Court Rules Website Immune From Suit For Defamatory Posting

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "RipoffReport.com contained an admittedly defamatory posting, by one of its users, about a person who operated a Florida corporation providing addiction treatment services. Although the site was asked by the poster herself to remove the post, it refused. A Florida appeals court has ruled that the site is absolutely immune from suit (pdf), and cannot even be directed to remove the offending post, since under the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) 'no cause of action may be brought' against a provider of an "interactive computer service" based upon information provided by a 3rd party."

Comments

But if was copyrighter material

[Esben]

hell breaks loose

Re:But if was copyrighter material

[viperidaenz]

unfortunately they already thought of that section 230.e.2 says "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."

Re:But if was copyrighter material

[wvmarle]

Everything is copyrighted. Including your comment, and this comment.

Re:But if was copyrighter material

[LordLimecat]

That DMCA that slashdot hates so much already has a safe harbor provision.

Re:But if was copyrighter material

[Coren22]

Which the media companies are trying their damnedest to get removed.

You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[SeaFox]

Although the site was asked by the poster herself to remove the post, it refused

Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[PessimysticRaven]

Although the site was asked by the poster herself to remove the post, it refused

Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".

Ech. Have you ever read anything that passes for a "review" on RipOffReport.com? I don't think anyone has ever "thought before they spoke" in that place, if the rampant abuse that the English language takes in most of those reviews.

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the limp-wristed idiots who parrot that meme "but but languages evolve over time so this should always be acceptable!" [...] I mean fuck ... do we have to pussify everything?

Looks like the limp-wristed idiots have the day off; in their absence, the sexually insecure meatheads will have to fill in with some hastily constructed straw men. Can you elaborate further about your fear that anything remotely feminine will dilute your precious bodily fluids?

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[shentino]

Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.

I would love to be her future boss...err...EX-future boss.

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to speak/write properly and languages evolving are not mutually exclusive, and "languages evolve" is not a meme nor has it ever been.

But using the term "limp-wristed idiots", not to mention "pussify" clearly shows you have FAR more problems than I am willing to deal with on a comments section of a /. article. Go get some help for your rampant idiocy.

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[mysidia]

Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".

When you "speak"; it's temporary and not viewable by the world. Posting things on the internet is more permanent.

There are still a lot of people who haven't yet learned "think before you post" or "think before you tweet"

But even people who have learned that lesson occasionally make mistakes.

Especially when intoxicated by alcohol, or by anger.

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[mysidia]

Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.

Well, she posted that information, and people have already had a chance to rely on what she posted.

She shouldn't get to just "erase" what she said, and pretend she never said it, while there are potentially people still going around spreading what she had said, and relying on that information.

If someone should get questioned based on what she said, they should get to have faith that the RipOffReport article they are citing doesn't magically disappear, because the poster has now lost confidence in it, or its inconvenient for them personally.

RipOffReport does not need to be going around trying to shield the poster from the consequences of their actions and hurt other people.

The responsible thing to do would be to offer the poster a mechanism to "add" a followup to their original post, linking a correction, for example.

Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards.

[tompaulco]

When you "speak"; it's temporary and not viewable by the world. Posting things on the internet is more permanent.
And therefore you should think much harder before posting than you would before speaking. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case. People get all cocky over e-mail and the internet because they know that people can't just reach out and smack their face. This lady found out that sometimes they can.

Re:Legal precedence?

[wmelnick]

No, lower courts do not set legal precedent.

Re:Legal precedence?

[wmelnick]

oops - deleted the second half as I posted... This is an appeals court for Florida so the precedent here is only for that portion of Florida that the appeals court covers, or maybe even all of FLorida, but to the rest of the country it means nothing at all.

Bad timing

[dissy]

She should have just waited a couple months for SOPA to get secret-voted in.

Then instead of chiming in with the communications decency act, she could just accuse them of copyright infringement of her own posting, and poor RippoffReport would lose their domain name.

I expect her to try again later and win. It wouldn't be double jeopardy since it will be a completely different crime.

Re:Bad timing

[LocalH]

It wouldn't be double jeopardy anyway as that only applies to criminal cases, not civil suits. You may be thinking of res judicata, which means that one can have only one trial for claims arising from one transaction or occurrence. Pretty sure that means she's boned.

Re:Bad timing

[shentino]

She's boned most likely because of the site's terms of service which give them omnipotent editorial prerogative.

You can actually sue twice for the same thing if you have different reasons.

In fact,

[roc97007]

The argument could be made that if they *did* take it down, it was admission of responsibility for content. ISPs wrestled with this a few years ago. (The "common carrier" thing.)

Re:In fact,

[ShakaUVM]

>>The "common carrier" thing

Watching Anderson Cooper (ick, I know) tonight, he seemed to be pushing for eliminating the common carrier classification for internet sites, and moving them to the, quote, "newspaper model".

Given CNN et al's support for SOPA, this didn't come as a surprise, but it was still an unpleasant thing to watch a grey-haired man that people apparently respect talking so blithely about destroying our liberty.

Re:In fact,

[AK Marc]

Whose liberty would be destroyed by the newspaper model?

Re:In fact,

[ShakaUVM]

>>Whose liberty would be destroyed by the newspaper model?

The "Newspaper Model" means that newspapers are liable for anything published within them. You can sue a newspaper for an article on its front page containing libel.
The "Telephone Model" means that you can't sue the telephone company for any conversations that take place on it. I.e., if two people are speaking slander over the phone, you can sue the people, but not the telephone company. The phone system is a common carrier.

CNN/Anderson Cooper apparently wants to "rethink" the current classification of internet sites to make them "newspapers" instead of "phones". I.e., eliminating common carrier / safe harbor provisions in the CDA and DMCA and making it possible to shut down Slashdot if even a single link to piracy is provided by a user on it, or a libelous statement that someone at CNN doesn't like.

Re:In fact,

[AK Marc]

So who is losing their liberty? Those posting comments, or those running websites? You can sue a newspaper, but it's very hard unless they hack your voicemail. "Anonymous source reports Bob has sex with sheep" That's a true statement and would be very hard to successfully sue for, regardless of whether Bob has sex with sheep. I've seen plenty of untrue things on newspaper web sites and they are still up and running fine, so I fail to see the danger asserted.

Re:In fact,

[ShakaUVM]

If they shut down Slashdot and Reddit, and all similar sites, this compromises your freedom, unless you think liberty only exists in the physical domain, not the electronic one.

Re:In fact,

[AK Marc]

There are piles of actual newspaper sites which accept comments, not a single one has been shut down, so I don't get the "newspaper model will shut down Slashdot" assertion. If they don't shutdown sites like slashdot, then you are asserting there is no loss of freedom by anyone, right? If that's not what you were saying, who loses freedom if no sites are shut down, and what sites (like newspapers) have ever been shut down under the "newspaper model" or are you saying that there are no sites (like actual newspapers) that operate under that model?

Re:In fact,

[ShakaUVM]

Back in the day when the printed word mattered, printers that published copyrighted works without permission were sued and/or shut down. This is what drove copyright laws to begin with. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law)

Newspapers review everything that gets printed within them. This is why you don't see the kinds of things in Letters to the Editor that you see here on Slashdot.

The Newspaper model would force sites like Slashdot to review all user comments, which is essentially impossible, or shut down.

Re:In fact,

[AK Marc]

Your statements are true only if no newspaper site runs under the newspaper model or no newspaper site allows comments. I don't believe that to be a true assumptions, and so I must disagree with your opinion.

Re:In fact,

[ShakaUVM]

Newspaper sites don't run under the Newspaper model. Have you not been paying attention?

All websites currently have safe harbour provisions, which are being attacked by things like SOPA and PROTECT-IP.

They do have a link for updating though.

[aklinux]

They state up front that they NEVER delete a report from their database once it's been entered. They do have a fairly prominent link for updating &/or rebutting. I guess that'll have to do ...

Re:Legal precedence?

[artor3]

If you read the PDF, they actually cite similar cases which had already been decided by the Florida supreme court. So it appears that the precedent has already been set, if only in that one state.

Responsibility for content can change

[msobkow]

Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?

I fail to see how respecting the poster's implicit copyright over their statement allows the web site operator to refuse to remove the comment.

