-09 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you cannot afford a defense, you can probably qualify for assistance from the Legal Aid society.
  And if you have a reasonable chance at winning your defense, you can probably also find a lawyer who's willing to work pro bono, with the intention of extracting his payment from your accuser when the courts find against him.
  In other words, Just because you don't think you can pay for a lawyer, don't let that stop you from trying to find a lawyer if you need one. You'd be surprised what options are out there to you.
3. Re:DGA by HornWumpus · 2011-06-09 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  It is a bitch to get civil defense lawyers fees in the USA.
  Getting a civil defense on contingency is basically impossible.
  What you do is counter-sue. That might get a land-shark to consider contingency.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Direct Government Action by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2011-06-09 06:26 · Score: 2

The frivolous lawsuits are often tossed out of court relatively quickly, while the government takes forever, and often tortures and imprisons people. I'll take a bankruptcy over water boarding any day!
Suits, obviously by mbone · 2011-06-09 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just look at the situation in the UK - for example, this analysis from the Morton Report :
The result is that Britain is suffering from a severe case of 'libel chill', where publishers and newspapers are afraid to publish a story because the subject, usually a celebrity, might decide to sue.
Freedom of Speech is in many ways the most fundamental of all freedoms, because without it repressions of the other freedoms cannot be corrected.
1. Re:Suits, obviously by NinetyOneDegrees · 2011-06-09 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely, the law in Britain has veered way to far from allowing freedom of speech, but the difference there is the libel suits can succeed with a much harsher burden of proof on the defendant. Even then, an article critical of a lawyer would be unlikely to succeed.
  
  The US has the first amendment. The lawyer is suing parties who have a lot more to lose than money if they give in to his demands. There's no way the Washington Post or ABA are going to back down and it seems highly unlikely that the lawyer will win. The bloggers might settle but not for much since bloggers are typically pretty average people. I quite simply can't understand this guy's strategy.
2. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Freedom of Speech is in many ways the most fundamental of all freedoms, because without it repressions of the other freedoms cannot be corrected.
  There's this habit in the US of regarding freedom of speech as a binary thing, where the US is regarded as traditionally having freedom of speech but "everywhere else" doesn't. This isn't true. The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to copyright to inciting imminent lawless action. There are many civil and private consequences to speech from fines for libel or "harassment" (consider calling someone a "nigger" in the workplace just once) to losing your job for trying to form a union - again, it's all about the malleable definitions of "freedom" and "speech". I once heard a satellite Eastern European stalwart compliment the US for encouraging criticism of its government, then lament that American workers did not enjoy the similar encouragement and freedom to criticise his boss that he did. To a Westerner it may be perfectly reasonable that you can be fired for publicly calling your boss a cunt but unreasonable to have any action taken against you for calling your head of state a cunt. But this requires so many assumptions about the sort of society you want to live in, and no matter how hard the West tries to impose it, it isn't yet a universal view.
  We can have functioning societies with whole swathes of different regulations on speech, even though you may argue that more freedom of speech will produce a better society. But if we lack some semblance of rule of law, or if we lack much more fundamental rights such as the right to life or the right to eat (which is usually a consequence in Western nations of the rights to property and to social welfare), then speech doesn't matter so much.
3. Re:Suits, obviously by smelch · 2011-06-09 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  You have freedom to call anyone you want any words you want, and the government must allow the KKK room to speak at its facilities assuming it is used for speeches to other groups. Freedom of speech does not mean you lose your freedom to fire people you don't like [because they called you a cunt]. It just means there can be no government force behind the consequences of your actions. This is where I don't like libel/slander laws. As pertains to your theorized right to eat, I believe we do have the right to eat. We do not have the right to eat other people's belongings. Having said that, that does not mean the government should not have a program designed to purchase food for the soul purpose of giving it to those who can not afford it. Somewhere along the line people seemed to have confused something you are allowed to do if you are able to mean they are allowed to make people enable them, which is wrong. You do not have a right to make people enable your use of rights. A right should be something the government can not outlaw and must not take action against. Nothing more, nothing less.
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
4. Re:Suits, obviously by Chmcginn · 2011-06-09 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  The current situation in the UK was on my mind when reading up on this case. It seems like, at least currently, in the US defamation and libel suits have a hard time proceeding except when it's incredibly blatant, or when the plaintiff has far more in the way of resources than the defendant. Having done a bit of business in the UK, and having a few relatives who've done a lot more, I've been getting the feeling that media there would be scared to do a lot of the things that media in the US currently takes for granted.
  
  --
  Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
5. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  You've typed out in enough detail that hopefully you see just how biased to your belief system your notion of "rights" is. To touch on one important mistake:
  
  It just means there can be no government force behind the consequences of your actions.
  I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
6. Re:Suits, obviously by mpaulsen · 2011-06-09 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  "The result is that Britain is suffering from a severe case of 'libel chill', where publishers and newspapers are afraid to publish a story because the subject, usually a celebrity, might decide to sue. "
  So? Stop wasting paper on celebrity gossip and the problem disappears. Wake me when the lawsuits affect real news.
7. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. The big stories, like the one resulting in a fat Czech getting a fat cheque, sell so many papers that it's worth the libel hit. The only thing the mainstream press are afraid of is insulting someone who might later be their sponsor or have the power to whisper a good word to government.
8. Re:Suits, obviously by snspdaarf · 2011-06-09 08:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The police are not there because you were called a cunt. The police are there because you called them and apparently reported someone on site who had no reason to be there and was refusing to leave.
  
  --
  Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
9. Re:Suits, obviously by smelch · 2011-06-09 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well I just disagree with that. Showing up to a place you are not welcome against the wishes of the owner is not a right, and the government is not firing you, making sure you were fired, making sure you were not paid, helping you clean out your desk, and it is a secondary action to the free speech. Perhaps you see it differently. Tell me, just out of curiousity, do you believe in property rights? More importantly, do you believe the right to free speech is more important than the right to free association? It seems that assuming your example is government force behind the consequences of the initial action (calling your boss a cunt) is correct lead to the conclusion that there is no workable system of protecting all rights, therefore society and government require some rights to be given up. Am I correct in this line of logic?
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
10. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  there is no workable system of protecting all rights, therefore society and government require some rights to be given up. Am I correct in this line of logic?
  That's pretty much what I was suggesting in the initial post, yes. No workable society has overarching absolute-anything rights: anyone who claims this is achievable will inevitably be found guilty of narrowly redefining terms (freedom, right, etc.) to hide his intentions.
  You can only define some vague beliefs then create a weighted function with input constraints, changing your weights and constraints as society develops in line with the will of either the people or the special interests which gain disproportionate power.
11. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is intellectually dishonest to see an unambiguous, clear-cut chain of events and announce the cause to be somewhere in the middle of the chain, don't you think?
12. Re:Suits, obviously by realityimpaired · 2011-06-09 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Hasn't Britain ruled that as long as the newspaper is publishing what it believes to be the truth, it can't be sued for libel/defamation? In other words, if the newspaper checks their sources, and publishes facts it can verify to the best of its ability (but could still be false), it is protected. The libel can be filed against the source of the information, but not the newspaper itself. (and of course, as the 4th estate, the newspaper has a right to protect the identity of its sources)
  I'm pretty sure such a ruling has been made in the states, and I know it's been done in Canada.
13. Re:Suits, obviously by Bengie · 2011-06-09 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  What he meant is the government will defensively protect your rights, but not offensively.
  The government will protect your rights, so long as they don't step on other people's rights. You may have a right to call me a cunt, but you don't have a right to not be fired for it and you don't have a right to be at my work place, so I can have you removed for imposing on my right to remove anyone who is neither a customer nor a worker.
  Rights stop being rights once they impose on someone else's rights. eg You have a right to property, but you may not take someone else's property to gain it.
14. Re:Suits, obviously by Bengie · 2011-06-09 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you don't care for his example doesn't mean his idea is invalid.
  What about a customer posting a negative review about a doctor who botched their surgery and now they're blind for life(or some other horrible result)? Libel?
15. Re:Suits, obviously by Rendonsmug · 2011-06-09 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  It is intellectually dishonest to see an unambiguous, clear-cut chain of events and announce the cause to be somewhere in the middle of the chain, don't you think?
  This is hardly a clear-cut chain of events. For example there is no casual link between "You get fired" and "You show up to work anyways". The actual chain of events is more like "You trespass" > "You get in trouble for trespassing." To pretend that calling your boss a name is absolutely intellectually dishonest.
16. Re:Suits, obviously by zieroh · 2011-06-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's intellectually dishonest to jump from A to C when there is a very clearly-related B in between.
  To then accuse other people of being intellectually dishonest makes you either stupid or malicious. Take your pick.
  
