Slashdot Mirror
Site Copies Content and Uses the DMCA to Take Down the Original Articles
First time accepted submitter ios and web coder writes "From the article: 'A dizzying story that involves falsified medical research, plagiarism, and legal threats came to light via a DMCA takedown notice today. Retraction Watch, a site that followed (among many other issues) the implosion of a Duke cancer researcher's career, found all of its articles on the topic pulled by WordPress, its host. The reason? A small site based in India apparently copied all of the posts, claimed them as their own, then filed a DMCA takedown notice to get the originals pulled from their source. As of now, the originals are still missing as their actual owners seek to have them restored.' This is extremely worrying. Even though the original story is careful not to make accusations, I will. This sure smells like a 'Reputation Defense' dirty trick."
At least then something funny might come of all of this.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
If this can happen it points to the fact that the entire DMCA process is utterly broken and open to abuse.
No proof is required on the side of the claimant, but the accused can immediately lose their stuff.
This is a side effect of a process which was designed by content owners to get stuff taken down with minimal effort and red tape. It has the effect of random idiots being able to take down stuff without any oversight.
What needs to happen is the content owners need to have some higher burden of proof that they are the copyright holders, and that there's real infringement going on.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We really have to start requiring the DMCA takedown notice sources to bring the burden of proof, or this will just become business as usual. Particularly as you don't even have to be resident in the country to abuse the system.
Alternatively, HUGE fines for incorrect takedowns and use of the perjury provisions for submitting an incorrect takedown notice need to be assessed / used. Actually, in a just world, this would be in addition to requiring burden of proof from the takedown notice source.
Nothing less than our entire culture is at stake.
copy content and say its yours,
now what you have to hope is those indian doctors/engineers didnt do the same on their exams
"You DO have a backup, right?"
Could this also be a case of anti-DMCA activism, where someone is fabricating this scenario just to demonstrate how abusable the system is?
Of course if it's not, I'm sure this will give some people that kind of idea.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
This is absurd. It clearly looks like the Reputation Firm hired by this guy works with some nameless organization in India. For WordPress to honor this DMCA take down request blindly makes me more reluctant to ever use them. Sure I see blog posts hosted by them all the time but seriously why would a reputable organization (if you can call WordPress that) would remove the content without first checking with the blog owners or verifying the claims, then they are truly the bad guys here.
Is this something where the wayback machine could help?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
DMCA this article, so no one can see how broken the DMCA is!
Captcha: bawled
Because that's how they keep from getting sued themselves.
If they take down on request, they keep their safe harbour. If they ask for details or proof, they can become more involved than they'd like.
The system is set up to favor the claimants, with no consideration for any burden of proof other than "because I said so". Because the lobbyists who paid for this law wanted it that way.
But it completely goes outside of most legal things like due process and judicial oversight -- guilty until proven innocent.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What reputation? This guy is living in more denial than the GOP if he thinks his reputation is positive. This is like throwing a bucket of water after the house has already burned down, the embers have cooled and been cleared away and there's a McDonalds built where it used to be.
Saying the DMCA takedown process is broken is certainly true. This was known by those against the system from the start, but was inevitably only going to rear its head when those that are not major content providers (aka. those with money) started to game the system... This is all a distraction though as the argument that preceeds this whole DMCA thing is the business models that depend on artificial scarcity of digital goods, the idea that people need to pay for every little idea (sound clip, article, presentation, graphic, video) that moves around the internet. This is an outdated thought and I am not sure what will evolve out of our new age of digitizing everything, but I certainly hope we do not hinder progress (well much beyond what we have done already) due to our inability to conceive of new business models and ways of reshaping our society to embrace the advantages of digital content.
Part of the problem is that a free hosted blog doesn't generate enough money to WordPress.com to be worth them getting a lawyer, or even a guy to look at it. I used to work at a place where people could post things, and we immediately complied with DMCA takedowns. The $1.50 in ad revenue that they are probably generating isn't worth it.
