Slashdot Mirror
Smearing Toddler Reputations Via Internet: Free Speech Or Extortion?
retroworks writes "Crystal Cox, a Montana woman who calls herself an 'investigative journalist,' was slapped with a $2.5-million judgment last year for defaming an investment firm and one of its lead partners. Cox had taken control of the Google footprint of Obsidian Finance and its principal Kevin Padrick by writing hundreds of posts about them on dozens of websites she owned, inter-linking them in ways that made them rise up in Google search results; it ruined Obsidian's business due to prospective clients being put off by the firm's seemingly terrible online reputation. After Obsidian sued Cox, she contacted them offering her 'reputation services;' for $2,500 a month, she could 'fix' the firm's reputation and help promote its business. The Forbes Article goes on to describe how she tried to similarly leverage attorneys and journalists reputations. Finding some of her targets were too well established in google rank to pester or intimidate, Cox moved to family members, reserving domain names for one of her target's 3-year-old daughter. Forbes columnist Kashmir Hill makes the case that this clearly isn't journalism, and establishes a boundary for free speech online."
Marc Randazza. When it comes to free speech, he's a champ. Couldn't agree with anyone more. When it comes to RIAA, he's one of the assholes who writes blogposts about how it's just fine to have huge judgments against bittorrent pirates. Ultimately he's a smarmy lawyer, but sometimes he's right. Like this time. He's dead right to defend his daughter over this. Crystal Cox should probably be sucking some cox.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
This isn't "rising up and protesting", this is one individual attempting to game the system to extort a company for lots of money.
This is the exact opposite of Internet protests such as those against SOPA, which involved hundreds of thousands of people fighting against corporate greed and government corruption. This case is just about an asshole who wants money.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It is libel and defamation. That is what the judgement against her was for. http://www.scribd.com/doc/74870113/Crystal-Cox-Opinion http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/crystal_cox_oregon_blogger_isn.php
What free speech amounts to is the right to say what you have to say then dare the government to do something about it.
No, that's freedom from prior restraint. It's part of the overall concept of free speech, but not the totality of it.
Freedom of Speech is poorly defined, but it generally means that you can say what you want, apart from a few specifically defined instances. Think of it as "default allow" for speech. Basically, if there are no laws against what you are saying, then the government can't punish you for saying it.
That might sound like a truism, but historically, it isn't. Historically, governments have arrested (and imprisoned, and executed) people for saying things they don't like, regardless of what the law says.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Wow, you are woefully misinformed. Freedom of speech absolutely does NOT include slander. Further it absolutely should not. Your defense to accusations of slander is TRUTH. You cannot be convicted of slander for truthful statements. If what you want is the ability to LIE about people and suffer no consequences, go look somewhere else.
You jest, but freedom of speech has always been first and foremost about "prior restraint" of speech, not about freedom from consequences. Many types of speech have had, and continue to have consequences. Libel, slander, defamation, hate speech, etc. can all have legal consequences. Threaten someone, and you may get you butt kicked, or even die. If you survive, you might be charged with a crime for the threat. Some types of speech are protected against legal/government imposed consequences, such as the right to criticize the government, but there is no blanket protection from consequences of all speech.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Your defense to accusations of slander is TRUTH. You cannot be convicted of slander for truthful statements.
For what it is worth, that isn't true everywhere, i.e. England (and maybe other places).
Except of course, you're wrong. Truth is a defence in English libel law. But don't let that stop your hysteria.