By insisting on keeping the defamatory post up despite the wishes of the poster, I would argue that the web site owners are assuming responsibility for that content, and are therefore liable for future lawsuits. They are not liable for the opinions of their users, but once they claim ownership of the content by refusing to take it down at the poster's request, that "who's responsible" game shifts focus rather dramatically.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[WeirdAlchemy]

In the link from the last page of the article, RipOffReport provides some rationale for this. They liken it to a court case where a person is sued and found innocent. Despite having received a good verdict, all the paperwork of the lawsuit still exists on permanent public record.

That being said, the original article contains some pretty strongly worded statements from the court indicating that RipOffReport is being a bit shady, but that the court's hands are tied by law. It doesn't seem that way to me from reading RipOffReport's side of things, but then it's worth keeping in mind that the court might know more than we do.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Todd Knarr]

I think it's basically this: it's not the poster suing RipoffReport. The poster may have a cause of action against RR for keeping the posting up, the company may have a cause of action against the poster if they don't do their best to have the post taken down, but the law bars the company from suing RR over someone else's material.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Anonymous Coward]

Most websites have an EULA that states anything posted using THEIR software is the property of the site.

If I take a dump and flush it down the toilet, can I then go to the waste treatment center and ask for it back?

Stop - you /.'s are supposedly smart people. Argue all you want bud - I'll be at happy hour while you sweat the small stuff. You should be a lawyer.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the footnote about the business practice of ripoffreport.com in the ruling particularly interesting.

As part of the record on appeal, Xcentric describes a “service” it provides to
people and entities who wish to challenge false postings on Xcentric’s website.
This “service” is called the “Corporate Advocacy Program” by Xcentric.
Individuals or businesses who believe they have been defamed by a posting on
Xcentric’s website must, according to the amicus brief filed in this case, “pay a
tidy sum to be investigated by Xcentric’s management.” Moreover, “[i]n addition
to a steep upfront charge, the business is required to make periodic payments to
keep its status in the program.” Xcentric further indicates on its website that the
program “NEVER includes removal of complaints.” http://www.ripoffreport.com/
ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx (emphasis in original).

This is not something I would expected from a website purported to be a consumer advocate.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand what RipOffReport is. They allow anyone to sign up and post anything about anyone under the guise of a consumer advocate site. So, the existence of something on the site about a person carries some weight in people's eyes simply because of the kind of site it is on. And there is no minimal requirement to verify what is being posted and you can do so anonymously.

Then, the guy who runs the site will never remove anything. Under any circumstances. Ever. Period. Unless you pay for their business service to "work with you" to "deal with negative feedback" on the site. The entire site is set up for the administrator behind it to extort people. And not just businesses, but regular every day people.

There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from going online because they're an embittered ex girlfriend or underling or anyone else and saying that you were caught embezzling at work and that you rape children. And posting your full name and home address. And it will always be there. In fact, someone did this against one of the Google guys (Eric Schmidt, I think?) some time ago on the site. ... and there is nothing you can do.

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

Actually, I take that back. There is something you can do. You can pay for a corporate account/service to help mitigate/remove things about you on there. Or, if you're the victim of a false report, you can pay to have a company the website hires to perform arbitration and possibly adjust or remove something about you. The starting price is $2,000. And for all you know, they'll decide to keep the content on there, anyway. And you're not only out your reputation because of a jilted lover or pissy co-worker, but you're out a few thousand bucks.

The entire fucking thing is a SCAM. How it is still in operation is beyond me. It is one of the saddest things on the internet and it makes me ill.

Warner Brothers can have a website shut down in a heartbeat by filling out a simple DMCA report and claiming that the webmaster is violating their copyright (even if the only evidence is that you have a file on your server that has a word that happens to be a word in the title of a movie that they own). But, someone posts personal information about you and libels you on a website that purports to be a consumer advocacy site? Even if you don't do business, have a business, conduct any business, or have any business to do with anyone anywhere ever and are just the victim of someone's vendetta? . . .sorry, you're fucked! Webmasters aren't responsible for anything posted on their sites. Even if it's false. Even if it's vindictive. And they're not even required to remove it. Tough titties!.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[shentino]

By posting it she gave them an implicit license under that copyright.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[sidthegeek]

If I take a dump and flush it down the toilet, can I then go to the waste treatment center and ask for it back?

I have a septic tank, you insensitive clod!

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[stephanruby]

Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?

Yes and no. A temporary injunction was filed against the woman who originally posted the alleged "defamatory" comment. That's what prompted her request for the removal, but then the court notes in its decision that the injunction got dissolved almost immediately anyway.

Nowhere does it say in the decision from the court that she thought her comments were false, or even defamatory. I'm afraid that part may have come from NewYorkCountryLawyer's editorializing.

I fail to see how respecting the poster's implicit copyright over their statement allows the web site operator to refuse to remove the comment.

Where did you read that? They cite the Communications Act as the reason for their decision. The Communications Act talks about speech or publishing, but it says nothing explicitly about copyright (unless there is an infringement of some kind). Had the site posted a video on youtube with the woman making a Jerry Springer-style accusation about the organization in that video. The reasoning of the court would probably have staid the same.

Also, the terms of use of the site couldn't be more explicitly well laid out.

ROR is a permanent record of disputes, including disputes which have been fully resolved. In order to maintain a complete record, information posted on ROR will not be removed. By posting information on ROR, you understand and agree that the material you post will become part of ROR’s permanent record and will NOT be removed even at your request.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Todd Knarr]

What I'd do with that site is decline to "work with them". I'd file against the person who posted the false and defamatory information (using the proper legal tools to get their identity if they'd posted pseudonymously), get them into court and get a judgement against them including an order requiring them to remove the posting. If the site declined, I'd go back and ask the judge for a court order against them requiring them to comply with the poster's request. I'm in a much stronger position now, and I've a good argument for contempt of court if the site still refuses to comply with a lawful court order to cooperate.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[msobkow]

Funny. Most of the sites I visit have specific disclaimers that the comments are the property of the poster and that the site takes no responsibility for what it's posters say. It's been a long time since I've seen a website be so foolish as to accept the responsibility for the legal risks of user's content by claiming ownership of that content.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[msobkow]

Copyright is the identification of the individual legally responsible for content. Everyone has implicit copyright on what they say, should they choose to identify themselves when they say it. You can also claim explicit copyright over a phrase by simply making a public statement of claim. It's a perfectly valid legal construct.

An access license to the copyright content is another matter entirely. When you post to a website, you're agreeing to grant them and their readers a grant of license to view what you've written. You did that when you accepted their terms of use and conduct.

But you still retain your original copyright, and you have the legal right to change your mind about licensing at any time unless someone can somehow demonstrate that their copyright and licensing agreements conflict with yours and that they don't agree with the change (witness the difficulty of getting the thousands of contributors to the Linux kernel to even vote on something so serious as a change from the GPLv2 license they originally agreed to work together under.)

Now if someone chose to quote you while you had granted an access license, you can't chase them down to remove the copy of the content they quoted because they've exercised a right to reasonable use of publicly accessible media. But I believe you have EVERY right to expect that a website respect your copyright and your right to determine what license that copyrighted information is to be available under, if at all.

Don't get me wrong -- that doesn't mean the website owner has to actually delete all records of the original post. That could get difficult if it's been archived and backed up. But you as a website owner should be held responsible for allowing the user to remove the content from view, as Google+ and Facebook do when you delete a comment.

If a site doesn't allow deletion by the poster, they should be reminded of that every single time they post so they're aware that it's going to be out there for all time. I think of the Slashdot "Preview" button as that reminder that what you're about to post is going to be there forever -- here's one last chance to review it and make any edits before you've committed yourself to....

A statement.

Once you click that final approval, you've given birth to an independent thought and shared it with the world. Your only future recourse on slashdot is to clarify and argue with detractors when they respond to what you've said.

In the same situation, how hard would it be to have the Slashdot editors remove a post that you changed your mind about?

