Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo Deletes Journalist's Pre-Paid Legacy Site After Suicide

New submitter digitalFlack writes "Apparently Martin Manley has been a popular blogger and newspaper journalist for many years. For his own reasons, no indication of illness, he decided sixty years on this planet was enough. He designed a 40-page website with sections such as: 'Why Suicide?' and 'Why Age 60?.' Martin planned his suicide meticulously, but to manage his legacy, he picked Yahoo. He even pre-paid for five years. After he left this mortal coil on his 60th birthday, Yahoo decided they don't want his traffic, so they took the site down. Sorry, Martin."

403 comments

  1. They didn't know he also... by sinij · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yahoo didn't know he also prepaid lawyers. Or at least lets hope so.

    Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service, sudden death of a party is a sleazy way to weasel out of a service contract.

    1. Re: They didn't know he also... by alen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pretty sure suicide is against the tos

    2. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't work that way. If you want a say in what happens after your death, you need a living person to execute your will. There are legal constructs which you can use to construct a legal person (as opposed to natural person) to do that, but if you just prepay something, the contract ends when you die, no matter how. Dead people can not uphold their obligations in a contract, so living people don't need to uphold their end of contract with a dead person either.

    3. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a joke, right? What in the world does his manner of death have to do with anything?

    4. Re: They didn't know he also... by pigiron · · Score: 1

      In addition to being against the law, at least it used to be.

    5. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since he's dead and can no longer defend his publication, it effectively becomes Yahoo's own publication, so it would be Yahoo condoning suicide. That someone should commit suicide for whatever reason is at best a controversial point of view. It might even be seen as inciting suicide and could be illegal. So yes, obviously what's on the page does have everything to do with it being taken down. If he wanted someone to be there to fight his fights, he could have stayed and done it himself, you know?

      But on a more general note: It's bad enough that the rich extend their reach beyond their death by leaving their heritage to immortal foundations. The world belongs to the living. It should be much harder to control what happens after you die. Just prepaying doesn't do it.

    6. Re: They didn't know he also... by EvanED · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would speculate it's not a question of how he committed suicide. Had he had a Star Wars fan site or something, it would have been left up. But that's not what it was: it was a site that, in part, explained why he committed suicide. And it may be at least somewhat reasonable for Yahoo to interpret that as promoting suicide, and quite reasonable for it to take down the site for that reason.

    7. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suicide is not against the law. Only aiding it.

    8. Re:They didn't know he also... by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember: it's Ya-"let's delete early Internet history because keeping 1TB around is too expensive"-hoo we're talking about.

      Never trust Yahoo. Ever.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    9. Re:They didn't know he also... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service

      Do they? Have you read the contract? It is possible that the contract has a termination clause in the event of death. It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service. Contracts have fine print for a reason.

    10. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the publication belongs to his estate, but I strongly agree with everything else you wrote.

    11. Re: They didn't know he also... by alen · · Score: 1

      Which includes hosting a site about why someone killed themselves

    12. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It definitely belongs to his estate. No "maybe" about it.

    13. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a sad interpretation. This guy put a fair amount of effort to explain why he ended his life. If someone else interprets that as promoting suicide they could just stick a "are you over 18?" thingie in front of it in case of legal doubt.
      While I'm quite sure I don't agree with his reasons (then again, I'm unable to read about it), most of the western world still has freedom of speech. That includes the written word as far as I know.

    14. Re:They didn't know he also... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service.

      To be honest, I don't see anything advocating or promoting suicide. I see him explaining his reasonings in rather clear terms and as such I'd classify it as a discussion about suicide. There is a difference between discussion and active advocation and/or promotion.

    15. Re: They didn't know he also... by Skiron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Surely the would need to get a copy of the death certificate before they could do anything - at the moment (legally) it's just hearsay.

    16. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in Sweden, unless it's active aid.

    17. Re: They didn't know he also... by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what I read of it, he was talking about his personal feelings and opinions.

      I could see if it were a site that he put video of his own suicide on, or other graphic depictions, there would be a reason to remove it. In this case, there was none. It was left as his legacy, or at least for the 5 years he paid for.

      There was no good justification in taking it down, except possibly that it took too much traffic. If it were a small hosting company, and had a negative impact on services to other customers, I could see it. Yahoo has enough resources to continue supporting that site for the full term as paid for.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    18. Re: They didn't know he also... by EvanED · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From what I read of it, he was talking about his personal feelings and opinions.