"United States of Fascism" and "that dictatorship with an illusion of freedom"
Really? And you don't feel this is just a wee-bit over the top?
you BACK UP YOUR CONTENT
To me this indicates that DMCA claims need to have some sort of US presence; the only disincentive for abuse of the DMCA is the potential for lawsuits for invalid claims, if the claimant doesn't have a US presence then they're entirely free from reprisal. Leo Laporte has frequently mentioned that foreign companies spuriously claim copyright on his Youtube videos in order to run ads on his content.
Perhaps DMCA ought to even require registering for copyright as a minimum for filing take down notices.
I understand the need for something like the DMCA takedown process On the other hand there needs to be some level of balance such that filing a false DMCA takedown request has an appropriate consequence to whoever files such a fraudulent action. I'm thinking along the line of capital punishment for both whoever makes the faslse claim as well as their legal team and anyone else substantially involved. It would make people think twice about filing a false takedown.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
for a DMCA reform.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
This is a well-known tactic frequently used by those shady "reputation management" companies, whose business it is to make bad people look not so bad.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Come on ... surely thats not a real name .
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Maybe I should patent this... :)
Free speech zones. 'Border' checks within 100 miles of the border. Assassination of citizens. Extraordinary rendition. Guantanamo. Suspension of habeus corpus when they see fit. Warrantless wiretaps. Domestic spying against citizens. Drone surveillance of citizens. Blimps over Washington. 'Homeland Security' enforcing copyright.
Do you really think that it's hyperbole anymore??
When any other country does this, Americans scream fascism and freedom -- and completely miss the fact their own government does it. Sorry, but this is Soviet era stuff, and most of it is supposed to be unconstitutional.
But, as long as American Idol keeps playing, Facebook and Twitter are online, and you can buy a jumbo sized meal at McDonald's nobody cares.
For WordPress to honor this DMCA take down request blindly makes me more reluctant to ever use them.
This is standard operating procedure for every major website right now. Doing due diligence can land you in legal trouble with the DMCA. The industry wrote the law, why would they add a concept of checks and balances? That's something the congress would have to do, but that's not going to happen when the industry is there reminding them about how expensive elections are and now easy it is for a few major news outlets to pump up some other candidate to oust you in the primary. Many won't even need a reminder because that's how they got the seat in the first place.
I read the internet for the articles.
"She's a witch...I mean copyright violator!"
Different century, same methodology.
Don't just game, Dungeoneer
While this is certainly outrageous behavior, could this lead to the demise of the DMCA? If this practice becomes common, you can certainly see court challenges against the DMCA in the future. If the DMCA can be portrayed as taking away original speech, that would be a direct violation of the freedom of speech in the United States. All it would take is a court to determine that it does not sufficiently safeguard the First Amendment and it could be struck down. It could be re-written, but it wouldn't be as easy to mass issue takedown notices. While I do acknowledge that there is a corporate mindset in the American judiciary, the First Amendment is a very explicit right and this would be an infringement on the property rights of the original creators.
This is another good example of abusive DMCA take down requests circumventing due process. RIAA and MPAA abuse the law to suppress our creativity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4
and are destroying our cultural heritage.
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/11/48625?currentPage=all
To top it off, their outdated business model unfairly reimburses the artists for their hard work.
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
Copyright needs to be reformed. Some changes that I'd like to see are:
* Abolish the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
* Intellectual property should be taxed like real property. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weaver20feb20,0,1675278.story It is an asset with a value, right? If you no longer make enough to pay your taxes on it, it goes to the state.
* Copyrights are supposed to be an incentive to create. One that lasts unto your grandchildren are a dis-incentive, because not only are you not creating any more once you are dead, neither are your descendants. Copyright should last half a working lifetime (20 years), so that you have to get off your ass and make new stuff.
* Someone who makes copies without permission should pay a fine, but it should be at the regular royalty rate for the item x copies made. So upload a song, it's iTunes price x number of downloads, with perhaps a factor of 3 penalty to discourage doing it, not $150,000 per copy.
If you feel the same way, you can make a difference by donating to the EFF
https://supporters.eff.org/donate
or at least signing this petition urging reform.
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/fixcopyright
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln
The system is set up to favor the claimants, with no consideration for any burden of proof other than "because I said so". Because the lobbyists who paid for this law wanted it that way.