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[msobkow]

Just to clarify, if the license you originally published under has no explicit license termination clauses, you can't revoke the license you originally published under. But you always have the right to republish your statements under different license terms in the future unless you explicitly reassign copyright to someone else, or to publish the same copyright content under many different licenses by posting copies to many different websites.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[LrdDimwit]

Except that the federal law in question provides that no website is considered either an 'author' or a 'publisher' of any 'information [the post] provided by another information content provider [the user]'. It then goes on to explicitly overrule any state/local laws that conflict with this.

Short version is, this law was intended to shield Internet companies for being passive conduits. It would be a terrible idea if, anytime anyone sent defamatory content through the mail, the victim could sue the Post Office, right?

The problem is, the wording was very broad. So now this company is covered by the liability shield (which provides more or less complete immunity from defamation laws of any kind) because it's user-generated content. But they're NOT a passive conduit, their business is apparently set up to actively solicit this type of arguably-libelous content.

So yeah, your suggestion is a good idea - it might be a good idea to tweak the CDA to strip the liability shield if the user wants something removed and the company refuses. But as written, that's not currently how the law works. Which is unfortunate.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[fulldecent]

That's just like eBay's policy

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[tompaulco]

By insisting on keeping the defamatory post up despite the wishes of the poster, I would argue that the web site owners are assuming responsibility for that content, and are therefore liable for future lawsuits.
Well, if they agreed to take it down at her request, she could have been coerced or threatened by the company (in fact that is pretty likely probably why she is asking to take it down). That is not a good reason to take it down.
It is like accounting. In accounting, you don't (aren't supposed to) remove transactions. Once a transaction has occurred, it has occurred. To reverse it, you do another transaction.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Todd Knarr]

If you want to sue the author for defamation, you're going to have to do all the court filings anyway. And going after the author of the defamatory material is the proper way to do it. Going after RR without going after the author is an attempt to shortcut things and get the material removed without proving it's defamatory, which IMO is something the courts should shoot down on the spot.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[AdamJS]

But what about when it is effectively entirely anonymously?
Not everyone leaves a trail or has obvious heuristic ticks in their writing style that can be used to deduce facts/

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[Todd Knarr]

If they're truly anonymous, you may be out of luck. But if RR keeps logs, you can subpoena those logs to determine the IP address the post came from (and RR'll have a hard time fighting that subpoena if you're sensibly limiting it to the time of the posting and specifically requesting only the information related to that posting and not trying to fish for everything in their logs). From that you determine who owns that IP address and subpoena their subscriber records to determine which subscriber had that address at that time. The account-holder will either be the person responsible or it'll be someone in their household and they'll know who it is (the trick is to not claim they're the one that posted it, merely that they're responsible for that posting (their ISP's terms of service almost always include a clause holding the account-holder responsible for all material originating from their connection), which leaves them on the hook even if they can prove it wasn't them unless they can tell the court who did do it).

Yes, that's quite a bit of legwork for you to do. But that's the way it goes sometimes: the burden's on you to prove your accusations. If we expect eg. the record labels to do this work and target their copyright infringement suits correctly, we can't complain when we're expected to do exactly the same thing.

Re:Responsibility for content can change

[AK Marc]

They take no responsibility for the content, but also have clauses in there assigning copyright (if not total, as many do, to a limited license assigned to them), otherwise, keeping a copy of the post would likely fall afoul of copyright laws.

Re:Legal precedence?

[DragonWriter]

oops - deleted the second half as I posted... This is an appeals court for Florida so the precedent here is only for that portion of Florida that the appeals court covers, or maybe even all of FLorida, but to the rest of the country it means nothing at all.

Well, its only binding precedent on lower courts in Florida. Anywhere else, its merely persuasive precedent, which can be considerably more significant than "nothing at all".

Re:so in FB...

[Hatta]

Not that it has anything to do with the matter at hand, but you agreed to Facebook's terms and conditions when you signed up.

I Just Can't Belive It

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the site was asked by the poster herself

Wow. I mean ... it's almost as if some hyper-emotional female was spreading rumors and causing drama and regretted it only when it finally caused real trouble.

We all know this never, ever happens. Women are never petty and catty, they are always calm and rational and in control of the feelings they value so much, and above all they always take their problems directly to the party with which they have a dispute and would never do something childish like gossip behind their backs.

Glad that's settled.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Catskul]

I really don't understand why this has been moderated as funny. I was under the impression that the Slashdot crowd was more high brow than angsty teen woman bashing.

Apparently not? At least the fool was wise enough to do it anonymously.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Anonymous Coward]

Bashing would imply false information simply meant to insult. Which bit of data do you find not factual?

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it's someone else that had to pay for her behavior. I am the victim of something similar. In fact, on RipOffReports (a blackmail site, frankly). Some random girl online started telling everyone that we were dating. Then that she was my girlfriend. Then, that we were engaged. I didn't know this girl. I mean, I had seen her name around, but I'd never talked to her. I'd never met her. I think she was the friend of a friend of a friend. Somehow, she was in the mix of a huge circle of people who knew each other vaguely and that was about it. Anyway, I found out all this psychotic stuff she was floating out there about how we were in a relationship. When I told everyone that not only was all this bullshit, but that I didn't even know her, she went batshit and posted about me on this site. Keep in mind - I don't have a business or do any sort of business. This was all personal (and, again, I didn't know her).

Anyway, so there is now a page from a random stranger on a website that purports to be about consumer advocacy and there's nothing I can do about it. Her long rambling diatribe posts a ton of personal information about me and tells this tale of how we went out and I accosted her and stalked her and then stole a bunch of her stuff. Again, I don't know this person. Had never talked to this person. I don't even know what state they're in. For that matter, I don't know that they're even in the same country.

So, my personal information and a bunch of psychotic bullshit about me is posted in public for anyone to find. Google puts it up at the top of search results for my name (because google seems to promote the RipOffReport ranking). She, on the other hand, is anonymous. I don't know her. The website dosn't know her. She is just an anonymous invented username. There is no recourse for me. Period.

This site is just a tool to facilitate the owner's extortion scheme and the anonymous posters' vendettas.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Anonymous Coward]

So? I've got tits too, but the only jobs it has lost me are soldier or male model.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[echostorm]

lies. post the ripoff report, and let us see this 'damaging' info. You can contact the administrator at EDitor@ripoffreport.com and it will be removed if it is obviously just some scary firebrand spamming bullshit. sounds like you have evidence.

Kindof hard to feel bad for you without any evidence, or knowledge of what steps you took to exonerate yourself. This is no different from receiving a summons in the mail. you can't just ignore it and expect it to go away. If the case is interesting enough, it will be picked up by the press and distributed across the globe. If you do nothing, than the information will continue to circulate without check. Stepping in now will at least stem the tide of false info.

If you emailed the editor with 'omg lol so sorry neva hit tha biznitch shes a hater' then of course hes going to ignore your email. Without some sort of idea of what happened, you will get no sympathy from anyone.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is something you can do. You may sue her for libel. The post may not be removed, but you can:

  - Get money from her
  - Get restraining orders against her
  - Eventually get her in jail when she violates the above
  - Ask ripoff report (or any other sites she posted to) to post a copy of the restraining order and court judgements you have against her

That's about enough, if you ask me. Anyone reading those diatribes probably already thinks she's crazy. They'll know it when a judge supports you on it.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[wvmarle]

If there is a lot of personal information about you, and if that information is true (it appears to be - otherwise easy enough to say "that's not me, that's another person called AC"), the person writing that must know you quite well. Otherwise they don't have this information, nor will they go to such great lengths defaming you.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[msobkow]

That depends. I've been very public on internet forums and websites for years. Most of my profiles are intentionally wide open so the general public can read my opinions without me ever having to give them permission to do so. I think you'll find many Slashdotters and techies have the same disdain for what most people think of as "privacy." We'd rather argue our points with the public and hope to win over a few hearts and minds to our way of thinking than worry about whether someone might get an understanding of who we are.

I never have seen how you could possibly work to influence society and government without people knowing who you are. If no one knows who you are, what audience are you reaching? How can you hope to influence any changes without an audience?

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[wvmarle]

Your average politician doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. Same for many journalists. I know many names, even faces of those that are on TV or with photo in the paper often, but for most of them I don't know where they live, whether they're married or not, what car they drive, etc. That info may be available for those that actively search for it, but it's not posted with their opinions or so.