      His site was explaining why he committed suicide. Basically by definition, that's him explaining why he felt that suicide was the best option in his case -- which is implicitly explaining why he thinks that suicide is the best option ever, which if you look at it the right way, is promoting suicide. It's not promoting suicide in the sense of "Hey Fred... you really oughta go kill yourself" or in the sense of "you should consider suicide in these cases ...", but I think you could say it is promoting suicide in the sense of "suicide can be, if you weigh the options, the best option." And without saying Yahoo was right or wrong, I can at least understand why even that would be too far for them.

    19. Re:They didn't know he also... by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service, sudden death of a party is a sleazy way to weasel out of a service contract.

      Unless he violates the terms of service.

      10.1 Prohibited Uses
      [...]
      You agree that you will not:
      [...]
      (p) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals.

      A section of his site was instructions on how to commit suicide, which is an illegal act in many (most?) jurisdictions.

    20. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a lawyer but even I know that hosting a site on why somebody committed suicide does not aid their suicide. You are confusing legality with morality. The deepest concern here is the moral concern: "Does leaving this site up possibly give other people the idea to commit suicide for the same reason." This can be both a legal and a moral concern but it's more a moral concern IMSHO because it's the difference between "we took it down because we didn't want anybody to have any strange ideas" or "we took it down because we do not approve." The latter being bad because now they are playing mother to the internet. The former being justifiable (though still bad because in way they are still playing mother) because... well it would be bad for somebody else to take their own life, even worse if somebody took their own life because of the work of another. Either way, unless the site specifically hints that other people should commit suicide there is no legal concern IMO but again I am not a lawyer.

    21. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually find that refreshing...the "extreme history" provided by the internet is quite unpleasant.

    22. Re:They didn't know he also... by julesh · · Score: 1

      It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service.

      To be honest, I don't see anything advocating or promoting suicide. I see him explaining his reasonings in rather clear terms and as such I'd classify it as a discussion about suicide. There is a difference between discussion and active advocation and/or promotion.

      There's a page on the site that outlines a list of possible methods and reasons why you would choose one or the other of them. Sure, it's in the context of how he decided what method to use for himself, but it can be read as instructional for other people, which is a clear violation of Yahoo's ToS.

    23. Re:They didn't know he also... by Grieviant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do they? Have you read the contract? It is possible that the contract has a termination clause in the event of death. It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service. Contracts have fine print for a reason.

      Don't they? Have YOU read the contract? Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it?

      Indeed, contracts do have fine print for a reason. That reason is for high and mighty business thugs such as yourself to be able to dick over little guys without making them aware of it beforehand. It's pretty simple - Yahoo was caught trying to (quietly) weasel out of their responsibilities to avoid backlash for hosting speech that they realized would be unpopular with some people. A spineless move.

    24. Re: They didn't know he also... by kasperd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it was a site that, in part, explained why he committed suicide.

      I'm sure anybody who knew him would like to read it. That may very well include people who didn't know him all that well, so a website would be an obvious way to reach all potentially interested parties. A major part of the reason for creating the site may be to comfort those left behind. With that in mind I cannot see how anybody could think it was an acceptable move from Yahoo.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    25. Re:They didn't know he also... by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember: it's Ya-"let's delete early Internet history because keeping 1TB around is too expensive"-hoo we're talking about. Never trust Yahoo. Ever.

      You're talking about Geocities? Well, actually it was *several* terabytes, so it would have cost them two or three *hundred* dollars to store all that. Quite a lot for a small company like Yahoo. *cough*

      In all seriousness, I agree with you- I guessed at the time of the shutdown that the storage requirements would be in the ballpark of the low-terabytes (slight underestimate, but not by much), and- more importantly- that the cost of the traffic would (by modern standards) be negligible. Indeed, the profit or loss- either way- at that time would have been small by Yahoo's standards, but I figured out that they should still be able to easily turn a profit it by making it archive-only. *If* they'd been that bothered about it, that is.

      The conclusion I came to was that the reasons for shutting down Geocities "probably had more to do with either indirect legal issues (tax write-offs, accounting and the like) or some executive who wanted to be seen doing something that looked more significant than it actually was." Things I read later pretty much confirmed I was right on this.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    26. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The content does, but the publishing contract ends. A dead person can not be part in a contract. Continued publication would be Yahoo's responsibility, and they would be nuts to keep publishing something this controversial.