Well then, we should give them what they asked for and flood the system with such requests. One sure way to change a law is to show it's supporters how easily it can be turned against them.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
The Streisand Effect is starting to kick in.
Frankly, "reputation management" firms seem to be slime of the lowest form.
It's actually "guilty until proven otherwise". Because once you get sued, no matter how good the lawyers, there will always be some doubt, so, not innocent.
The whole DMCA was create for abuse, and no matter how many times, or how publicly it fails, it won't be removed or redesigned. What will happen, is that other governments, or to be specific, the EU, will make some laws to counter, or at least blunt that kind of wrong.
I have a question for the website's original owners, if the stuff there was so important, why wasn't it backed up?
For WordPress to honor this DMCA take down request blindly makes me more reluctant to ever use them.
Wordpress the software is fine.
Wordpress the Wordpress hosting service is totally fine, because it's in the CLOUD, dude! The CLOUD! It'll make everything better! Right as rain! Fast as a thunderbolt! Deadly as a month-long storm that causes the river to overflow its banks and drown your entire extended family!
The CLOUD!
But seriously, this is why you should always host your own shit if you're capable of doing so. For far too many large SAAS companies, you're a resource, not a true customer.
I think you missed the point in the topic header "say it isn't so!" I realize that this is the case but again, the DMCA law is written to either remove or disable the content. That's what it says BTW, remove or disable. The latter for those ISPs/website operators who take a bit of time to at least give the content owners a chance to wrangle over the information or indeed take a quick look and say "hey, this takedown notice is BS." It's also worded specifically that if they don't act they may lose their liability protection under the DMCA. So yes, "ohh scary things will happen with lawyers. We may even get *gasp* another letter if we don't act in 5 minutes."
My point is that now this kind of case comes up, where we have a Researcher who is now going back trying to erase embarrassing things about himself via proxy and now you have hoards of folks in the third world ready to send DMCA letters to just let him do that. The DMCA is shameful, written by the entertainment industry. It's a travesty that laws passed (or lack thereof in the 112th congress) nowadays are just rubber stamped by legislators as "their own." There should be a DMCA for plagiarism of laws or at least "do you own work" should be the mantra rather than this endless supply of industry focused legislation that seems to be more and more prevalent in DC and in State Legislatures.
In the original issue here, WordPress which is almost synonymous for blogging took down damaging articles about proven research fraud. This is valuable and embarrassing information to subject and represents a distinct departure vs. printed news. So now if I post some code on a site, that shows an example on how to do something, I can have some nameless guy from India call my ISP and say that it's his and my stuff will disappear? Yeah deep down I knew that was a possibility (especially if I don't pay my ISP bill) but again, WordPress should have merely disabled the content, contact the owner and said "you have 7 days to let us know why we shouldn't delete your content/disable your site." That's allowable under the DMCA and it shows that the host of the content is trying to be reasonable to all parties involved.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"Reputation defense" on Wikipedia has become an issue. Here's a wash cycle on Wikipedia, carried out on behalf of Michael Milken, one of the notorious financial crooks of the 1980s. ("Biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry." back in 1990.) He has a self-admitted paid editor on Wikipedia editing his article to make him look good.
It's people like you that make it hard for people like me to be taken seriously. There are problems with the US government, but any time a crackpot such as yourself starts spewing nonsense like this it makes everyone who disagrees with the government's actions look just as crazy. So cut it out, dickbag.
None limit the wealth of possible choices available as those who falsely exaggerate reality based on their paranoia. - Jhon
DMCA Denial of Service, that is.
Never trust research from a guy named "anal potty".
If we make takedown notices we can flood the system and show it as the circus it is.
Let's see if any judge and group of peers can look at date/time references in logs and/or pages and make any sense of that simple concept at all. :)
Douglas Adams would be proud.
If Aaron Swartz would have been a bit quicker, things could have turned out differently for JSTOR.
Have gnu, will travel.
I always wondered how the Indian's got to North America first, now I know they cheated.
Back in school they told me it was because they had reservations.
No brain, no pain.
For the zombie bot swarm that submits DMCA take down notices on every single page of every single media site.
Drone strike.