  --
  People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
17. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  If I don't have the right not to be fired for calling you a cunt then in what way do I have the freedom to call you a cunt?
  Now everyone everywhere has the unfettered ability to declare in the middle of an isolated forest the need to kill the head of state, for example, but hardly anyone anywhere has the unfettered ability to do the same in the middle of a crowded street. It is the consequence of having an audience that is being punished.
  If the consequences for exercising the freedom are potentially serious to my life - in this case because other humans make it so - then I don't have that freedom at all. That the resultant harm is less direct than a government-enforcer immediately coming to my door to beat me up is just part of the blame-passing bureaucracy of modern society, but the effect is the same.
  The freedom to do something means the power to do something without hindrance or restraint. The threat of loss of work is a hindrance. Thus it cannot be said that I have freedom of speech wrt/ my boss if I cannot criticise my boss without being fired. It is no different from not being able to insult the head of state with the threat, say, that police protection is withdrawn from my household.
  You may proceed by equivocation ;-).
18. Re:Suits, obviously by snspdaarf · 2011-06-09 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is intellectually dishonest to see an unambiguous, clear-cut chain of events and announce the cause to be somewhere in the middle of the chain, don't you think?
  Absolutely. When you come up with one, let me know.
  
  --
  Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
19. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the government force me?
  Because I was trespassing.
  Why were my acts trespass?
  Because my boss didn't want me working there.
  Why didn't he want me working there?
  Because I called him a cunt.
  So, why am I trespassing?
  Because I called my boss a cunt.
  A particular system is chugging along. The new input yesterday is that I called my boss a cunt. The new output is that the government imposes some force on me. The processor of the input is my boss, and the fact he has taken into consideration is that I called him a cunt. What are the other factors you are introducing to this system?
  If you think there's something completely absurd in the sequence, consider an example where it is already recognised in law: imagine that instead of calling my boss a cunt, I announced that I'm a Muslim. The next day I'm fired. A week later my ex-boss enjoys a fat lawsuit. Why is that? Because that warmongering womaniser Kennedy decided that American employees should have a lot more freedom of religion than they did before. This by implication includes the right for someone to speak their religious affiliation: I am protected from the consequence of the speech having an audience.
  This is freedom of (religious) speech because I can speak it without hindrance or restraint.
20. Re:Suits, obviously by suutar · 2011-06-09 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  no more than to ignore a clear decision point in the middle of the chain. Specifically, the decision to show up at the offices of a company you have no relationship with and the further decision to refuse to leave when asked to.
21. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  And why do I have "no relationship" (perhaps "changed relationship" would sound more reasonable)? Because my boss has decided to change the relationship based my criticising him in speech. And why can he do that? Because I don't have the freedom to speak that criticism.
  If you're having trouble understanding this, see the other example I posted where I tell my boss I'm Muslim. Saying that sort of thing is a protected freedom and I cannot generally be fired for it. The law would not make some dumb argument like, "Oh it's not that your employment was denied for your religious speech, it's that your relationship was terminated so you had no business turning up! Who cares why your relationship was terminated?"
  Now it might be that the law doesn't give you the right to stay on the premises, instead allowing you to seek redress by other means, but that's a quirk of process. It recognises your freedom to the speech, IOW your right not to be fired as a consequence.
22. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-09 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
  I do X, which causes my girlfriend to no longer want to have sex with me, but I have sex with her anyway. She has me arrested, which is a government consequence for X. Therefore I don't really have a right to do X.
  X = called her a cunt, no freedom of speech.
  X = hung out with friends she doesn't like, no freedom of assembly
  X = wrote something she didn't like, no freedom of the press
  X = converted to religion Y, no freedom of religion
  X = did something under "human right Z", "human right Z" doesn't exist
  Your line of reasoning would negate the entire concept of rights.
23. Re:Suits, obviously by HornWumpus · 2011-06-09 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Your first mistake is thinking you are free from the consequences of your speech.
  Your second mistake is ignoring your bosses freedom of association and speech. Firing your loudmouth ass is a private action. In most cases in the USA it would also be private security that would 'see you out'.
  Does your freedom of speech also extend to calling your woman a cunt and include a right to not be cut off from the actual cunt as a consequence? What's the difference? Is being charged with rape also the result of a 'clear-cut chain of events' that starts with you calling her a cunt?
  In one case we are talking about a boss and his/her job, in the other we are talking about a woman and her cunt. You likely just feel more entitled to your bosses job vs. your woman's pussy.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
24. Re:Suits, obviously by EuclideanSilence · 2011-06-09 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  This offensive/defensive right stuff is drawing the line in the wrong direction. There are rights of omission: 1st amendment, 2nd amendment are examples. There are also rights of commission: you are entitled to a trial by jury, and you have the right for the government to give you a chance to vote.
  A right is a relation between an authority and an individual. You don't have a right to call someone a cunt, that's nonsense, syntax error. You have the freedom to. It doesn't become a "right" until it becomes a relation between an authority, in this case government, and the one under the authority, in this case citizen. Your right is "to not have the government restrict your freedom to call someone a cunt". Being fired for calling someone a cunt does not restrict your federal right to free speech, although it does limit your "freedom of speech" which is unrelated to your first amendment right.
  Right's stop being rights when they stop being between a ruler and a ruled. Then they are just simple laws.
25. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-09 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  If the consequences for exercising the freedom are potentially serious to my life - in this case because other humans make it so - then I don't have that freedom at all.
  Then nobody has had, or can ever have, any freedom at all. Every action of any kind could somehow eventually lead to some serious consequence.
  You may proceed by insisting on an overly-broad definition of "freedom".
26. Re:Suits, obviously by moortak · 2011-06-09 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Like the dumping of toxic waste perhaps?
  