    27. Re:They didn't know he also... by grahamlee · · Score: 2

      "You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders and other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post to or transmit through the Services, your use of the Services, your connection to the Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another." - http://info.yahoo.com/legal/uk/yahoo/utos/en-gb/details.html Or, to put it another way, no they don't.

    28. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So life insurance doesn't need to pay up, because their contract is with the deceased, not the beneficiaries?

    29. Re: They didn't know he also... by PNutts · · Score: 1

      Assisted suicide is legal in three US states.

    30. Re: They didn't know he also... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The topic of suicide is informally, but broadly censored, because it is such a good idea.

    31. Re: They didn't know he also... by EvanED · · Score: 2

      With that in mind I cannot see how anybody could think it was an acceptable move from Yahoo.

      Without saying Yahoo was in the right or wrong here (I don't have a very strong opinion on that point), you don't see why Yahoo would take down a site arguing implicitly "it's okay to commit suicide"?

    32. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he contracted as an individual, there will no one with "standing" to sue.
      If he contracted with another individual as co-contractors, the co-contractor has "standing" to sue.
      If he formed a corporation that contracted with Yahoo!, the corporation has "standing" to sue.

      The blurb implies that the guy contracted as an individual. Once he died, there is no contract. Tough luck.

    33. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is promoting suicide no matter how you look at it. The question though is whether or not he has the right to issue the commentary before killing himself. It's one thing to hold a view that's morally questionable and defend it, and quite another to put it out there and duck out of the debate. Debate requires two sides and suicide notes do nothing to further any relevant discussion.

      I can't blame Yahoo for ducking out of this, the person who should be defending it is no longer alive.

    34. Re: They didn't know he also... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 2

      It doesn't revert to yahoo. It would be his estates property. And his estates responsibility to fight for it. If he left any money to tie up loose ends with?

      Heck, if there's a mirror I'd host it. The question is who knows his dns settings?

    35. Re: They didn't know he also... by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      Since he's dead and can no longer defend his publication, it effectively becomes Yahoo's own publication

      Using exactly what rationale? It becomes a publication of his estate.

    36. Re: They didn't know he also... by temcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because there are times when it is OK.

    37. Re: They didn't know he also... by gander666 · · Score: 1

      While I was reading your comment, I was hearing Bill Hicks in the background.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    38. Re: They didn't know he also... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I... actually almost said something slightly different and linked that video, but decided against it. :-)

    39. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link to the UK TOS, you twat. I'm sure that will fully apply to a user in Kansas, US.

    40. Re: They didn't know he also... by kasperd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you don't see why Yahoo would take down a site arguing implicitly "it's okay to commit suicide"?

      I sincerely believe that for every problem you try to solve through censorship, there exists a better solution. And I think freedom of speech is too important to take such a site down. But Martin Manley's right to publish this is much less important than everybody else's right to read it. There are other deceased people who have written much more harmful texts than this, which are not being censored. If you disagree with something, you present a different point of view rather than applying censorship.

      I will not say this suicide was the right thing to do. But I think committing suicide leaving your friends wondering why is much worse than letting them know your reasoning behind. It would be even better if we could get those people to talk with somebody beforehand such that the decision to commit suicide is not something they are making all on their own. There may be alternatives. But we may need some changes to society to make that happen.

      The concern about getting so ill or getting so old and worn out that you have only suffering left in your life is a valid concern. If any animal was in such a state you'd put it down because that is considered the most humane thing to do. Why do people have to be treated less humane than that? Martin Manley decided to put an end to his own life before it came to that. If he had believed he could be assisted to end his life once there really was nothing left to live for, he might not have been so proactive about it. In other words in a society a bit more positive towards suicide, Martin Manley might still have been alive today.

      There are also stories about terminally ill people who travel to a different country just so they can legally be assisted in suicide instead of facing a slow and painful death. Some of those decide to take this final trip to die sooner than they would otherwise have done because they would otherwise be too weak to take the trip. Many would much rather have stayed home and lived for a few months longer among friends and family and then end life quietly when their health was getting too bad.

      Finally being assisted in a suicide after having talked it over with your closest relatives plus a doctor and a psychiatrist would be the most humane way to end life for some people. When those people commit suicide on their own, it is a failure of society to treat them humanely.

      It is even worse when a young and mostly healthy person end their own life. I don't know if I could ever be convinced that could ever be the right way to go. A friend of mine did that at the age of 31. I didn't see that coming. I don't know if I will ever stop wondering if there was anything we could have done differently.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    41. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are right that there is a difference but that does not matter, there is nothing wrong with promoting suicide, just like there is nothing wrong with promoting capitalism. In fact promoting suicide probably does a lot less damage to society that promoting capitalism, but you don't see yahoo cancelling all of their financial sites.