Posting your opinion about issues is one thing; posting all other personal information all over the place is another thing. Point in case: how much do you know about newyorkcountrylawyer? Well his real name (Ray Beckerman), information about his law firm (see web site), law specialties. That's important, and gives weight to his opinions on copyright law related issues. He probably lives in New York or not far from there. That we know. For the rest we don't know much. Is he married? Children? Previous relations/girlfriends/boyfriends? Crazy escapades while in college? Home telephone number? Car? We don't know. Do you care you don't know? Does that make you "know" him any more or less? Does it make his opinions less important?

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[perryizgr8]

blah...blah...blah...I'm an intellectual female, and blah...blah...blah

LOL!!! is this some kind of joke?? what kind of sane person says 'i am an intellectual'? this sort of behavior actually says you're a dumb idiot or a troll (and i need a nice whooshing).

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty evident you have no idea what it's like to be a woman in a tech field. How many times I've been ignored, only for someone with a penis to say the exact same thing and get credit. How many times I've lost opportunities because I have tits.

Its not really that you are a woman and its not that you don't have a penis and its certainly not because you have tits. It is entirely because of your attitude. You were not pushy or lucky enough and the guy who said the exact same thing? He was.. you see, that happens to other folk too, folk with penises included.. but they probably don't have the chip on their shoulder that says its because they have tits. You might notice sometime that men can be more agressive, more forceful when they are pushing opinions.. its most likely that.

Also, having tits gained you opportunities many times.. but maybe you didn't notice those times? As a guy without tits, I do notice when women get priority treatment because other guys would rather deal with them than me.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So, my personal information and a bunch of psychotic bullshit about me is posted in public for anyone to find."

We call this phenomenon "The Internet" ;-) Alas, the world is full of fools who believe that if they read it on the interwebz it must be true. There is no solution to this problem, because you can't fix stupid.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[flyneye]

Wow, shades of flashbacks,batman!
Back in 1980 B.P.I (before public internet) I had a similar stalker. The new girl in school.Dressed like an old person,had a mild speech impediment and nearly daily epileptic seizures. I merely tried to be kind, the next thing I know she's spouting off how I'm her boyfriend. Follows me like a puppy, calls my house 5 times a day and starts talking about "when we get married". Pretty weird to a sophomore in high school.
            Finally, about a couple months into the school year, I couldn't take it anymore. She was cooking up her usual kettle of crap in an art class we shared. Overhearing her, I stood up and shouted across the room " I'm not your boyfriend, I was never your boyfriend, I'm never gonna be your boyfriend,get the hell over it!"
        The next thing I knew a heavy duty Exacto knife, the kind with the screwdriver handle, smacked the guy beside me in the head,handle first and stuck in the floor beside us. Mary Kay began bounding over desktops towards me only to be tackled halfway across the room by her uncle.(also in the art class with us)
        Well, the sheriff came, packed her ass off to the balloon farm and thats the last I saw of Mary Kay.
                Yeah, there's a load of nuts out there and no right way to handle it. I still look back and wonder, what If I'd told her to screw off earlier, what if I just went with it and f**ked her or talked her into a train for my friends and I (you'd be surprised how many girls went for it as long as everyone promised not to tell, and we didn't)
I sincerely hope she got the help she needed , here in a state that uses the hell outa EST (thats shock thereapy not extra sensitivity training). At least it wasn't Missouri, they still do lobotomy, or did back then.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[icebraining]

I think you'll find many Slashdotters and techies have the same disdain for what most people think of as "privacy."

I must have entered a parallel universe, where most people don't use Facebook and Slashdot isn't constantly posting stories abut privacy violations.

Are you telling me in the universe most people actually value privacy? Because that'd be great!

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[nstlgc]

I always expect way better than this here.

one of the most civilized sites I've come across

Troll much?

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[TheSpoom]

How's he going to sue for libel if the post was anonymous and RipOffReport won't reveal their sources? I guess you could do a Jane Doe suit but it's still a long shot...

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[Spykk]

one of the most civilized sites I've come across

so fuck you

fuck everyone

Making slashdot more civilized one fuck you at a time.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[AK Marc]

When served with a subpoena for all the information on that poster, they will provide it. He has to sue before he can get a subpoena, and so would have to identify her as her username until a legal name is obtained or as Jane Doe.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[AK Marc]

It's pretty evident you have no idea what it's like to be a woman in a tech field. How many times I've been ignored, only for someone with a penis to say the exact same thing and get credit. How many times I've lost opportunities because I have tits.

I'm not endorsing anything anyone else said by responding to you, but I have to ask, are you sure it's because you are a woman, or is it because you are an evil caustic person with a chip on your shoulder that you flaunt like you deserve special treatment? Every man has also had someone else steal an idea, and men sometimes do attribute it to her breasts for why she was listened to, rather than better interpersonal skills.

You are an idiot women (the two are unrelated, you just have both traits) and attribute failures from your idiot nature on your woman nature. Then, to make it worse, you whine to others about the sexism you face, when there's nothing to indicate it's anything other than you being a bad person.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[cdrguru]

You aren't going to be able to get any sort of "Internet restraining order". Sorry, but there isn't any such thing. Anyone can post anything anywhere and there is really nothing that can be done about it.. They are not causing you physical harm or threatening to do so in any real way, so you aren't going to get any sort of physical restraining order against them.

In some cases you might get the hosting site to take down really offensive comments - but some places actually do have a policy against that. It actually cuts down on the offensive email the adminstrators of the site have to deal with if the policy is just "NO". It can also get very, very subjective as to trying to decide who is right and who is wrong - simpler to just leave it all there and let Google sort it out.

You aren't going to get money from anyone without showing damages. Real monetary damages. No, your hurt feelings don't count and aren't worth a dime in court. So they didn't cost you any money? Well, even small claims court is going to throw that one out. Now, a secret here that not too many people know is most of the time something like this would never make someone show up in court - they would just laugh. Well, laugh on because when the other side doesn't show up in small claims court you just have to make it sound reasonable and you get your judgement. Of course, then you have the problems (and expense) of actually trying to find out where they have money to execute the judgement against.

Now I suppose you could sue for slander and defamation. Good luck with that. Even in the US, which is incredibly friendly towards slander suits, you are going to have a tough road. And expensive because there are no "discount slander" attorneys. Nobody is going to take the case for a piece of what you might get in the end either. If this person isn't incredibly well off, you aren't going to get anything that comes close to matching your legal fees - but you would have a judgement against them. This can be used to make their life hell if you want. But it will not result in money.

Come on folks, this is the Internet and the real world all mixed together. The stuff on the Internet doesn't work like the real world and the legal system has NOT caught up to the Internet in any way.

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[ArsenneLupin]

That's no excuse to be a dick

But it should not be an excuse to be a cunt either.

I'm an intellectual female, and I read /. for the comments.

And I am a smart male, and I read Penthouse for the articles.

(SCNR)

It's pretty evident you have no idea what it's like to be a woman in a tech field. How many times I've been ignored, only for someone with a penis to say the exact same thing and get credit.

Sorry for the following serious sentence, but guess what... the same thing happens to guys if they are a tad shy/introverted. They get interrupted, ignored, etc. and then somebody else makes the exact same suggestion and gets all the credit. Welcome to the corporate shark tank where it is eat or be eaten!

Re:I Just Can't Belive It

[AK Marc]

If you don't realize that women very frequently get fucked over and have a hard row to hoe in comparison to their male colleagues in IT, you're part of the problem and probably a fucking idiot to boot. :(

I realize there is sexism, but everyone I've ever seen running around claiming the world is against them because of some quality of theirs (be it race or gender), actually has the world out to get them because they are irresponsible children unwilling to take responsibility for what they can control. Racism in the US is as bad now as it has ever been, it's just more insidious. It's been guided by years of "racism bad" without addressing any of the underlying issues, leading to very sophisticated racism. They type where the person that doesn't hire the black person thinks that they were actually unqualified because of a "gut" feeling. The last time I hired, I hired on gut, and the choice ended up being exactly what I expected to get. The resume was a little light on specific relevant experience, but demonstrated an ability to lean and adapt that would cover for any shortcoming. So he was picked over other "more qualified" applicants. And he did perform as expected. The racism in the US is such that such an opportunity is more likely to go to a white male, and the white hiring managers are less likely to take a chance on a minority. Whether it's hate of women and blacks is never a question, more likely it's an issue of preferring to go with what's "familiar" even if the effects of the two are the same.