  --
  Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
27. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're also guilty of doing the assumption thing, in this case assuming that a freedom must apply everywhere and absolutely, when in fact all freedoms exist only to a limited extent and the extent depends on the context. To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is biased and limiting.
  In particular, you do not have the freedom to behave as you want in a personal relationship with someone. Your freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion may be restricted by being in a relationship. They are restricted by your partner as a condition of you getting to stay in that relationship. The consequence of breaking the rules may involve sanctions on or abandonment of the relationship by your partner.
  What about the rape? A right is a legally enforced defence of a freedom, and the law considers that the woman has a right not to be raped. Because you have no right to free speech, asembly, press, religion while in a relationship, you have no right to resist any sanctions for trying to exercise those non-existent rights. Contrast this with the right to freedom of religion in employment which means that you do have a right to resist being fired for announcing your religion.
  Note here that freedom to do something must mean protection from certain negative consequences of doing it - otherwise there's no meaning to freedom (or right) at all.
  If you're still not getting it, ask yourself, "Does the US have freedom of speech?" Well, clearly you don't have freedom to speak what you want, because you can't just go anywhere you want and say what you want. A freedom is the power to do something unhindered, and you are clearly hindered from doing it. Maybe you'll want to point at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." That's not a guarantee of free speech at all, is it? It merely says that no law will be made to abridge it. And a law which incidentally restricts the ability to speak somewhre, e.g. one concerning the right of property owners to eject those who say something disagreeable, is clearly not considered to be "abridging the freedom of speech".
  If that wasn't obvious enough, read up on Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins. This highlights the significant difference between the First Amendment and certain states' constitutions' provision of speech/redress rights. Because of the California constitution, people are permitted to walk around certain private property (e.g. shopping centres) to solicit donations, petition signatures, etc. The First Amendment is a right not to have certain laws made, but does not give you the freedom to do anything at all in a general sense. Article 1 of the CA constitution, on the other hand, grants freedoms. Understand?
28. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  If I am not substantially free from the consequences of my speech then I do not have freedom of speech. Perhaps the inability to understand this is why Americans thinks so highly of their First Amendment, which is in fact a right not to be subjected to certain specific sorts of laws rather than a right to any particular freedom.
  See e.g. the California constitution for a clause which actually guarantees you a degree of freedom of speech. Then read Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins to find out the consequences.
29. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Experiencing a serious consequence "somehow eventually" is not the same thing as being immediately fired for saying something. The determining factor is whether a series of humans have made a series of decisions based on what was perceived to be a freedom. If you want to watch this applied, watch what happens when someone is fired on the basis of gender/race/religion.
30. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-09 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is biased and limiting.
  To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is using the word in the manner that most people use the word.
  
  The First Amendment is a right not to have certain laws made, but does not give you the freedom to do anything at all in a general sense. Article 1 of the CA constitution, on the other hand, grants freedoms. Understand?
  The First Amendment recognizes a right to speak free of government restriction, which is a political freedom (yes, not an absolute freedom). California fails to recognize certain property rights under some circumstances, which allows people to do various speech-related things in more places.
31. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-09 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Experiencing a serious consequence "somehow eventually" is not the same thing as being immediately fired for saying something.
  Yes, the timeframe is different. How is that relevant?
  
  The determining factor is whether a series of humans have made a series of decisions based on what was perceived to be a freedom.
  At least you're no longer implying that gravity restricts your freedom.
  
  If you want to watch this applied, watch what happens when someone is fired on the basis of gender/race/religion.
  Yes, the government fails to recognize certain rights (notably freedom of association) in some situations (places of public accommodation, workplaces, etc). Again, how is this relevant?
32. Re:Suits, obviously by t2t10 · 2011-06-09 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  To a Westerner it may be perfectly reasonable that you can be fired for publicly calling your boss a cunt
  Let's say I own the business and I hire you to do a job for me. If you start calling me names or are otherwise disruptive, of course I should be able to fire you: your behavior negatively affects your ability to do your job. In the US, you'll just get fired, in other democracies, you'll get slapped with a lawsuit for insulting someone on top of that.
  
  But if we lack some semblance of rule of law, or if we lack much more fundamental rights such as the right to life or the right to eat (which is usually a consequence in Western nations of the rights to property and to social welfare), then speech doesn't matter so much.
  Well, I don't know about what rinky-dink backwater nation you come from, but in the US, the government does, in fact, provide food to everybody who needs it. That's in addition to many charitable groups.
33. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is using the word in the manner that most people use the word.
  No, it isn't. It's been hijacked as you describe by some political interests and their adherents in the US, probably the result of propaganda to make people feel more free than they really are. But people build social relationships, personal and business, and that's where the majority of freedoms are granted or restricted.
  
  The First Amendment recognizes a right to speak free of government restriction, which is a political freedom (yes, not an absolute freedom).
  Sort of, but in a quite specific sense. This Amendment prevents laws being created which specifically target certain types of speech but it does not prohibit laws (e.g. right to eject trespassers) which have the consequence of restricting speech. It grants no freedom for you which it must then protect. Contrast, say, the freedom to chose who you have sex with: the law considers this a right in the sense that it (i) will protect you if someone tries to rape you or has raped you; (ii) will not routinely entertain laws which have the consequence that rape is sometimes OK. Freedom from rape is protected as a right in the US but freedom of speech is not in general protected as a right in the US (there are only specific cases where it is: in certain federal buildings, by certain state constitutions, religious speech not affecting employability, etc.).
  
  California fails to recognize certain property rights under some circumstances, which allows people to do various speech-related things in more places.
  You're spinning it the wrong way. California grants the right to do various speech-related things under some circumstances, which allows people to override what you have termed "certain property rights".
34. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the timeframe is different. How is that relevant?
  The "somehow" is very relevant to protection of freedoms. Example: assume I am ginger, and because I'm ginger I get skin cancer, and because I have skin cancer my job performance is diminished and I am asked to leave. Even if ginger people are more likely to get skin cancer so the consequence is "somehow eventually" related to my employment termination, this isn't why I was asked to leave: other factors can legitimately be taken into account.
  Similarly, assume freedom of speech wrt/ reasonable criticism of boss is protected by law. Just because I've said something which criticises my boss it doesn't mean that I'm immune from firing. My dismissal would only be considered unacceptable if the criticism contributed toward the firing.
  As for "eventually", see all the usual arguments for a statute of limitations.
  
  At least you're no longer implying that gravity restricts your freedom.
  Of course it restricts your freedom (are you implying that it doesn't?), but it's absurd to expect to achieve freedom from gravity on Earth. It's therefore nonsensical for the law to try to protect that freedom by granting you some right. The government enforces your rights by imposing requirements on how it or other people behave - that's all it can do.
  