    42. Re: They didn't know he also... by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there's a federal law against suicide, because it means you're no longer paying the IRS.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    43. Re: They didn't know he also... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "In addition to being against the law, at least it used to be."

      But that's either a straw-man argument, or completely irrelevant, take your pick. Committing a crime does not automatically invalidate contracts with other people.

    44. Re:They didn't know he also... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      " Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it? "

      No.

      If you hated your next door neighbor for some reason, and documented all of your reasons, and described how and why you decided to poison him... does that constitute "advocating" that other people go kill their next door neighbors?

      Answer: No, it does not.

    45. Re:They didn't know he also... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "... but it can be read as instructional for other people, which is a clear violation of Yahoo's ToS."

      It is? Exactly what part of the ToS prohibits "instructions"?

      Is it against their ToS for me to post instructions for making rag dolls?

    46. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some facts that people who fault Yahoo for taking the site down overlook:

      • The journalist disclaimed all rights to the site's content and released it into the public domain. Thus there is no content to inherit. His estate has exactly as much claim to the content as anybody else: None. Yahoo can not violate anybody's right to the content, as there is no such right.
      • The Yahoo terms of service clearly state that their hosting contracts are non-transferable and end upon death. With the contract ends Yahoo's obligation to keep publishing the content. His estate does not have grounds to sue for contract violation, as Yahoo is not in breach of the contract. The contract ended. His estate can enter into a new contract, but...
      • Condoning self-harm is against Yahoo's terms of service. The site contains information about suicide methods and makes an argument for killing oneself before old age sets in. Thus the site is clearly in violation of Yahoo's terms of service, and Yahoo would be within their contractual rights if they had chosen to remove the site even before he killed himself.

      Also, "-1, Troll" is not an acceptable expression of disagreement.

    47. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freedom of speech does not obligate a private party to be your voice platform.

    48. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being obtuse, yes, that is promoting the idea of going next door to kill the neighbors. It takes an astonishing level of ignorance to say otherwise. By that measure, there's no such thing as advocating because there's no activity left that would count.

      If you're putting something in a glamorous light and providing information about how to do it, that's advocacy right there. The ability to say, "no it's not" does not change that fact.

    49. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If all the peasants kill themselves who's going to do the work?

    50. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how that is relevant. That means you're on the hook for any claims/demands made BY A THIRD PARTY based on the stuff you host on Yahoo.
      There's no third party here.

    51. Re: They didn't know he also... by thunderclap · · Score: 2

      Why? Because it is controversial? Some one needs to talk about it. This is the core problem now. Everyone is afraid to offend someone.

    52. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wonder if they also decided to refund the money..

      oh of course not, he's dead, they have no choice but to keep the money.

      Luckily some enterprising reddit users decided to host his site instead knowing that yahoo would probably pull it because it's "bad publicity"

    53. Re:They didn't know he also... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. In my example, he might even have written in his blog, "This is a terrible thing, and I don't recommend anybody do it." He could directly say he DOESN'T advocate it, and describe it anyway. His reasons for writing things might be advocacy, but they aren't necessarily advocacy.

      I could give you instructions on how to make an atomic bomb (I really could... they're not that complicated and they've been published publicly for decades). I could also give you instructions on how to make an explosive with household chemicals... presumably to ward off some future occupation of the United States by hostile forces or something. I could even "glamorize" the idea of knowing these things, for the sake of self-sufficiency and survivalism, as a means of self-preservation in case of some hypothetical societal breakdown.

      But that's a very far cry from "advocating" the use of same under anything even remotely resembling normal circumstances. My reasons for giving the instructions (preparedness for emergencies) might be the farthest thing from any kind of "advocacy" at all. In fact I might loathe what I felt was the fact that I needed to disseminate the information as a public service. Which is about 180 degrees apart from advocacy.

      So no. I disagree with you completely. While what he did could have been advocating suicide, the mere presence of a description of how to do it isn't necessarily "advocacy". There are many possible reasons for giving instructions that do not include any kind of "advocacy".

    54. Re: They didn't know he also... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Suicide is the harshest form of censorship.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    55. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course, he should have made the contract through as a company/organization, which he headed, and then transferred powers to another person upon death.

    56. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robots. So it's not a good idea yet.

    57. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The topic of suicide is ... such a good idea.

      You first, we'll watch and see how it works out for you.