(Just kidding)
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
You have a no cost, remote way to claim ownership of something for some amount of time and profit from it and the only "undo" available to your victims involves a lengthy process which itself is only initiated after they've noticed that one of the things they created at some point in their careers which was somewhere on the net has had a DCMA takedown notice applied to it.
It's a scammer's paradise, the moreso since this is India which, with a billion people, we can say with utter confidence that even if you represent the top 0.00001% of depraved, shameless and sociopathic scammers, there's still a million other people just like you.
Retribution from the aggrieved authors can only occur at the end of a time consuming and prohibitively costly trial which itself can only commence once the international disputants are located and brought to court, which in this case turns out to be a country whose system of jurisprudence takes place mostly in fantastically over-crowded, dimly lit, smoky "courtrooms" which most closely resemble a wild west saloon, where sweaty irritable and underpaid judges, prosecutors, defendants and plaintiffs have to literally scream at the top of their lungs just to be heard, or even identify each other, and where you may not even be able to hear the disposition of your case amongst all the chaos, which disposition itself often takes all of 90 seconds, despite which fact this same courtroom has a docket that extends years and possibly even decades into the past.
What can possible go wrong with a system like that?
All hail copyright police's system of "just us".
One of the major selling point of that wholly remarkable travel book, the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, apart from its relative cheapness and the fact that it has the words Don't Panic written in large friendly letters on its cover, is its compendious and occasionally accurate glossary. The statistics relating to the geo-social nature of the Universe, for instance, are deftly set out between pages nine hundred and thirty-eight thousand and twenty-four and nine hundred and thirty-eight thousand and twenty-six; and the simplistic style in which they are written is partly explained by the fact that the editors, having to meet a publishing deadline, copied the information off the back of a packet of breakfast cereal, hastily embroidering it with a few footnoted in order to avoid prosecution under the incomprehensibly tortuous Galactic Copyright laws.
It is interesting to note that a later and wilier editor sent the book backwards in time through a temporal warp, and then successfully sued the breakfast cereal company for infringement of the same laws.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
"Do you really think that it's hyperbole anymore??"
Yes. And beyond that, unreasonable paranoia.
Here's a few examples:
"Free speech zones."
I'm sure you aren't suggesting that public safety is less important than the ability to say whatever you want where ever you want to say it and with any number of people. Or are you?
"Suspension of habeus corpus when they see fit"
Really? When they see fit? Isn't that a bit vague? There are valid constitutional grounds (as have been argued) based on Article 1. Also:
1. It's RARELY been suspended (hardly what I'd call "fascist")
2. The few times it has been has generated legal challenges (ex parte milligan re: civil war as a prime example to define civil rights in times of war)
"When any other country does this, Americans scream fascism and freedom"
Yes. Lets compare "occupy wall street" camps riddled with disease and crime being torn down in LA to Tiananmen square. How DARE we! We're worse than Stalin! We're worse than Mao! We're worse than Hitler!
Adjust your tinfoil hat and enjoy your fabricated reality. I'll live in the real world and deal with any extra-constitutional issues that arise as they come up through the system designed by our framers. It's not perfect, but it's HARDLY worth calling "Fascist". Unless you really don't understand the words being used, that is.
I nearly learned the hard way years back that whenever you host a site anywhere, you need to make sure you have local backups. In my case, it was a web host who was "struck by a worm" that took their servers down for a week. The fix to the worm was: 1) reboot server, 2) apply patch, 3) reboot again. So a week+ to fix their servers seemed fishy to me. I was lucky and managed to access the SQL servers and get a local backup. Others weren't so lucky when the company just vanished a couple of weeks later.
I now have a few self-hosted WordPress sites. Of course, even these aren't immune to this kind of attack. If the reputation management company stole my content and tried to knock my post offline, my host could go in and delete my site. Of course, if they did, I'd just restore my backup and my post would be back online. (I'd then leave that host, of course.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Serious question. I thought that this part of the DMCA takedown notice exists precisely to prevent abuse. Why haven't I *EVER* heard of it being enforced?
This is yet another example of why the DMCA is ***BAD LAW***
A law should not be capable of victimizing others. The DMCA, through mistake or malice can and often is used in ways which harm people.