Women are frequently passed over because they are raving lunatics who focus on their breasts more than the men around them do. Hell, I dealt with a secretary at a previous job who worked out often and wore skimpy outfits to show off her sculpted body. She slept with her married boss. And she complained about being objectified to the other women (but I think it may have been a teasing revenge, as the other women conspired against her to change the dress code because she was the only one in the company with the body to pull off the outfits she wore - fat and spandex don't mix). There's more sexism within women than men against women, but that's never an issue, it's always when a man does it it's evil, but a woman does it and it's ok. Bitch, lead by example and you wouldn't live in a world that tries so hard to keep you down. Nope, it's easier to be a bitch, get passed over for being a bitch, then blame your lot in life on men being evil by treating you the way you deserve.

Re:so in FB...

[ae1294]

Iif i ask them to delete all pics and status' when I delete my account, and they dont..its ok that they dont? I would think the owner of the post owns the comment which is why the provider cant be sued, but if the providers refuse to take it down when requested by the owner/poster, that is an entirely different legal matter. Sounds to me like the poster could sue on that part.

RTFA...

Slashdot / Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that Slashdot doesn't have to bend over and take it in the rear from Scientology anymore? That happened a few years back I believe. Only comment ever removed.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to read the original posting, since "addiction treatment services" + "Florida" equals in my mind "Narconon", which is the Church of Scientology's pseudo-scientific drug "treatment" "tech". I won't say what I think of this "tech", but I believe the quotes are enough to convey my feelings...

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[similar_name]

I think it might be this one The decision pdf lists G & G Addiction Treatment LLC, but I could find no reports are found for that name. Also it say the post was in July, 2009. There are two for G & G Holistics Addiction Treatment Center in Florida. PDF states the poster claimed owner was a felon and this post does that but is dated May 2009.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? There has been authority after authority that have denounced it as doing more harm than good.
They prescribe overdoses of Niacin which means in Canada the College of Physicians Quebec will sanction any physician who associates with Narconion Trois-Rivieres, even to the point of a Review Committee investigating that physician, which would result in ramifications such as fines or licence suspension.

The Narconon 4 step program:
1. victim is drawn by falsely advertised success rate
2. victim is charged outrageous fees
3. perpetrator cracks open victim's skull
4. perpetrator messes with victim's brain, replacing the victim's personalty with a cult personality

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Moryath]

You forgot:

5. falsely claim in court that the treatment is "religious" in nature to get around all rules/laws regarding prescribing drugs in overdose without a medical license and making proven false medical claims.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[hairyfeet]

The sad part is how many don't actually know that Narconon is CoS, Hey Anon? THAT is what you need to be spreading the word about okay? We used to have a local judge that would sentence people to Narconon until I waited outside his courtroom (it helped that my family knows his family) and I told him "Judge you DO realize you are giving money to the church of Scientology, right?" being church of Christ needless to say he was NOT happy about that news, but he had honestly thought it was just a drug version of AA.

So if there is ANY good that could come from the Anons i'd say it was this: PLEASE use your podium to spread the word that Narconon is NOT AA, okay? You've gotten enough press that you can get the word out and if you did we might get judges across the country to stop sentencing people to them thinking its an offshoot of AA.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

In Britain it is a CULT. Scientology is not a religion, it is a cult. Followed by absolute retards.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[MrNthDegree]

If Scientology weren't above the law.... someone needs to outlaw OT powers!

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Tokolosh]

cult = religion = cult = religion

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad part is how many don't actually know that Narconon is CoS [...] You've gotten enough press that you can get the word out and if you did we might get judges across the country to stop sentencing people to them thinking its an offshoot of AA.

AA is also religious:

a twelve-step program in which members admit that they are powerless over alcohol and need help from a "higher power"; seek guidance and strength through prayer and meditation from a god (or Higher Power) of their own understanding. Source

I'm not American, so I do not know if a judge in the US can send somebody to AA, but a parole officer cannot:

United States courts have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed a religion, it was ruled that it contained enough religious components (variously described in GRIFFIN v. COUGHLIN below as, inter alia, "religion", "religious activity", "religious exercise") to make coerced attendance at AA meetings a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution. In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend AA. Source

In Europe, AA is as considered as being as suspect as Narconon.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[LordLimecat]

As near as I can tell, the word cult has come to mean "an ideology I do not like".

Unfortunately, the word has a specific meaning, and its not that, nor is it "religion".

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[AK Marc]

The only difference I've seen between "cult" and "religion" is the number of followers (and in practical terms, cults look to recruit adults and religions aim for children first by having members bring in their children).

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[LordLimecat]

Thats not what the term means, but if you want to just make up definitions, thats fine I guess.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[AK Marc]

I see you won't define it, and also note that I did not define it, just observe some differences between those defined as cult and those defined as religion.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[Thing 1]

I've long thought that indoctrinating children into a religion should constitute child abuse. Teach them about the wealth of religions out there, sure; but telling them "my way or the highway" is shameful.

Re:Slashdot / Scientology

[AK Marc]

I've looked it up and there is no "specific meaning" that's incompatible with the definitions of "religion." Perhaps you could share this "specific meaning" you allude to but don't define or cite in any way so we can see for ourselves what you are talking about, because the regular dictionaries fin you to be a liar.

I would count this as a victory for the Internet..

[preaction]

if RipOffReport wasn't such a massive blackmail scam.

After a dozen clicks through pages to get to their "Corporate Advocacy Program", I finally found where they charge an up-front fee and a "rate" to make sure the reports listed on their site do not appear as high on search results as the actual website.

Though it seems they also pride themselves on never taking money to remove a post.

So is this just selling SEO services to affected businesses? How is this not shady?

Um...

[jra]

Wasn't there any actual *coverage of the case* somewhere on the web that could have been linked to, Ray?

Re:Um...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Wasn't there any actual *coverage of the case* somewhere on the web that could have been linked to, Ray?

Yes of course. Here's an article by excellent law professor/law blogger Eric Goldman, who as an amicus curiae in the case:

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

(Should I be offended that jra doesn't consider my blog post actuall "coverage"?")

Re:I would count this as a victory for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That place is one of the most scammy, scummy, disgusting, exploitive places on the internet and the guy behind it is an extortionist. I don't have a business. I don't do any business. There is no reason for me to be listed on there. But, I am. Some random person that I don't even know but apparently has a beef with me posted a long diatribe accusing me of very shady stuff that I wouldn't want people thinking I had anything to do with. On top of it, the person posted my personal information. My full name, my contact info, my home address. And there's nothing that can be done. The guy who runs the site will "work with you" for a fee. But there's no way to remove information. Don't like your boss? Don't like an ex-boyfriend? Have a bad experience with someone at a company you do business with? You can get away with posting absolutely anything about them on this site and it'll be there for eternity - without any relation to actual reality.

Worse, Google seems to give results from this site priority in their listings (while other search engines sensibly PENALIZE the site - partially because of their black SEO activities).

It really depresses me that this random person that I don't even think I know posted some random invented crap about me on this site and now it shows up when I google myself (which I don't do, because it depresses me as a result of this). But there's absolutely no recourse. Unless I want to pay a bunch of money tot he guy who runs this rip off of a site.

And, of course, people just googling around have no idea. They see this as a legitimate site to read about and report companies (and INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE). They have no idea that what they're looking at (or contributing to, even) is a guy's extortion service.

For those unfamiliar with this shitty site, do a little googling on it. There are tons of discussions as well as news articles about the guy behind it and the problems with the site, with their relationship in google searches, and so on.

Re:Legal precedence?

[cpt kangarooski]

No, lower courts do not set legal precedent.

No, lower courts do not set binding precedents, which other courts are obligated to follow. However, they do set persuasive precedents, which other courts may choose to follow. They may also produce better explanations of legal doctrines than higher courts, and thus also be worth quoting even when the controlling precedent is from another case, which might merely be cited.

Re:so in FB...

[Ihmhi]

Iif i ask them to delete all pics and status' when I delete my account, and they dont..its ok that they dont?