  Yes, the government fails to recognize certain rights (notably freedom of association) in some situations (places of public accommodation, workplaces, etc). Again, how is this relevant?
  Imagine that I have an Asian partner but am not Asian myself. The freedom for us to associate with each other in places accessible to the public is protected in law. Freedom of association blind to race is way more important than any association rights you think you should have on the basis of being racist, so if you want to set up an establishment accessible to the public then you must respect our decision to associate. Your fallacy here, I think, is assuming that government is the only one giving or taking away freedoms: in fact, as a racist hotel owner who expresses his racism in the selection of clients, you are taking away freedom. So any right to colourblind association makes your behaviour unacceptable.
35. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Let's say I own the business and I hire you to do a job for me. If you start calling me names or are otherwise disruptive, of course I should be able to fire you: your behavior negatively affects your ability to do your job.
  If I call you a cunt then that negatively affects my ability to do your job? Please never hire anyone, as it's often the best people (which I do not claim to be) who throw out the occasional harsh and sometimes well-placed insult and you'll be losing out significantly. If your'e the boss and they never have a bad word to say to your face, it's because they're saying it behind your back.
  But, since it wasn't obvious to you from the whole post, the "cunt" was implying some form of criticism and the illustration was that you don't have freedom of speech in the workplace if you cannot criticise your boss without the danger of being fired for it.
  
  Well, I don't know about what rinky-dink backwater nation you come from, but in the US, the government does, in fact, provide food to everybody who needs it.
  The catch here is that "need" will be defined in law by a long and bureaucratic set of check boxes rather than by an assessment of whether there is actually a need. For some obscure reason about 10 years ago I ended up helping someone in the US off SSI etc as their health improved and to start up what became a reasonably successful business.
  Despite a severe disability from late teens it was several years of effort by friends with professional assistance to get the claim for assistance accepted - this was before I knew them. Medically, of course, the diagnosis had been obvious, but what seemed to matter was the check boxes and the quirks of law, not the opinions and documentation and meetings of specialists.
  Thanks for playing.
36. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-09 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, it isn't. It's been hijacked as you describe by some political interests and their adherents in the US...
  Now I understand. You want to everybody to use a word only in a specific way favored by you, even if their meaning is still perfectly clear and not objectionable to most people.
  I will now consider you posts as important as letters to the editor protesting against the use of the word "pleaded" rather than "pled", or the posts of a "grammar Nazi".
37. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-09 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Since we have two conversations running, I'll just point you here
38. Re:Suits, obviously by mjwx · 2011-06-09 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  The result is that Britain is suffering from a severe case of 'libel chill', where publishers and newspapers are afraid to publish a story because the subject, usually a celebrity, might decide to sue.
  
  Newspapers, I cant call them that, we aren't talking about reputable organisations like the Beeb, we are talking about papers like the Daily Mail...
  
  So tabloids have for so long been printing deliberately misleading and exaggerated stories often with pictures obtained using legally dubious means that the people that have been victims of such articles are forced to take desperate measures.
  
  Basically, "libel chill" does not affect any organisation that prints factual information without spin, it affects organisations that invent controversy and prints lies.
  
  The fact that this problem exists is not sad. What is sad is the fact that there are good reasons for this situation existing. Tabloids have bought this upon themselves, If the Daily Mail/Sun did not spend all it's time digging through celebrity rubbish and printing deliberately misleading information then such a problem would not exist.
  
  The daily mail has made a business of skirting libel for almost a century, it's about damn time they became afraid of the people they are antagonising.
  
  Freedom of Speech
  
  Last time I checked, freedom of speech did not give you the right to publish lies with no consequence. This is the old "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, deliberately misleading speech is not protected, even in the US.
  
  Freedom, without responsibility is not freedom at all. This "libel chill" is a result of publishers taking the piss and now they're crying about it. Get over it Murdoch.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
39. Re:Suits, obviously by russotto · 2011-06-09 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  There's this habit in the US of regarding freedom of speech as a binary thing
  In my experience, people who object to binary things are usually just trying to add enough noise to demonstrate that 1 is 0 and vice-versa. This appears to be no exception.
  The argument goes something like this
  Rakofsky: Hey, no calling me an asshat!
  Blogger: I can call you an asshat all I want, I have freedom of speech
  Rakofsky: Well, could you falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and expect to go unpunished?
  Blogger: Well, I suppose not.
  Rakofsky: So your freedom of speech is not unlimited
  Blogger: I suppose that's true.
  Rakofsky: Well, no calling me an asshat!
  Blogger: Hey, I have freedom of speech
  Rakofsky: We've already established that has limits; now we're just haggling over where the line is drawn.
  (Any similarity to a similar argument involving a woman who may or may not be a prostitute is entirely intentional)
40. Re:Suits, obviously by sjames · 2011-06-09 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  By that argument, birth is the root of all crime. No crime would happen if there had been no births.
41. Re:Suits, obviously by Courageous · 2011-06-09 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to ...
  Um. Kinda. There is no prior restraint of the press on official secrets. Whether or not they can be prosecuted after the fact is a separate issue, but they cannot be stopped before the fact; that's a matter of settled case law, I am to understand.
  C//
42. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  In what world (but the US) is "people in the US who agree with my political stance" equivalent to "most people"?
  The latest Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English is quite clear about the currently understood notion of freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
  (Recall that English is descriptivist. This definition, especially in this dictionary, comes from observing real usage.)
  Note the absence of "as listed by government". It is thoroughly dangerous to try to redefine freedom in this way. You are free to do things because they are within your capacity and because nothing stops you. Whether the the thing stopping you is physical law, paralysis, a tiger, a factory outside your house, a partner or a despotic policeman, the result is the same. And whether you should fight that hurdle to freedom should be determined by whether that freedom is achievable and whether you think you ought to have that freedom, not by whether it is the government you are fighting.
  Don't let your directed paranoia dig your grave for you. The colour of law makes humans no more or less human.
43. Re:Suits, obviously by martyros · 2011-06-09 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
  That's a ridiculous train of logic. Suppose this. You call your girlfriend a cunt. She breaks up with you. You show up at her house expecting to hang out anyway. The police force you to leave. There's government force behind the consequences of your actions. Does that mean you don't have the freedom to call your girlfriend a cunt? Of course not.
  I think I smell a troll...
  
  --
  TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
44. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  By sufficiently dogmatic philosophising, everything which happened a moment ago is the cause of everything which happens now, and so on as far back as you want. So if you like you can throw your arms up in fatalistic impotence.
  The test here is much simpler: "Are you significantly adversely affected in context X as a direct result of doing Y?" If yes, then you don't have the freedom in context X to do Y.
  Consider an example of a freedom you have:
  Let X be employment.
  For Y being certain religious speech, Y is a protected freedom.
  Unlike you, the law is mature enough to be able to conclude that you were fired because your boss heard you express a religious view at the bar without panicking that this means someone's birth has to be blamed. If it makes this conclusion, the firing is determined to be illegal. There's your freedom protected by a right.
45. Re:Suits, obviously by t2t10 · 2011-06-09 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  If I call you a cunt then that negatively affects my ability to do your job? Please never hire anyone, as it's often the best people (which I do not claim to be) who throw out the occasional harsh and sometimes well-placed insult and you'll be losing out significantly. If your'e the boss and they never have a bad word to say to your face, it's because they're saying it behind your back.
  Your logic is flawed. I didn't say that people must fire someone who behaves disruptively, I said they had the right to make that choice.
  