Let's not focus on who is doing it. There will always be many thousands out there who are willing to take advantage of bad law. Take down one and two more will spring up. It's the law which is the problem. It's time it was repealed.
It is designed to so that now one can publish independently.
The actual article is a bit sketchy on details - the *real* standard procedure is not 'blind takedown' -
because blind takedown can land you in trouble on the 'defendant' side as well if not done
correctly, and the host can end up being sued by the customer - instead,
Usually SOP for DMCAS goes like this*:
1) Recieve takedown request
2) Notify party of recieved takedown request, wait some time period for counter-claim (usually 2 business days or similar)
3) if no counter claim submitted by the customer within time period, then proceed with takedown per the DMCA
4) if counter claim is recieved after takedown occurs but prior to legal proceedings, reinstate content per the DMCA
5) if legal proceedings resulting from counter-claim result result in judgement of infringment,
further request will be made and takedown will occur after verifying with court that records
are real.
*: worked at a major web host for 2 years in the dept that handles DMCAs
So - from the article we have no idea here if steps 2-4 occurred or not.
Yes, DMCA is not good law because it makes ISP's into 'law enforcement',
without proper court proceedings, but it isn't as simple as
'DMCA means anyone can simply takedown your site with one request OMG!!!'
because there is a counter claim mechanism which usually scares off bogus complaints
from ever seeing legal proceedings.
This issue is nothing new - I would get many of this exact scenario
(content theif submits DMCA against content author)
from 'article writer' sites and other 'web spam producers' in the day -
In this case - Could be that the person never checked their email/phone/etc for the DMCA complainant
notification -
sorry charlie should have checked your email.
Could be that the person didn't file a counter claim:
sorry - thats the law
If wordpress lost the content between initial takedown and counter claim, then thats another
story - wordpress goofed bad.
However, I'm sure they have language about keeping your
own backups, etc. so.. always keep backups. lesson learned.
Kind of silly to me that this person *let* this happen - you're publicizing someone who
essentially committed fraud by way of falsified medical research - you should be expecting
shady and nefarious dealings in return and protecting yourself accordingly.
That being said, doesn't mean that DMCA is great or that the situation doesn't stink.
I can't wait for false DMCA-ers to start getting sued for BS take down notices.
For the uninformed, "Potti" means shit in Hindi
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Is there just one decent human being on this planet? I think FUCK NOT!
For the love of heaven, someone mod the parent up. They just have to file a counternotice and the material goes back up within 14 days unless this outfit in India is willing to ask a US court to issue a restraining order. Title 17, section 512(g)2(c).
Think about it. It's a system with virtually no security that processes requests blindly. Seems ripe for some evil miscreant to turn a spam botnet on it, flooding sites with millions of bogus but legit looking DMCA notices. Maybe even triggering a "shit finally hits the fan" moment for the DMCA law.
...wrong.
Could be.... interesting. Not that I'm suggesting anyone actually do it, of course. That would be
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
The system IS setup to favor claimants as you say but it also has an equally favorable counter-notice system that allows the material to go right back up and afterwards a court ordered injunction is needed to remove the material AND the service provider is immune from legal action.
The counter-notice can be made just as quickly as the original notice and if the noticee is on their toes the material would be inaccessible for only the time it takes for the hosting company to take down then reinstate the material.
I'm surprised this confusion still exists, the counter-notice puts the matter firmly back in the jurisdiction of the court system at only the cost of revealing the noticee's personal information so a lawsuit can proceed.
Which makes for a nice lovely way to get the real personal information of people on the internet. Why should someone be forced to identify themselves to you based on an unsupported claim?
Sorry, but I still think there should be some initial burden of evidence on the claimant -- but, as I've said elsewhere, the companies who paid the lawmakers for this wanted to avoid red tape.
It's a broken, defective system designed only to the advantage of the copyright lobby.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And yet you make the silly mistake that the laws apply the same to them as it does to you.
How could the NDAA or Obama's leaked "Imminence redefined" memo not be considered fascist?
You are an obvious government schill.
Because the the constitutionality of that monster has not yet been challenged. Our system was designed to deal with crap like that.
You might as well say "How can the Alien and Sedition act of 1798 not be considered fascist"?