    58. Re: They didn't know he also... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Bollocks - I was clearly drunk and disorderly this evening, even though no fuzz was around to see me. Reading the GPP, I was hoping that my mortgage would be cancelled because of that, and I'd not need to pay back the loan.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    59. Re: They didn't know he also... by blackest_k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually you can read what he wrote, just on a mirror of his site. Inadvertently yahoo have invoked the Streisand effect.

      It is interesting what he has written and also what he hasn't. One thing was a failing memory that was one thing he didn't like the idea of having to be taken care of in future years another issue was the costs associated with getting old his medical insurance was due to expire sometime next year and he didn't see that as being affordable. Wanting to leave a legacy and not to be a burden on the state.
      There are other reasons that he wrote about which you can choose to read about if you wish.

      What he didn't write about was love, ok he was interested in the future of his step children but there was no love in his life, nobody who was special in his eyes nobody who he woke up with each morning no one who he treasured being in his life. That to me seems key. I'm not young and with my health i can't expect to live to any great age. Do i want to die earlier than i have too? the answer is without doubt no.

      4 years ago I had a heart attack and in the ambulance, although i didn't know it was a heart attack i knew it was serious and I also knew I felt i was too young for this! Three months later I had to return to the hospital, but this time i drove myself and with periods of crushing chest pains i got there and parked my car and walked the 400 or 500 yards to the A&E department - maybe the hardest walk of my life. To finally present myself at the desk and say i think i'm having a heart attack in actuality it was a 97% blocked coronary artery. Was a tough 24 hours but after a stent fitted i was ok again.

      Recovery in the months that followed was difficult, the 50% rate after a first heart attack is about 6 to 8 years and thats after 30% who died of that first heart attack. Becoming mortal, and realising there was a fair chance that I might not last that much longer was quite depressing, some outstanding long term goals have had to be put aside as I don't see them as viable any more.

      On the positive side since then I've met the most wonderful woman around my age (for a change) and loving her makes all the difference. We are living too far apart right now but that we can work on. She is in my thoughts everyday and well I hope we get to grow old together. You see being rich or poor is not that important but being with someone you love is. Without love your life can be without reason.

      Thing is you don't know when fate will bring you together but it can happen any day if you leave an opportunity for it too occur. Any way love is why I want to keep on living, trying to do the best I can for the people I care about and why I won't bow out by suicide. Family, friends, and an understanding lover what else matters.

           

    60. Re: They didn't know he also... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech is there so that people can contribute to public discourse without having to worry about being sent to prison or killed.

      If you're going to kill yourself before anybody has a chance to issue a rebuttal, there's no point in free speech at all. You could do that just fine in East Germany during the height of the Stazi.

      Bottom line though is that freedom of speech isn't particularly useful if it's just a collection of sound bites where nobody is responding and or defending their position. Sure, it's better than having no freedom of speech, but it's not particularly useful.

    61. Re: They didn't know he also... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Indeed, now we just have to find an alternative means of powering them, so they don't eat all our pills.

    62. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo's hosting contracts are non-transferable and end upon death. After the end of the contract, there is no one who agreed to "indemnify and hold harmless" Yahoo if continued publication should result in legal trouble. Legally Yahoo would be publishing it and thus it would naturally become Yahoo's responsibility, until someone else takes responsibility by entering into a new contract with Yahoo.

    63. Re: They didn't know he also... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      " Continued publication would be Yahoo's responsibility, and they would be nuts to keep publishing something this controversial."

      Yes. The last thing anyone who uses ad based revenue is a lot of attention to a controversial issue that might result in millions of hits on their site. That's why Google never links to anything controversial and Slashdot never, ever has links to stories which might be considered controversial.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    64. Re: They didn't know he also... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You should probably look up the word reasonable in a dictionary.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    65. Re: They didn't know he also... by aitikin · · Score: 0

      Source please. TFA makes no mention of public domain. Copyright (as we all know here on /.) lasts far beyond death. So frankly I don't see where you're coming up with tat "fact" and I don't see where it violated Yahoo's ToS (admittedly not having read their entire, lengthy ToS).

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    66. Re:They didn't know he also... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Rag dolls don't assist suicide. Red herring.

    67. Re: They didn't know he also... by obarel · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should outlaw death as well.

    68. Re: They didn't know he also... by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how often that line actually works for them.

    69. Re: They didn't know he also... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      And it may be at least somewhat reasonable for Yahoo to interpret that as promoting suicide, and quite reasonable for it to take down the site for that reason.