  Despite a severe disability from late teens it was several years of effort by friends with professional assistance to get the claim for assistance accepted
  Your logic is flawed again. Just because your friend faced bureaucratic hurdles with one form of assistance doesn't mean he was deprived of his "right to eat". There are other forms of governmental food assistance in the US, plus private and charitable sources of food as well.
  
  Thanks for playing.
  You're welcome. Now do you have a real point?
46. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Your logic is flawed. I didn't say that people must fire someone who behaves disruptively, I said they had the right to make that choice.
  You said: "If you start calling me names [...] your behavior negatively affects your ability to do your job." This is what I was disputing. Say you're my boss and normally we get along. One day you do something really dickish and I call you out for it as I see it, my straight talking might be beneficial to you and/or the organisation.
  
  Your logic is flawed again. Just because your friend faced bureaucratic hurdles with one form of assistance doesn't mean he was deprived of his "right to eat".
  Contrary to what people seem to think, many social welfare programmes today are not means-based, rather behaviour-based - the problem is far more apparent today than 2-3 decades ago. So the checkbox bureaucracy determines you can do X then says that you will not be helped further because you should be doing X instead. X may be a work-related programme which your doctors agree is inappropriate or impossible for you but which the bureaucracy says you can do: see the PRWORA 1996. Similar restrictions have appeared in the UK over the last decade.
  (Well, it's worse than that: the government contracts medicals out to private companies which send underqualified staff to examine patients for complex conditions which they do not understand. Contracts are renewed on the basis that the company will determine some proportion of people healthy rather than by actually treating each case on its merits. But descriptions of this corruption fill thousands of pages on the Internet.)
  
  plus private and charitable sources of food as well.
  The possibility that you might receive something is not the same as the right to receive it. I'm not sure why people find it so hard to understand the difference - I'll give an example from another area in case it helps. Say you return to your house and see what looks to be a burglar in the window. You have the right to call on police assistance to apprehend the burglar while he's still in your house, but when the burglar runs out the back and into his motorcycle with your jewellery, you don't have the right to compensation.
47. Re:Suits, obviously by sjames · 2011-06-10 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  You must have horribly mis-understood. You missed that I would consider birth=crime to be intellectually dishonest and silly.
48. Re:Suits, obviously by HornWumpus · 2011-06-10 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  You think you are free from the consequences of your words?
  Like I said call your significant other a cunt/asshole/bitch/mader chode, whatever is appropriate, and let us know how much sex you are getting.
  Better yet call your child a 'worthless little snot monkey'.
  Tell your local Haji that 'Mohammed was a child molester'.
  Your words have consequences. Freedom of speech is about prior restraint. Your words get an airing. You could not be protected from consequences by any government, no matter how powerful, without restraining someone else's freedoms.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
49. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-10 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  The latest Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English...
  
  Yes, you are a pedant. Do you write The History Channel about how the slaves were never "freed" because they were still bound by gravity?
50. Re:Suits, obviously by khallow · 2011-06-10 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  It is intellectually dishonest to see an unambiguous, clear-cut chain of events and announce the cause to be somewhere in the middle of the chain, don't you think?
  It's also intellectually dishonest to link one or more unrelated events to the front of your sequence (that is, the initial act of firing in the example) and claim a "clear-cut chain of events."
  
  snspdaarf's interpretation is straight-forward. The ex-worker was not obligated by law or circumstance to stay on the property after his firing.
51. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-10 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're just annoyed because you want words to be redefined to suit your political viewpoint. The technique's as old as the study of rhetoric, several notable regimes of C20 have employed it, and many fictional novels have incorporated it. When an outsider not mired in the doublespeak looks in, he can see it instantly.
  The slaves were freed in the sense that they were freed from a certain (depending on which slaves you're talking about) slavery. When you say "the slaves are freed" you don't mean "for all X, every ex-slave has the freedom to do X". I know some disorders make this extremely difficult to understand, but context is important. There's no absolute freedom vs no-freedom. There is just freedom to do X in situation Y.
  Summary of lesson: If no context is stated, it is because it is implicit, not because it doesn't exist.
52. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · 2011-06-11 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're just annoyed because you want words to be redefined to suit your political viewpoint.
  I don't have any political goals here, nor am I redefining words, (nor am I annoyed - this is quite amusing). I'm just saying that the way they were used was common and understandable.
  
  If no context is stated, it is because it is implicit, not because it doesn't exist.
  There was context: "Which is a bigger threat to free speech — direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?"
  
  When you say "the slaves are freed" you don't mean "for all X, every ex-slave has the freedom to do X".
  Exactly. And when you're talking about the US and say "freedom of speech", as you were at the start of your first post, or capitalize it, as the first poster did, you are implicitly citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which implies that you're using it in the narrow, legal, government-restriction sense. If you want to use "freedom of speech" to refer to that freedom in general, as you explained later on in your first post, that's fine too. Everything else you've written has been about how people shouldn't use the word in the narrower sense, which is something I simply don't find objectionable.
Criticize his lawsuit? by bioneuralnet · 2011-06-09 06:28 · Score: 1

Can I be sued for criticizing his lawsuit? Sir, I hereby criticize your lawsuit.
1. Re:Criticize his lawsuit? by Lundse · 2011-06-09 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think we are about to find out, whether a lawsuit-amendment-process be slashdotted...
  
  --
  IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I have a feeling by sxltrex · 2011-06-09 06:30 · Score: 2

I have a feeling that his shit list is about to get a lot bigger.
1. Re:I have a feeling by Darinbob · 2011-06-09 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I personally am offended that Slashdot is not listed in the suit!
2. Re:I have a feeling by black+soap · 2011-06-10 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Don't just sit there and complain, let's do something about this travesty. How can we collectively get on this asshat's radar?
the internet is composed of human beings by circletimessquare · 2011-06-09 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

in any society of human beings, free speech will always be threatened, for various arbitrary reasons, such as this asshole Joseph Rakofsky and his wounded ego
freedom, in any society, for all time, will always erode, and must always be fought for, and maintained. concepts like freedom are not things that are fought for once, and then that's it: freedom established! happy ever after is here! real life is a not fairy tale kingdom
no, freedom is constantly under attack, forever, and you, yes YOU have to keep fighting for it, or it will decay. depend upon someone else to fight for it, and if enough people do the same thing, it will also decay, since no one is actually fighting for freedom. so whose responsibility is freedom? YOURS. in a society where enough people think that, and you live in the best society on earth
aside to Ratfuckski:
grow up, scumbag: people say nasty things about people all the time. let it pass and move on. you only validate their opinion of you when you react to it. ignore it, and the insult loses power over you, and by extension, everyone else. even better, embrace it, make a joke, and laugh at yourself, and turn a negative into a positive impression about how smooth your are
but give an insult attention, and you validate someone's poor opinion of you. to the extent it becomes truth. after all, if it wasn't the truth that you suck as a lawyer, why would you react so vigorously to the accusation? you're a loser Ratfuckski. now sue me, scumbag