It was extra-constitutional and and shot down -- as it should have been. That's not fascism. That's a constitutional republic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/anil-potti-duke-cancer-fraud-university-research_n_1273264.html
Most Americans have been trained since birth to love lawyers, and believe that only lawyers have anything valid to say about the law. Witness the stories on Slashdot when someone gets a threat, and American dribblers immediately scream in chorus "you must pay an expensive lawyer- your thoughts count for nothing."
And American lawyers work to one principle, and one alone- namely if it ain't illegal, you should do it. This attitude turns the world into a war-ground, especially when money is involved.
Issuing false DMCA takedown requests is NOT illegal so long as one maintains plausible deniability. Plausible includes the excuse that an automated computer program played ANY part in the process- see the recent HBO takedown request against HBO's own website. The ONLY possible way to sue a person for a false DMCA action would be if the person made an actual confession of wrongdoing.
So, if something on the net bothers you, an American lawyer will immediately tell you to issue a DMCA take-down request. There is no possible way for such action to backfire, UNLESS the criminal requesting the takedown has a reputation that may be damaged by widespread public exposure of this tactic. This Slashdot promotion is generating negative publicity, but not dangerous enough to bother the criminal involved in any way. I mean, those Indian gang rapist/murderers all pleaded not guilty, didn't they, regardless of the fact that their guilt isn't in doubt, and the whole world knows this. For a criminal, the brazen approach, recommended by their lawyers, works too often to be ignored.
Lawyers LOVE the written law precisely because it is free from issues of morality. A good person cares not for written laws, because their own moral code is higher in theory and practice.
The Internet is a wild-west, not because of a lack of laws, but because all the applicable laws have been written by robber-barons.
So here's an article about this guy setting up multiple websites to astroturf his reputation online AFTER he was disgraced. It looks like this is a continuation of his shameless strategy:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473138a.html
"...falsely exaggerate reality based on their paranoia. - Jhon"
Except he's also right and nothing is more dangerous than defending apathy.
If you hadn't previously heard about ANIL POTTI and his shenanigans -- well, now you have. So if this was some misguided attempt to shield the tattered remnants of his reputation worldwide, it has backfired big time! This is Slashdot; now the whole world is hearing about it.
licet differant, aequabitur
I'm sure you aren't suggesting that public safety is less important than the ability to say whatever you want where ever you want to say it and with any number of people.
I would. Who is the paranoid one here? The ones who are scared that unlikely scenarios where people are hurt will arise, or the ones suggesting that the government could easily abuse such powers (and history provides countless examples of government corruption)? Do you also support the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping? The TSA? It's all for your safety, and surely an 'upstanding' citizen such as yourself wouldn't dare to suggest that petty things such as rights are more important than public safety?
I won't say anything about the rest of it, but I do think what you said there is completely ridiculous.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Immediate transfer of all claimant's actual owned content to public domain.
If it was a real fascist country you would be punished for pointing that shit out. I'm not saying that it isn't on the trajectory to be a real fascist state, but it isn't there yet.
"The ones who are scared that unlikely scenarios where people are hurt will arise"
Unlikely? Why do we have firedoor rules in various building codes?
And as far as "free speech zones" and disease/crime:
Link 1
Link 2
These are not UNLIKELY, they happened and they are OBVIOUS. There's a reason why we have laws regarding sanitation and trash.
Less obvious is the COST. Free speech doesn't extend to massive crowds squatting in make-shift camps destroying public property and wasting EVERYONES tax dollars. Even one of the most liberal mayors of one of the most liberal cities agrees:
In a release, the mayor said Occupy LA’s 500-plus tents cost more than $2,700 a day in sanitation, security, and other expenses.
"Look, our lawn is dead, our sprinklers aren't working... our trees are without water," Villaraigosa said.
According to one city official, damage to the lawn and sprinklers could cost the city over $400,000
“We’ve all got to acknowledge that there’s a price to bear,” Villaraigosa said.
And as far as "free speech zones" and disease/crime:
Free speech zones were used to put people who would criticize the president away from public eye. If you're for that, then you're anti-free speech.