In Europe, generally no. Nearly everywhere else, yes.

Re:I would count this as a victory for the Interne

[am 2k]

It really depresses me that this random person that I don't even think I know posted some random invented crap about me on this site and now it shows up when I google myself (which I don't do, because it depresses me as a result of this). But there's absolutely no recourse. Unless I want to pay a bunch of money tot he guy who runs this rip off of a site.

This sounds to me like there's a real possibility that this guy himself invented some random bad stuff, attached real names from a phonebook or some other source to it and hopes that these people pay him money for removing it again. I guess that would be great business plan for someone lacking any hint of morals.

Re:so in FB...

[Killer Instinct]

RTFA...
meh. i rarely RTFA to be honest. Personally the thread comments are the news for nerds im after anyways. I get more good info/explanations and lots of good sites and links from the comments on here. And i dont have to worry about /. effect, pay walls, or getting pissed when i waste time reading some of the garbage FA's or stupid fucking ad's passed off as FA. An as another poster pointed out, FB TOS and conditions say they can do what they want.

-KI

Re:so in FB...

[shentino]

That doesn't count when they abuse their "we reserve the right to decide to fuck you in the ass later" clause to backdoor privacy violations but don't give you a chance to opt out of their services.

Ya I've never found their shit remotely useful

[Sycraft-fu]

Occasionally when researching a product/company/etc I'll find stuff on there just blasting it. Never have I found it to be accurate when I've purchased. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I think more likely the people on there are just whiny.

Depends on what the definition of person is.

[cvtan]

So if a person is a person and a corporation is a "person", then if a site posts something harmful to a person it's OK, but if they post something harmful to a "person" it's copyright infringement?

Re:I would count this as a victory for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need to file... ...a ripoff report *sunglasses*

welcome to ripoffreport.com

[NynexNinja]

They have been sued numerous times for not removing posts *when the author of the post requested that it should be removed*. I think the bottom line is don't use ripoffreport.com, use complaintsboard.com or any similar site.

Re:welcome to ripoffreport.com

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read their ToS, you'll discover that you don't own content you post to their site, they do. So, you have no legal right to demand they remove anything you post there.

Re:welcome to ripoffreport.com

[cybernanga]

hmm, their TOS cannot give them ownership of previously published material.

I wonder what would happen if they got a ton (like a slashdotting ton) of posts that contained previously published, and therefore copywritten material.

If enough posts were made, and enough DMCA takedown requests were made, the owner/admin might be forced to take the site down

Alternatively, If we all decided to use it for sharing links to RIAA/MAFIAA content, and simultaneously notified the RIAA/MAFIAA, would it be possible to get their domain seized?

Re:welcome to ripoffreport.com

[AK Marc]

post the "secret" Scientology stuff there and let Scientology do all the work to take the site down.

Interesting development

[Whiteox]

This article just appeared in my news feed:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/google-and-ilk-cant-shirk-responsibility-for-ranters-20111229-1pe93.html

Excerpt: "....Google, which replied that it is not responsible for any allegedly defamatory content and it does not remove defamatory, insulting, negative or distasteful material from US domains. It claims that under US law internet services, such as the blogger site, are republishers and not the publisher."

and

"Last year, a judge in Ireland gave permission to the Irish Red Cross to start proceedings against Google in California in order to obtain the identity of an anonymous blogger who had posted what the charity claimed was ''distorted confidential'' material. Italian and French courts have held Google liable for defamations that arose from ''autocomplete'' search requests.
In England, the Demon internet service provider was found to be liable for defamation after a judge held that the ''innocent disseminator'' defence didn't wash once an ISP had notice of the offensive content."

So it appears that being a provider (3rd party) may include liability. Looks like freedom of speech and being responsible for the content is being taken seriously by some courts. I can see that could be a problem for re-posters.

Re:Interesting development

[Doc Ruby]

US laws do not protect foreign publishers in foreign countries, which have their own laws.

Which is why the US is now working on changing the law to make publishers not just liable for posts, but subject to takedowns by the US government without even proving the accusation. Which is why we must stop SOPA, to protect our freedom better than it's protected elsewhere.

The sad part is worse than you think

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The sad part is ...

Actually, judges are violating the principle of the separation of church and state as well as the principles of AA when they sentence people to go to AA. Addiction, including addiction to the drug we call Alcohol is recognized by the AMA as a disease, and when a judge orders a specific treatment he is in effect acting as though he has the right to prescribe a treatment.

If he recommends AA I don't see a problem with that, but if he prescribes it as a matter of law he has effectively forced a person to seek a treatment for a disease which, in all reality, does not work for everyone regardless of the hype within the AA community claiming that it does. Indeed, no treatment for any disease works for everyone.

Re:The sad part is worse than you think

[hairyfeet]

Actually you really shouldn't blame the judge as he WAS trying to keep people out of jail and with repeat offenders your options are pretty limited. he would basically give them the choice of going into narconon or doing the time because he really believed that treatment was best and sadly thanks to the government cutting the living hell out of money for treatment the few in house treatment facilities are so overcrowded that you'll never get in. did you know the average wait to get in house treatment for heroin is 2 years and the average survival time is a year and a half?

So don't be too hard on the judges, I can tell you from personal knowledge a lot of them are good men who have seen first hand through families what drug and alcohol addiction does and are just trying to do their best with what they've got. Would you suggest they throw them in prison? I sadly know someone I went to HS with that is doing 15 years for armed robbery because HE WANTED TO GO TO PRISON because he couldn't get his drug of choice during a local drug drought and he knew he could always score in the joint. When you are faced with people THAT addicted your options become severely limited especially when you are looking at a 2 year plus waiting list for beds in my area for treatment. After my little talk he personally got a hold of the local AA chapter and made sure they'd be willing to attempt to help the drug addicts and now he gives them a choice of AA or jail because really, what other choices does he have?

Re:The sad part is worse than you think

[Zero__Kelvin]

I did fail to expound upon that particular issue. Mea Culpa. Google "AA 12 steps" for the obvious answer.

Re:I would count this as a victory for the Interne

[Anonymous Coward]

posting anon because of moderation.

What if someone made a script to report every name found on the Internet to that site, with bogus information, including politicians and presidents, and companies... When everybody is on that site, maybe then it just gets ignored, like that site should be.

Re:so in FB...

[Hatta]

It's really hard to get terribly upset that Facebook doesn't keep your private data any more private than you did. I avoid the whole issue by just not telling my secrets to anyone.

SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, courts currently have to rule the website is immune from legal consequences of non-moderated posts, because that's what the current law (DMCA) says.

Which is exactly why the current Congress is working to pass SOPA, which would criminalize those posts, and give the government the power to shut it down.

This is the same government that is now killing American citizens who haven't been proven to have committed any crime or offense, but have been only accused by someone in the bureaucracy. The same government that just gave itself the power to kidnap American citizens even inside the US and imprison them forever, in secret, without even charging them with a crime, let alone proving anything about them.

And if they pass SOPA, they will have the power to shut down any website where anyone posts a complaint about it. Accusations of copyright violation, accusations of terrorism, whatever is convenient to the law without any proof required will get it shut down. Your rights are nothing; government power and its corporate sponsors' money is everything.

That's why you should do something to stop SOPA (and its Senate partner PIPA). Before it's too late, and SOPA deletes any website where you might even try.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

This is the same government that is now killing American citizens who haven't been proven to have committed any crime or offense, but have been only accused by someone in the bureaucracy.

I'm familiar with all the other references you made, but I hadn't heard of this one

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

Anwar Alawlaki and Samir Khan were American citizens targeted and killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in September.

These two were probably actually terrorists. But according to what, to whom? If they were what the military says they were, then they were US citizens guilty of treason, their citizenship strippable, and subject to the death penalty. But US citizens have the right to due process, and no due process convicted them of treason. No due process at all, concluding nothing. Instead, somebody said they were targets, and they were executed. There is no check or balance on this extrajudicial execution of Americans, no penalty except the grumbling of the usual people powerless to change it, like me

So now when the government has a political enemy, which is all that anyone is until convicted of a crime, it can execute them. Of course the policy is kicked off with someone everyone wants dead. But when people finally complain about someone not as hated, it will be too late: the law, precedents, and accepted practice will all have enshrined this most fundamental violation of American rights.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

The Senator that supported the killings essentially labeled them traitors (without using that word). Why not try them in absentia? They were never even formally accused (no charges filed, no warrant issued, at least as far as the CNN article indicated). So, assuming innocent until proven guilty is still a legal policy, the president ordered the execution of provably innocent American citizens.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

That is correct.