      Reasonable? Not at all. Yahoo is wrong in this case. They are in the business of distributing speech. Therefor they should respect the right to free speech. Something they clearly do not. So fuck yahoo. There are plenty of websites that would have respected the mans last wishes, it's too bad he picked the wrong one.

    70. Re: They didn't know he also... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...I cannot see how anybody could think it was an acceptable move from Yahoo.

      It was a business decision, pure and simple.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    71. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, dope much?

    72. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot upvote you. But you explain your thoughts beautifully.

    73. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Linked from the first paragraph of the index page is the following text (copied from a mirror of the site): "I, Martin Manley, being the creator and owner of all information on the site "MartinManleyLifeAndDeath.com", neither hold nor retain any claim or copyright on any part of this web-site. I do not grant these rights to any individual person or entity either in life or upon death. Rather I release all rights to this work -ï making it public domain. Anyone can do with it whatever they wish. Martin Allen Manley August 15, 2013"

      From the general Yahoo terms of service: "You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death."

      From the Yahoo web hosting terms of service: "You agree that you will not: [...] promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual".

    74. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's clause is in the tos of the Catholic Church. Yahoo!

    75. Re: They didn't know he also... by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? Because it is controversial? Some one needs to talk about it. This is the core problem now. Everyone is afraid to offend someone.

      Political Correctness can be so fucking offensive.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    76. Re: They didn't know he also... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      The Yahoo terms of service clearly state that their hosting contracts are non-transferable and end upon death.

      Is that TOS line something that will hold up in court in a violation-of-contract lawsuit? You can't sign away your rights.

      Anyone can put up a sign, laws or not. Anyone can put something unenforceable in a contract. Neither means it will stick.

      The salient question lies in the details of the contract that he agreed to when he paid Yahoo money. What was provided in return for his remunerance? Hosting? Storage space? A unique address? Non-transferrability probably does not (I'm reaching now) apply to inheritance, but rather sale or gifting to third parties.

    77. Re:They didn't know he also... by slick7 · · Score: 2

      Yahoo didn't know he also prepaid lawyers. Or at least lets hope so. Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service, sudden death of a party is a sleazy way to weasel out of a service contract.

      Typical corporate America, take the money, agree to the terms of the contract, then fuck them.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    78. Re:They didn't know he also... by kintamanimatt · · Score: 1

      It's not like Google's any better, although Yahoo's a little more efficient at wrecking their aquisitions. Can't wait to see what Yahoo's wrecking ball will do to Tumblr in the long run.

    79. Re: They didn't know he also... by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Three months later I had to return to the hospital, but this time i drove myself and with periods of crushing chest pains i got there and parked my car and walked the 400 or 500 yards to the A&E department - maybe the hardest walk of my life.

      I was going to say no offense in prefix to this, but rethought it... offense intended....

      Driving to the hospital when you think you're having a heart attack is one of the most monumentally stupid ideas I have ever heard of in my entire life, and that includes 6 years in the army and several more years working for the government as a civilian. If it's a medical emergency, call an ambulance. That is what they are there for.

      And don't try to tell me it was rural so therefore no ambulance service: you yourself said that you had to walk a quarter mile to the front door of the hospital after parking, which suggests a large and mostly full parking lot. This suggests that you were in an urban area.

    80. Re:They didn't know he also... by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Oh, goodness no, if they deleted the Geocities data then they did a laudable favor to future generations. I had a Geocities site, it was stupid, and if it's totally gone then I'm glad.

    81. Re: They didn't know he also... by Lendrick · · Score: 2

      Points 2 and 3 look solid, but I take issue with this one:

      The journalist disclaimed all rights to the site's content and released it into the public domain. Thus there is no content to inherit. His estate has exactly as much claim to the content as anybody else: None. Yahoo can not violate anybody's right to the content, as there is no such right.

      Rights to the content aren't the issue here. His contract with Yahoo was that they display the content. That content could be anything he owns, anything in the public domain, or anything he has license to use. The fact that the content is public domain doesn't absolve Yahoo of the responsibility to display the content that he paid them to display.

      That being said, if he otherwise violated the TOS, then they may still be within their rights to take it down, depending on whether the terms are enforceable.

    82. Re: They didn't know he also... by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Yeah .. at very least he could have driven right up to the front door and handed the car keys to somebody else to deal with the parking problem.