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by countertrolling · 2011-06-09 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  ...no, freedom is constantly under attack, forever, and you, yes YOU have to keep fighting for it, or it will decay...
  Krieg macht frei?
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
2. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by circletimessquare · 2011-06-09 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  peace and freedom require maintenance yes. the natural state of humanity is to slide to slavery and conflict. the notion that the implements that preserve peace and freedom are morally equivalent to the implements that extend slavery and conflict is an absurdity believed only be imbeciles
  show me a street where the police patrol. show me a street where they don't. you tell me which street is peaceful and free. yet that still won't stop stop some idiots from bemoaning the existence of the police
  face it: civilization requires maintenance against natural, organic, self-emergent forces of decay. what do you think would happen to civilization if that maintenance effort were stopped? you only feel disdain for this maintenance effort because, safely coccooned in the ivory tower, you fail to be able and look down and see what is holding your tower up. you live a life of benefits you don't understand, and sneer at that which makes those benefits possible. you're a parasite
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by Elaugaufein · 2011-06-09 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  I agree civilization requires maintenance, on the other hand the maintenance is done by people from that civilization, if the civilization is self-destructive you're going to get the same self-destructive behavior in the enforcers (actually you'll probably get worse behavior in the enforcers because this is a privileged position which means unscrupulous people who want power will seek it out, and being unscrupulous is generally beneficial in rising in power (at least in the short term).
  
  So the question becomes where does the balance lie ? I don't have an answer to this but I suspect that no perfect one exists because trying to solve human nature using humans is a self-defeating proposition, so chances are you're going to get a wide range of answers from people and I suspect many of them are equally good.
4. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by circletimessquare · 2011-06-09 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well said, and I agree. The seeds of our salvation, and our destruction, are inside us. Against which, we have no real defense. Who watches the watchmen? Civilization then simply will have natural cycles of rise and decay.
  But none of these observations convince me to stop trying to maintain civilization. Even as I understand that my ideas of the maintenance that is needed might actually be destructive. You have to assert yourself in life. Doubt renders your life impotent and pointless. So go with your best guess, even though you know your efforts might actually do more harm than good. Because no effort at all most certainly will do more harm than good, since you leave the maintenance of civilization to others, who could have ideas even worse than yours.
  All that is required for evil to succeed is good men to do nothing. No struggle, no progress.
  My gosh, my post has become empty platitudes.
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by countertrolling · 2011-06-09 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh.. if you could only see my 'ivory tower'.. Your police protect you because you pay them... so will a button-man
  Eh, nothing more to say here.. other than your type of humor intrigues me.. you did make me laugh a little
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
6. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by circletimessquare · 2011-06-10 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  said "countertrolling", the wannabe vigilante
  YOU are a self-styled button-man. you are at war, by your own choice, with what you see as enemies of what you think is right
  which is fine, that behavior doesn't bother me. countertroll to your heart's content, vigilante, with my blessing
  what bothers me is that you're a giant hypocrite. because the behavior you criticize, is your own
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
7. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by countertrolling · 2011-06-10 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  ...with my blessing...
  :-) Thank you, Godfather
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
8. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by circletimessquare · 2011-06-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  now kiss the ring
  there will be an envelope for you at humphry's bar if you succeed, payment and next assignment
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why THAT link? by Ruke · 2011-06-09 06:32 · Score: 4, Informative

There's actually an interesting article here, but the link the summary just goes to a page explaining why he won't be expanding on his earlier, better post.
1. Re:Why THAT link? by grahamsz · 2011-06-09 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  There's a reasonable summary from our co-defendant, a Mr. Tarrant Eightyfour
2. Re:Why THAT link? by Chmcginn · 2011-06-09 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Several of his earlier posts had already been up on Slashdot when they were new last month. Though the previous posts have more information, it seemed odd to link to them after having gone there from the newer post.
  
  --
  Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Same as Scientologists by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-09 06:34 · Score: 1

Seems to work pretty effectively for the Church of Scientology.
Technically... government intervention... by hellfire · 2011-06-09 06:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Okay I'm not trolling for any kind of political points here. I'm actually trying to point out that ol' Joe here will not have any effect on free speech because not only has he set up a "me vs the world" mentality, the world agrees and won't bother listening. In terms of the grand scheme of American politics, American society and the world in general, no one has a scrap of motivation to join his side.
US Government intervention into free speech is an unlikely but serious thing to always think about. Joe affecting free speech ain't happening.

--
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Free speech? by wcrowe · 2011-06-09 06:39 · Score: 1

I wonder what that is? You mean the freedom to express an opinion about something or someone? I wish that were possible. This "free speech" stuff sounds great.

--
Proverbs 21:19
We got sued! (allegedly) by grahamsz · 2011-06-09 06:45 · Score: 1

I'm part of the team that run banniNation.com which is a news aggregation site with a fairly similar model to slashhdot.
While we haven't been officially served, our site and business are listed in the original complaint along with the handle of a user who mentioned Mr. Rakofsky.
We've got an official statement of sort at http://www.bannination.com/s/lawsuit and there's a link from there to a very level headed discussion about it. This definitely doesn't just affect bloggers and has further implications around the right to anonymous speech and the liability of service providers.
1. Re:We got sued! (allegedly) by jtwronski · 2011-06-09 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Just as fair warning to any slashdotters that might follow that link, the bN discussion has gone from completely reasonable and sane, to a million monkeys on a million hits of acid with a million ping pong balls. Which is pretty good for that place :)
The biggest threat is from the biggest gorilla by davecb · 2011-06-09 06:48 · Score: 1

In countries which have a dictator, he's the biggest threat to free speech, and pretty well everything else.
If one has an overweening government, like the Soviet Union did, they're the biggest threat.
Similarly if one has an oligarchy, as the U.S. did in the "gilded age", they'll do their best to silence you.
Countries which had their governments organized to provide for check and balances, and whose police powers were used to mitigate the rise of the oligarchs were the places where one legitimately had free speech.
Whenever an imbalance of power arises, though, one of the classic forms of corruption is for the powerful to use their powers to silence anyone who doesn't treat them with fawning respect.
--dave

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Do I dare post my thoughts here? by grahamsz · 2011-06-09 06:50 · Score: 1

A site I run is allegedly on the complaint (see sig) and our user population seem to be competing to see who can get their names added to it.
The biggest threat to free speech by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-06-09 06:53 · Score: 1

The biggest threat to free speech is jackass pretending every time someone does something stupid they don't like, it's a systemic problem.
Okay, that's not actually a threat at all... but this non-story is so stupid it made my head spin. Did it really need to be posted?
I Think... by Weaselgrease · 2011-06-09 06:54 · Score: 1

...that we should all criticize his performance as a human being and see if he sues /..
So, what is he going to do for a living now? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-06-09 06:54 · Score: 1

OK, having read the one blog post about Rakofsky, I have just one question. After he gets pummelled in court, what is he going to do for a living now that he has made sure that just about everyone knows what an incompetent lawyer he is?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
1. Re:So, what is he going to do for a living now? by uncanny · 2011-06-09 07:21 · Score: 2
  
  Same thing all rejects of morality do: write a book, get a TV show, or run for some kind of political position!
Suing a bar association? by Arancaytar · 2011-06-09 07:00 · Score: 1