How soon before the US extrajudicially targets for execution US citizens inside the US, but kills the wrong people as "collateral damage". I expect the police state has now collected enough un-Constitutional laws to do it all "legally". If their scenario comes from the recent accusations of some Iranian expat of trying to contract with a Mexican drug mob, and kills some "drug dealers", the police state will have the power to execute anyone without even pressing charges, starting with the secret kidnapping of people tortured for false confessions to execute those people. A small escalation of drug policy makes millions of medical marijuana users (all registered) into legitimate targets, and many millions more meth and oxy users. Of course foreigners and US citizens abroad are even less safe.

And consider that "terrorism" is a political act. Alawlaki probably never committed any act of violence himself, but probably only acts of speech. This system is designed to kill political opponents, even if the inaugural targets are part of a political group actually making war on the US government. That last distinction is not necessary under these laws, only to slide it into US policy without resistance.

Until a Supreme Court is available that will decide in favor of the plain reading of the Constitution, not some contrived "original intent" or arbitrary invention, this police state will be an apparatus with those functions. Given the self-perpetuation of decisions like Bush v Gore, PATRIOT Acts, and Citizens United, there seems to be no hope.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

Until a Supreme Court is available that will decide in favor of the plain reading of the Constitution, not some contrived "original intent" or arbitrary invention, this police state will be an apparatus with those functions. Given the self-perpetuation of decisions like Bush v Gore, PATRIOT Acts, and Citizens United, there seems to be no hope.

We'll have an armed revolution before that happens. I had a formerly sane friend from high school become a lawyer. I don't like case law and mentioned to her that case law was the single largest flaw in the US legal system. She was more offended by that than if I'd called here every one of the 7 words you can't say (and the worse ones that didn't make the official "dont say list"). There is serious dependence on "case law" and "precedent" such that nobody going through law school will be willing to just abandon the 200 years of case law, much of which provably "bad" (though rarely overturned, and when overturned, almost never done in entirety - even separate but equal was upheld in principle when overturned). So nobody will ever be considered for Supreme Court positions that doesn't believe in "case law" as a religion. So a simple reading of the Constitution is impossible without violent revolution (as those who depend on the system will not allow it to be changed from within).

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

I disagree with you only here:

So nobody will ever be considered for Supreme Court positions that doesn't believe in "case law" as a religion.

The Supreme Court is not bound by case law. In fact one of the main differences in the Supreme Court is its independence from case law, because case law is what is used to determine the lower court decisions that are being reconsidered in the SC. However, nominees to the Court are routinely asked during Senate confirmation hearings whether they agree with "Stare Decisis", the doctrine of case law, precedent, even in specific cases. The popular "Conservative" scam to get around that challenge is to answer with the contrived doctrine "Originalism" ("original intent", AKA "historical mind reading").

But in the case of Bush Jr's appointees to the current Court, they just agreed that Stare Decisis governs their decisions, then defy it, as in the Citizens United case. But this entire court is the product of Bush v Gore 2000, in which the Court invented a doctrine ignoring all other precedent and exempting their decision as a precedent ("applies only in the present circumstances").

In other words, the Supreme Court is as legitimate as is the economy we created with the bailouts of the failed economy. The current Court, along with the rest of the government, demonstrated that the US rule of law was entirely a product of adherence to customs, rather than a system of laws itself. Within a decade anything inconvenient to the privately powerful was ignored by the public powers. Consistency and justice are clearly maintained only for the illusion of the rule of law.

Now, all that could mean that as the culture of the people with power change, the US could return to the rule of law it convincingly maintained for a couple of centuries (with other notable, perhaps precedential, exceptions). That culture can be changed by popular effort, or by fads among the aristocrats. It could mean that a long backlash changes the system so that power really is checked and balanced, instead of maintained as a co-dependent cartel among branches and factions. Simple readings of the Constitution could be possible as the Court rolls over past its current low point.

Or it could mean a violent revolution. Which is almost certain to make things worse. The US birth in a war, rather than in a vote or negotiation, is a defining part of what's kept the rule of law from being its root rather than its evolution, and kept the rule of force majeure its actual basis.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

The Supreme Court is not bound by case law.

They are not "bound" but the legal profession is. They did overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, but it took 60 years of trying and the very real feel that a second Civil War was approaching, and when they did, they did so upholding the original ruling. "Separate but Equal" would have been legal, but in practice, separate was *never* equal, so separate is de facto inequal, both upholding the concept that "separate but equal is ok" and "separate is not legal". They refused to "ignore" case law, and instead based their opinion on case law, including the decision they overturned in practice.

Technically you are correct that they aren't bound or required in any way to follow case law, but they *always* have, and as long as the US system is based on legislation from the bench (case law), they will continue to do so. Not despite the people who complain about legislation from the bench, but because those people are the worst offenders of abusing case law for their personal gain.

Or it could mean a violent revolution. Which is almost certain to make things worse.

I disagree. A violent revolution is the *only* fix for the US. The 1% won't let the OWSers get power any other way, and the government is owned by the 1%. All it takes is for the bottom 99% to realize they are in the 99%. I'd guess that 15% of the 99% think they are not in the 99%.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

I dunno, I was surprised to learn just how (extremely) high up in the 99% I am, though I have and continue to make a lot of money. I was kinda shocked to learn this year that the median personal income is only about $26K. Though I live/work in NYC, which is 1% land, even for people living like the 10% everywhere but on triple the income.

But indeed I realized all that only when OWS put "the 1%/the 99%" into the meme pool, and I wondered where I stood in it. I'm sure a lot of people also started looking at themselves in that frame for the first time this year (one reason I've never seen the income boundary of the 1% mentioned on TV, even after OWS and "the 99%" got some coverage).

I don't think a violent revolution is the way it will go. I think the country will continue to dumb down, the 1% media feed Americans a culture of distraction and division, so people are constantly scared of each other more than of the predators, while insisting on protecting the rich to protect their unreachable dream of becoming rich. The 1% is extremely sophisticated in its control, and has better modeling of the 99% all the time, and more complete data. The populace is awash in illegal stimulants that people have accepted losing their rights over, and even more awash in legal anxiety neutralizers that get people to accept anything that's explained away. Huxley's Brave New World looks more plausible every day.

On the other hand, the main advantage of the 1% is their organization and media infrastructure, which gives them a worldview in which to operate according to their self-interest. Which they use to pervert the worldview of the 99%, who cannot operate in their distorted worldview effectively enough to change things, or even to see their own self-interest. But network media levels that playing field. It's why SOPA and PIPPA are so important to the 1%, and rocketing through Congress. It's why the DMCA immunity decided in the story we're discussing is so important, and why SOPA threatens it. A large, dynamic, technologized society like America's, and its global associates, can really defy most expectations, even pretty quickly. So there's hope. Partly because it's too early, even if several watersheds have been passed. But also partly because without hope, there's doom, and insisting on hope is necessary if there's going to be hope. Life is complicated, and plenty of surprises are pleasant.

Happy New Year.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

You committed a simple and common error. The richest make $0 on that chart. All they make is interest, dividends, and capital gains, with no salary (incidentally, that is lower in tax rate than those who actually work for a living). I had thought I was top 10% wage earners, but a glance on there, and I realized I'm in the top 5% of wage earners. But the 1% don't even show up there. Why should they post a number to define the 1%? That 1% is unmeasurable, and the moment you label it, people will be able to include/exclude themselves in it, regardless of whether they would be considered by others as part of the 1%. The real issue isn't income, but wealth. And I think the OWS has hinted at, but not directly pointed to the hidden and hoarded wealth used to buy influence as the 1%, not wage earners (which I don't think anyone would consider that the 1%, though it's often used as a number, as it's the easiest to identify. But it's silly to pick villains based on the ease with which you can identify them, as opposed to the evil they do. Wealth is the more important number, but not nearly as well tracked. http://dkl3fnj1o5loa.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/top-1-percent-of-wealth-united-states.png Looks like you need $20,000,000 in assets above debts to be in the top 1%. I'm not in that and likely never will. If you have $106,000 or more, you are in the top half. I'm easily there, I'm about top 10% in wealth, but that depends on the valuation of some real estate I'm trying to dump in the bubble at the moment (there's still lots of real estate investment money out there and with the housing market weak, farms have been shooting up).