I said nothing about Occupy.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Unlikely? Why do we have firedoor rules in various building codes?
How is that relevant to my comment? I mentioned free speech zones. That's all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"How is that relevant to my comment?"
How is it not?
"I mentioned free speech zones. That's all."
Oh. And I thought you ALSO made a point that those in "fear" of "unlikely senerios" where people get "hurt" and limiting freedoms based on their "paranoia". My mistake.
Oh wait... you did attempt to make that point.
We can limit crowds because of dangers. Firedoors are a prime example.
I further included links which illustrate where disease and crime were very real at the various "occupy" camps.
Oh. And I thought you ALSO made a point that those in "fear" of "unlikely senerios" where people get "hurt" and limiting freedoms based on their "paranoia". My mistake.
Which was referring to free speech zones.
We can limit crowds because of dangers.
Free speech > safety, in my books. Do you support the TSA? What about the USAPATRIOT Act? What if they weren't mere security theater?
Firedoors are a prime example.
Fire doors don't violate anything I believe is a fundamental freedom. Free speech zones do.
I further included links which illustrate where disease and crime were very real at the various "occupy" camps.
That's just punishing everyone.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"Free speech > safety"
Your "free speech" does not trump my rights. When your "free speech" puts me (or even yourself) in danger you need to flip that > to .
Further, Your "free speech" doesn't entitle you to live free on public land forcing the local tax payer to pay for your sanitation and protection and repairs for all damages done (both by squatting and out right vandalism).
There are countless valid constitutional arguments (as defined by several supreme court cases) which back up such limitations on rights.
"Fire doors don't violate anything I believe is a fundamental freedom."
Building codes and crowd limits. It doesn't matter WHY a crowd wants to gather, there are limitations.
"That's just punishing everyone."
Ah... So it's better that I get punished by being exposed to disease or fouled ground water? Lice and rats? Be forced to have my moneies paid to the local government (tax) diverted to repairs, sanitation and crime managament caused by such an outragous exageration of what the constitution meant to be "free speech"? Have my tax paid police force strained by having their resources wasted FURTHER putting me at risk? Fuck you. Get a picket sign and keep business hours on your protest and expect to be arrested if you vandalize local businesses or property.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can block traffic or block doors. "Free speech" doesn't mean you live rent free in a tent on public land. I'd bet cold hard cash that if me and 30 of my friends desided to protest your trampling of OUR rights by setting up a camp on your front lawn you'd have the cops on us before we got the first tent set up.
Your "free speech" does not trump my rights.
I don't believe you have a right to take away everyone's constitutional rights just because you want to feel safe.
When your "free speech" puts me (or even yourself) in danger you need to flip that > to .
The the very reason why many people oppose the TSA and Patriot Act is because it trades our privacy for (supposed) safety. Even if they kept us safe, I believe they are unacceptable because I think everyone's freedoms trump your 'right' to be safe from unlikely threats. Same with free speech.
Furthermore, with free speech zones, you're only talking about potential threats. Anyone who says something the president disagrees with is put elsewhere where they can't be seen or heard under the guise of keeping the peace. In reality, this is mere security theater.
There are countless valid constitutional arguments
I don't care what the supreme court says or does. No, that's not quite right. They can be wrong, and an example of that was when they allowed war protestors to be arrested due to the "fire in a crowded theater" ruling (later overturned, I believe). I believe very strongly in certain freedoms, and citing supreme court cases isn't going to change that. If that's all you've got to say, you might as well try to convince me that the TSA is a good thing; it'll be about as effective.
Further, Your "free speech" doesn't entitle you to live free on public land forcing the local tax payer to pay for your sanitation and protection and repairs for all damages done (both by squatting and out right vandalism).
You're too fixated on occupy wall street, I think. Free speech zones have been used for much more than that.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can block traffic or block doors. "Free speech" doesn't mean you live rent free in a tent on public land. I'd bet cold hard cash that if me and 30 of my friends desided to protest your trampling of OUR rights by setting up a camp on your front lawn you'd have the cops on us before we got the first tent set up.
I'm done talking about Occupy. It's completely uninteresting to me and not at all the point I was making about free speech zones in general (which you apparently think are okay).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!