An entire guild of lawyers? Now that takes some balls.
Wow ... by gstoddart · 2011-06-09 07:02 · Score: 2

That takes balls or stupidity ... seriously, who sues the American Bar Association? That's like ... suing all of the lawyers, isn't it?
And, really, if I read the blog correctly ... it sounds that all this guy did was to voice an opinion (mirroring that of the trial judge) that this wet-behind-the-ears lawyer was out of his depth in this murder trial. And, ultimately did a very piss-poor job of it -- so much so the judge had to declare a mistrial.
From the sounds of it, he doesn't have a pot to piss in (or a hat to shit in).
Oh, and for Joseph Rakofsky ... Ha ha ... sue my ass punk, I'm not even in the US. Who is going to trust a lawyer with a Justin Bieber haircut?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Wow ... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-06-09 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's his only way to earn a decent living now - if he can hype the lawsuit enough, then maybe - just maybe - the sheer magnitude of this stupidity earns him enough fame that he can write an autobiography and cash on that.
2. Re:Wow ... by idontgno · 2011-06-09 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think he's just gunning for a CourtTV equivalent of MTV Jackass.
  You know, stupid embarrassing courtroom stunts. Midgets. Self-inflicted injuries. Scatological humor.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Just cause you have a law degree... by mightyQuin · 2011-06-09 07:13 · Score: 1

Indeed. From a canuck point of view it seems like a make-work project created by a lawyer for the benefit of lawyers and other law professionals.

--
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some idea balls to remove from a manatee tank.
Can't wait until he names /. by HikingStick · 2011-06-09 07:17 · Score: 1

It's bound to happen. Rakofsky seems (in my opinion) to have no clue when it comes to free speech issues. That being the case, it seems only a matter of time before /. (and perhaps posters like me) are named as co-defendants in his (again, in my opinion) idiotic suit.

--
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
You almost feel sorry for him.... by Unixnoteunuchs · 2011-06-09 07:28 · Score: 2

"if you would shoot at the king, you had better kill the king." I expect that the ABA and Thomson Reuters will eviscerate this poor fool. He will be begging the court to dismiss them as defendants but they will stick it out the better to beat him with a stick.
To answer the question.. by cheros · 2011-06-09 07:49 · Score: 1

Which is a bigger threat to free speech â" direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?
I would say a LACK of government direct action to stem frivolous defamation charges..

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
but dont you mean ..... by unity100 · 2011-06-09 08:02 · Score: 1

that he is a horse's ass ?!!?! all these terms about asses are so confusing. he might as well get mistaken for an asswipe in this confusion. someone needs to clear the confusion about termage and measure the ass situation, to any extent there is, if any.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:but dont you mean ..... by semi-extrinsic · 2011-06-09 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  It could even be that he's an asses ass.
  
  --
  for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Why he has to defend himself by retroworks · 2011-06-09 08:27 · Score: 2

He needs the work. It's not like anyone else is likely to hire him.

--
Gently reply
Rights by Arker · 2011-06-09 10:09 · Score: 1

This is where all the twisting and warping of the notion of "rights" has lead us. I am not trying to criticise you personally, your post shows a person who thinks things through and has a good head on his shoulder. But you clearly, like many today, dont understand what a right is and is not.
You say you have a right to eat, but no right to eat someone elses food. But the fact that eating requires food (something produced by labour) means there cannot be a right to eat per se, nor a right to housing, to health care, etc The right to ones own property (the fruits of ones own labour) is a real right - you can have and enforce that right without violating anyone elses rights. But how can you have a right to eat if you dont make food? Only by enslaving someone who does, or stealing their property, which is hardly respecting other peoples rights.
However, if you produce something of value, and trade it to someone who needs it, for their food, then everyones rights are respected and everyone involved is made richer. The right to your own property, and the right to engage in commerce freely, are all that is involved. No "right to eat" needed.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1. Re:Rights by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-09 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  The right to ones own property (the fruits of ones own labour) is a real right - you can have and enforce that right without violating anyone elses rights.
  
  Almost every social/political/economic system agrees on some notion of property, from Marxist communism with its notions of "personal property" and "private property" to fee simple/temporary IP entitlement/etc of common law nations to childlike Randian possessiveness. The right to own property "without violating anyone else's rights" means everyone agreeing on what is ownable and how ownership is assigned.
  Stating that you intend to solve rights issues by declaring property rights is barely a restatement of the problem, not a solution.
2. Re:Rights by Arker · 2011-06-10 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  I know you dont realise it but you are really just expanding on the point I made. Yes, there is a marxist usage that is common, but it is a fallacious usage designed to destroy the very concept by making it self-contradictory.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
3. Re:Rights by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-10 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, of course I was expanding on it. A few thousandths of an inch. Hopefully showing how incomplete it is.
  The Marxist usage of "property" is only self-contradictory if you assume certain attributes of property which Marx does not. Let's consider another example where you don't just knee-jerk in response to an obvious political opposition:
  If you happened to own land with the appropriate natural resources to build a working atomic bomb, should the law permit you to? The answer is, of course, "no". If you answered "yes" you can stop reading here and grow up - Internet libertarian extremism is embarrassing enough and even arch-capitalist Ayn Rand understood this.
  But isn't this contradicting property rights? No, and anyone who thinks so has wrongly identified the working definition of property. If you describe your understanding of Marxist property, I can almost guarantee I'll be able to expose a similar mistake.
4. Re:Rights by Arker · 2011-06-11 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Marxist usage of "property" is only self-contradictory if you assume certain attributes of property which Marx does not.
  Specifically?
  
  If you happened to own land with the appropriate natural resources to build a working atomic bomb, should the law permit you to?
  This is another typical tactic of those who dislike reason, attempting to break the paradigm by appeal to an edge case. The same tactic is used, for instance, by "creationists" attempting to discredit biological science. In both cases the tactic only works when the audience is ignorant.
  Of course, if you take an extremely basic and naÃve view of rights, constructing such a bomb would seem to be legitimite, but no matter how naÃve and simplistic your reasoning, using it would not be, at least under any realistic circumstances. It's a weapon which cannot even be used in legitimite self-defense, because you cannot limit the damage to your attacker, but would inevitably murder many innocents in the process.
  Given this, the construction of such a device would in fact constitute a massive tort against everyone in range to be affected. When you consider fallout that class could expand to include everyone on earth, but at the very least this would obviously include all neighbors within blast range. Furthermore it could easily and reasonably be interpreted as a direct threat to that entire group of people, which only strengthens the obvious conclusion - this act is not within your rights, under any set of conditions currently likely.
  We can, however, imagine possible future circumstances where it would be. A man who lived alone in an otherwise uninhabited star system, for instance. For now, at least, such circumstances are science fiction, but they are hardly unimaginable.
  There is no contradiction here at all. If you imagine one it is only because your own view of natural rights contains errors. Rights are not floating abstractions, they are practical, powerful observations based on the nature of our own existence as human beings existing in the universe we exist in.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
5. Re:Rights by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-11 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Specifically?
  I imagine, given my experience with others who have said a similar thing, that you have some notion of arbitrary right to ownership and/or disposal of *stuff*, and you're assuming that these notions must apply to any definition of property. Since all you've given me so far is "Marxist property concept is self-contradictory" and not told me exactly why you think this, merely suggested that I prove that it isn't, we're not going to get very far. Stop being a coward and present your case.
  
  attempting to break the paradigm by appeal to an edge case.
  Reductio is valid logic. If your assertion produces an absurdity then your assertion is wrong.
  