The USA is destroying itself in order to extend the buggy whip corporations. I'm expecting the USA will totally collapse within 20 years (another reason to sell my Indiana farm and get the money into investments in foreign countries). The only question I have is what the US and world will look like when there's a crisis that the US can't debt itself out of (because at some point, the bonds won't be bought anymore).

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

You're right, but again "the 1%" is not a statistical definition but a rhetorical one. The people we're talking about are in the region of the 400 richest people (by whatever definition, Forbes' or otherwise) and some depth around them; "the 0.1%" is more accurate but not as effective rhetorically. And indeed even the literal 1% by wages are mostly fully bought into the full oligarchy and its abuses, dependent on them for their income.

I'm hedging myself (and my family) against both collapse and continued success of the 1%. I work in the energy efficiency automation industry. My own home is on track to be net-zero energy within a few years, and a platform for grid independence a few years later. I have access to EU and some other foreign citizenships, and can trade my work for either money or sustenance to anyone with any information infrastructure. Within a dozen years I'll have a seagoing vessel independent of power grids, and probably a barge-deployable house. All of those projects do me very well while the current civilization lurches around its current trend, and if civilization becomes more risk than benefit I can cut the cords.

The 1% is real, even if its definition is necessarily vague. The 1%'s overreach might well strangle its own throat ("the capitalist will sell the rope used to hang him" - Marx), or it might preserve a niche in which I can continue to thrive. It's important to keep the snake clearly in sight, and well in hand when necessary, even if you can use its venom as medicine.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

I'm a 4th (or more) generation American married to another American,so other citizenships were unavailable. That's why we moved and have a dual-citizen baby and will be citizens here in another 2.5 years. After which, we were looking to move to the EU to get a third citizenship in case here doesn't take the fall of the US well. Unfortunately, the UK Tier 1 (General) category was the easiest to get in under (similar to the one we got where we are now under) was closed last year. If they don't bring it back, the only way in the EU for us is to have a job offer from someone who is willing to do all the extra paperwork to get us residency. Australia/EU/USA triple citizenship is most flexible I could think of for mobility in the impending global economic meltdown (centered in the US, when the debt collapses), well, unless I learn Chinese...

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

I think EU citizenships through countries like Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Greece (if they stay in the EU) will soon become a lot easier to get, the way they were before the credit bubble. The debt is collapsing there the worst, but the people there have a much longer experience with real collapse, survival and recovery.

I don't know about the real strategic value of learning Chinese, since that sets you up to compete with the huge labor surplus that is the main change globalism has brought to the economy. And from what I've learned dealing with Chinese nationals (labor, management and especially owners), since you're not actually Chinese you will have to be a lot better than any Chinese person with whom you compete. Your status as American, if you have actual competitive work experience, actually probably makes you better than an equivalent Chinese, apart from any possible social network connections you won't have. Though maybe my view of the "American premium" is really the "New York City premium", as that's what I have and what I've seen valued by Chinese nationals.

And of course the whole system can collapse. China's system is probably even more rickety than the US, since there's so many more people all looking for their piece of the pie, and less indoctrinated to trust the system (outside of the urban/factory layer the Communist Party has got people bought into). Which is why actual independence from any grid is my plan, executed in a way that exploits the grid for fun and profit in the most likely case that the grid remains hospitable to me.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

Which is why actual independence from any grid is my plan, executed in a way that exploits the grid for fun and profit in the most likely case that the grid remains hospitable to me.

When the grid fails, the world will be so inhospitable to you that it won't matter. I hope you put in sealed bulletproof glass with bars and steel doors with reinforced frames, because if the grid completely fails and you are the only house in miles lit up at night (even a single 60W bulb for night reading will be very visible in complete darkness). China is much less dependent on the US than the US thinks. China has gotten all of what they need from the US to catch up technologically, and only uses the US for capital and consumers at this point, much like the US did with the rest of the world in the late 1800s.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

I expect the grid to simply become too expensive, and possibly sometimes too unreliable, to rely on within the next 20 years, even in the NYC metro area. If it fails completely, that's what the boat is for. By "the grid" I do mean power/water/sewage/telecom, but also just the entire civilization including government services, police, hospitals, etc. The non-utility "grid" stuff would probably stay intact here for longer than most anywhere else.

If and when the grid does actually totally fail, I'll have my boat and my grid-independent tech (and skills). Some of the 6-8 billion people will probably survive the collapse, as our species always has, and I intend to be among them (with my offspring). And if we don't it won't be from failure to try.

China is barely holding its population together with the huge amounts of capital taken from outside, and its integration into our global system. Just the EU recession has pushed some parts of China to the brink, with the continued US consumer recession undermining it too. Expectations of better living are far more widespread in China than fulfillment, and the slacking of growth is stressing those cracks. Now is also before the environmental/health damage from China's growth comes home to roost, which will just get worse. The interdependency on any specific country isn't the issue, but rather the dependency on fully functional (and "open" to Chinese mercantilism) globalism. Nobody has the kind of tech yet that can cope with the majority of Chinese people living the way people now do in its coastal megalopolis, and probably it won't arrive in energy/resource efficiency and reliable scalability until after China's tidal stresses do its system a lot of damage - among the external stresses on it. Really I'm not that optimistic about China's success without the success of the globalism that has made its current status quo, and the continued propping up of it by China confirms that China's own rulers see it more or less that way, too.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

China has more stability than the US. They have a more uniform population (in terms of political spectrum) and are much more likely to take injustice sitting down (millions were displaced or inconvenienced for dams or olympics without much complaint or comment, and no, fear of jail isn't as big a motivator as you'd think).

That level of non-infighting is very powerful. The USA is going to fail as a country because of the two party system and the citizens who like it. In China, for better or worse, they accept poor government without trying to purposefully sabotage their own country like we get in the USA with the Republicans deliberately sabotaging education to push for vouchers, or increasing spending while cutting taxes to force a small government through economic collapse.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[Doc Ruby]

Well, it seems we disagree about the certainty that the US will collapse within 20 years, and whether China will have an existential crisis within the next 10-20. We will see.

It's been nice talking with you. A rare pleasure to both agree and disagree on Slashdot without losing the civility, which gave an interesting discussion. Talk to you again sometime.

Re:SOPA Will Criminalize This

[AK Marc]

China has had more than enough issues where if something were going to trigger an existential crisis, it would have already happened. The common person knows about Tienanmen square and knows it's censored and doesn't really care. And there is extreme nationalism in China, but not as destructive as the US (in China they can think themselves the best without having to insult and belittle others as I constantly see in the US). And that nationalism is a cohesive force that will keep them together. And, sadly, China is more a "free market" than the US.

Basically...

[AdamJS]

Basically, it's like being set on fire by some crazy person, and then (after removing your flaming clothes) getting arrested for public indecency.
While you may be innocent of any wrongdoing, your sex offender status is still permanent and well-known.

Which makes it the Right Thing To Do.

Quick Question

[AdamJS]

Is there a write-up/rip off report on the site...for RipOffReports?

Re:I'm so "high brow" [sic]...

[Catskul]

And why is that may I ask?

Re:I'm so "high brow" [sic]...

[ibsteve2u]

'Cuz you made it obvious that you can't or don't care to differentiate between satire and realism, and I'm always willing to help someone get a proper "mad" on if that is their intent.

Re:I'm so "high brow" [sic]...

[Catskul]

Are you implying that the parent's post was intended to ridicule misogyny? I wholeheartedly disagree that this is a case of satire/irony.

In the case that it was, it's not how many women will take it. It produces a hostile environment for women who we already have too few of in our community, and it makes the younger guys in the crowd think that that's what we find to be "cool" and will do the same to fit in.

You may disagree, but I don't deserve your rebuke.