      I'm not sure that I'd want to hold out for maximum life span myself, regardless of what terrible physical or mental conditions I found myself in. At some point, suicide would be preferable. Probably a good idea to start thinking about having a method prepared in advance (pills, I suppose).

    83. Re: They didn't know he also... by gronofer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As argued by Hegesias of Cyrene thousands of years ago. He wrote in a book that life was so miserable that people would be better off killing themselves, and it was supposedly so convincing that many people followed the advice. The local king wasn't impressed.

    84. Re: They didn't know he also... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      With that logic, they would be hosting child rape fantasies, calls for assassination on named targets, and all manner of things that, while speech, violate the TOS. And more importantly put them in legal crosshairs.

      And I don't think it has been tested, but killing yourself may take you out of having rights to vote, from searches since officials have to verify cause of death, and probably speech.

      And his license said anyone could do anything with it. Yahoo did exactly that.

    85. Re: They didn't know he also... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      The only person who has real standing is dead, so it doesn't have to hold up.

      And if you enter a contract that terminates when you do, suicide is probably not the best follow-up act. Lesson learned, check the small print.

    86. Re: They didn't know he also... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Love can be for individuals and things besides a significant other.

      It can be family (siblings, children, children of siblings, etc.), friends, or even personal projects, from a pet project to a business. Of course, it's harder to keep going for these other things, since they're less significant than a significant other. But it's hardly impossible, and all comes down to the individual's perspective on them.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    87. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure suicide is against the tos

      Isn't fiction allowed on Yahoo? How does Yahoo know it was for real?

    88. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo: "Hi! Pay us money and we'll bee your voice platform!"
      Manley: "Ok, here's money to cover 5 years."
      (some time prior to 5 years passing)
      Manley: "I R Dead."
      Yahoo: "Hmm, the guy paid us, but fuck it, take the site down."

      Freedom of speech may not obligate them to keep it up, but something sure as hell should.

    89. Re: They didn't know he also... by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the medics will bring equipment and medicines to you more safely, and likely quicker.
      I'd probably take a couple of aspirin too... but that's not a good idea for everyone.

    90. Re: They didn't know he also... by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2

      Freedom of speech does not obligate a private party to be your voice platform.

      Perhaps not, but a five year pre-paid contract does.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    91. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not surprised. If the peasants all kill themselves, suddenly the aristocracy needs to learn how to survive on their own.

    92. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that in mind I cannot see how anybody could think it was an acceptable move from Yahoo.

      Without saying Yahoo was in the right or wrong here (I don't have a very strong opinion on that point), you don't see why Yahoo would take down a site arguing implicitly "it's okay to commit suicide"?

      And why is it not OK to commit suicide?

      HINT: your "feelings" are over-rated. Get your own life instead of demanding others live theirs so you can avoid facing your fears and failings..

    93. Re: They didn't know he also... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Since he's dead and can no longer defend his publication, it effectively becomes Yahoo's own publication,

      Negative - it is his estate's publication.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    94. Re: They didn't know he also... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      , you don't see why Yahoo would take down a site arguing implicitly "it's okay to commit suicide"?

      How will we know unless we can see the arguments in favor of suicide?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    95. Re: They didn't know he also... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      and pets too! people love their pets. guilty!

    96. Re: They didn't know he also... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      No the contract reverts to the state. you know that whole deal where someone dies, and the kids suddenly get slapped with some sort of horrible mortgage?

      Thats whats going on there. (And its why you don't cut your kids out of your inheretence if you've got large debts. They'll still get the debt, and the church/boy-scouts/whatever will get the money to actually pay it effectively bankerupting your children.)

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    97. Re: They didn't know he also... by AlternativeIdeas · · Score: 0

      Agree that love is (should) be a huge aspect of our lives. The absence of love is quite horrible. (Can be quite hellish, in fact.)

      Glad you're with us and a member of the /. community! Look after yourself.
      Hope things continue to proceed well between you and your lady friend!

    98. Re: They didn't know he also... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Bollocks - I was clearly drunk and disorderly this evening, even though no fuzz was around to see me. Reading the GPP, I was hoping that my mortgage would be cancelled because of that, and I'd not need to pay back the loan.

      The bank cares about two things - that you can pay back the loan, and that you do not destroy the bank's property.

      If you got arrested? The bank will note that down and it may affect your mortgage rate, but as long as you pay, they don't care.

      Oh, and it's a secured loan - if it cancels the mortgage (aka foreclosure), the bank will evict you from your house. You don't have to pay back the mortgage from that point on, yes. Though you won't own the house anymore.