  It's a weapon which cannot even be used in legitimite self-defense, because you cannot limit the damage to your attacker
  You cannot "limit the damage to your attacker" with a gun: if you shoot someone with a gun then you should be prepared for them to die. If you have any other understanding of gun use then you should immediately dispose of any guns you have.
  
  inevitably murder many innocents in the process.
  Bullshit. If I have a lot of land and a good engineering team, I could design an atomic bomb to destroy, say, an organised gang of trespassers which has moved many miles into my land, but which does not "inevitably murder many innocents". Or maybe I'm just manufacturing atomic bombs for export. What business is it of yours?
  
  the construction of such a device would in fact constitute a massive tort
  What is the relationship? What is the duty of care? What is the damage? There is ultrahazardous activity recognised in tort law but that merely identifies who is liable in the event of actual damage. If the mere construction were a massive tort as you describe then it would be unreasonable for the government to build a working atomic bomb near you too.
  
  Furthermore it could easily and reasonably be interpreted as a direct threat to that entire group of people
  Now you're getting somewhere. Oh, I interpret the gun you're carrying as a direct threat to me every time you're within shooting distance of me in the street. I interpret the knife you're eating your food with opposite me as very threatening, too. And those nasty words I heard you say a couple of days ago - you didn't actually indicate any intention to do harm, but they sure sounded subversive. If we're using potential intention as a reason to tweak a notion of property, every restriction is on the cards. Woohoo!
  
  Rights are not floating abstractions,
  Correct. Rights are entitlements to certain protections enforced by law.
  
  they are practical, powerful observations based on the nature of our own existence as human beings existing in the universe we exist in.
  "Rights are powerful observations" simply makes no sense. Perhaps you are trying to say that rights are derived from observations, but I can't see where "practical" would fit in then. As for "the nature of our own existence", is this your nature or my nature you're using? We're both equally human so any conclusion of yours which runs contrary to my nature must be wrong. Or are you like the zealot who assumes that it's not possible to conclude that Jesus doesn't exist, only possible to be in denial / blind to his love / something equally specious?
  It's quite simple, and most people get the idea once they've overcome the idealism of youth: property rights exist because they help society function. That is all. Your building an atomic bomb in your back yard does not help society. The fact that socialists think the workers should own the means of production whereas capitalists think that businessmen are better at that sort of thing simply reflects different beliefs about the sort of society each group wants and convictions about
6. Re:Rights by Arker · 2011-06-11 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine, given my experience with others who have said a similar thing, that you have some notion of arbitrary right to ownership and/or disposal of *stuff*, and you're assuming that these notions must apply to any definition of property.
  To use a quote I like that happens to be perfectly appropriate here, that isnt even close enough to be wrong.
  The concept of "property" doesnt have meaning in isolation. It is part and parcel of a tradition of rational analysis of the human condition, with particular focus on the implications of that analysis for ethics, morality, and law, which is usually known as 'natural rights'. Placed correctly in its context, it is an elegant, powerful, and practical idea. Torn from that context and misappropriated, it becomes nothing more than a noise.
  
  You cannot "limit the damage to your attacker" with a gun: if you shoot someone with a gun then you should be prepared for them to die.
  I most certainly can limit my damage to my attacker with a firearm. I can shoot one attacker down without hitting the bystanders standing just right and left of him. It's the good type of 'gun control' - being able to hit your target.
  By contrast a bomb that explodes with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT (a very low-end fission bomb,) even without considering the radiation involved, would destroy not only the attacker AND the two innocent bystanders, but every other innocent bystander in a rather large radius, as well as myself. It's a horrible weapon, completely useless for defense, a weapon of mass-terror, of mass-murder.
  
  If the mere construction were a massive tort as you describe then it would be unreasonable for the government to build a working atomic bomb near you too.
  Yes, I agree completely. No one should build nuclear weapons, under current circumstances. Governments are no exception. Why should they be? If anything the opposite is true. If I cant trust my neighbor with a nuke I certainly cant trust any government with one.
  
  Oh, I interpret the gun you're carrying as a direct threat to me every time you're within shooting distance of me in the street. I interpret the knife you're eating your food with opposite me as very threatening, too. And those nasty words I heard you say a couple of days ago - you didn't actually indicate any intention to do harm, but they sure sounded subversive. If we're using potential intention as a reason to tweak a notion of property, every restriction is on the cards. Woohoo!
  Sheer sophistry. Is it fun to diss randroids then make a point of adopting their most irrational and annoying quirks? There is no possible set of rules that a clever juvenile cannot destroy with such tactics, at least in their own minds. In the real world, adults are expected to distinguish between real threats and unreasonable fears constantly, and we usually manage to muddle through well enough.
  
  "Rights are powerful observations" simply makes no sense.
  It makes no sense to you because you dont understand it. I suspect you dont want to understand it either, and if that is true then you never will. Humans are funny that way.
  On the off chance I am wrong about that though, a brief explanation by analogy. Consider the sentence "gravity is a powerful and useful observation." Does that make any more sense to you? Of course gravity can have several distinct but related meanings, and we use context to sort them out. Gravity can refer to the observable fact that things fall down, the most abstract of theories as to *why* things fall down, and quite a few distinguishable layers in between. So here what I am saying is that gravity is a fact, and when we observe how it works (even at a fairly crude level) this gives us a powerful tool to predict things before they happen, to be able to know that X will work but Y will fail horribly, without having to follow
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Case for tort reform by salesgeek · 2011-06-09 10:49 · Score: 1

Loser pays works until you see it in action. Most often it's used to crush the little guy by making a trial too risky by piling legal fees on. Example: $300 debt collection + $3,500 in legal fees and $279 in court costs. Even if you don't owe the money, there is a risk you loose and then have to pay $4K+.

--
-- $G
Re:Freedom of speech is not freedom to denigrate by HornWumpus · 2011-06-09 11:27 · Score: 1

According to information supplied upthread a judge declared a miss-trail. He stated, on the record, that the shyster had done an incompetent job and was out of his depth.
Can the words of a judge on the bench be actionable? Would it be smart to try? Is paraphrasing a judges legal opinion actionable?

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Case for tort reform by parlancex · 2011-06-09 13:26 · Score: 1

The real answer to this problem is we should add a third verdict.
Currently we have guilty and not guilty, and not guilty encompasses the all verdicts ranging from "I guess we couldn't PROVE he shot her, even though he probably did" all the way down to "this was absurd and a waste of time, based on the evidence presented you can not only say not guilty, but that it is obvious it should have never came to trial".
What we need is a new third verdict for the last type of outcome in which the judgement rendered is actually against the prosecuting party, mirroring the severity of the judgement the guilty verdict.