      If you kill yourself or are murdered or die of natural causes, the bank will seek repayment through your estate (unless it's a joint mortgage which means the surviving family will pay). For unsecured loans like credit cards, well, the loan would be wiped as it's a "bad loan" unless it's a joint account that makes the survive responsible.

    99. Re: They didn't know he also... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Sounds as if it's quite formally censored, at least by yahoo.

      My problem with suicide is that it's the *wrong* people who are committing it.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    100. Re:They didn't know he also... by tgv · · Score: 2

      Let's hope Wikipedia is accurate, but it says about the US: "By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification." So that would be a no. And neither did the site promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or any act of cruelty to animals, at least, not on the pages I have seen.

      Yahoo has sunk really low.

    101. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1, Troll

    102. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suicide isn't illegal, only attempting suicide.

    103. Re: They didn't know he also... by gordo3000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      you're 100% wrong. debts, like assets, first sit with the estate of the deceased. all assets are used to pay off debts, and then, what is left over is inheritance. an Estate can go into bankruptcy, the only way kids get hit with a "horrible mortgage that bankrupts them" is they were too foolish to put the estate into bankruptcy and give up the house, or too foolish to , you know, read the documents that said "hey, there is a mortgage against this home, taking the house involves taking over the mortgage".

    104. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship has never been about preventing people from speak, it is all about preventing people from hearing.
      If a North Korean walks out in the forest and talks about how bad their beloved leader is no one will know of it and punish him. In the US you can say what the fuck you want as long as you do it in the free speech zones where you don't disturb anyone.
      If you write long texts on why suicide is a good thing then no-one will stop you until you try to publish it.

      The only reason some governments try to prevent freedom of speech is that it is easier to prevent people from hearing if no-one says anything. The reason they try to punish people who already said something is that it will act as a deterrent for everyone else who wants to speak out.
      That is part of why the idea that "Snowden isn't a hero unless he comes back and takes his punishment" is retarded. The point of the punishment isn't to prevent what is already said but to deter others from speaking out when the government commits crimes.

      In a way censoring is the closes thing we have to though control. We cannot prevent a single person from thinking undesirable thoughts but with censorship we can prevent the thoughts from spreading to other people.

    105. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, "-1, Troll" is not an acceptable expression of disagreement.

      It is not for you to decide how others spend your mod-points.

      Also, anything but "+1 Insightful" is unacceptable for this post.

    106. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is indeed not for me to decide, but I can remind moderators of the moderation and metamoderation chapter of Slashdot's FAQ, which does say that disagreement should not be expressed through negative moderation and defines what is deserving of a "-1, Troll" moderation.

    107. Re:They didn't know he also... by colfer · · Score: 1

      Actually, Geocities sites are better archived than most dead content, due to the uproar. There are at least four projects, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoCities#Archiving_GeoCities_Web_sites They are incomplete, since they rely on incoming links, but massive. And if you've used the Wayback Machine, which is one of the stores, you know archived pages in general are not always functional past the first link.

      On Wikipedia it became controversial whether to allow Geocities archive mirrors as links and references, since... there is money at stake! Presumably for advertising, one of the archives ran a bot to mass edit change "Geocities.com" to its own domain.

    108. Re:They didn't know he also... by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I don't, you don't and I doubt Yahoo do either. The problem is that there is a big chunk of US that will. That chunk could try and turn keeping a site 'justifying suicide' into a negative news story for Yahoo, it could also cause problems with internet filters that filter out material related to suicide; potentially losing Yahoo a lot of viewers for one or more web properties.

      It sucks, but I can see why Yahoo don't want that hassle.

    109. Re:They didn't know he also... by colfer · · Score: 1

      So your dead Geocities site will probably be seen by very few if anyone, but it may be available to the diligent researcher. Whatever the space the Google does not index is called.

      On that topic, have you ever noticed Google Books sometimes gives better results than Google?

    110. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comment was in response to "It definitely belongs to his estate." In that context, you have to look at the content and the hosting contract. The first part is to show that the content does not belong to his estate (rights to the content disclaimed). Parts 2 and 3 are to show that the hosting contract does not belong to his estate (contract is non-transferable and ended upon death, additional ToS violation).

    111. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any examples, or just a fart in the wind?

    112. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were fucked in the ass as a young teen boy by your mother with a strap on, weren't you?

    113. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I interpret you as a complete piece of shit. I feel it's a valid interpretation of someone who is most likely a mental invalid.

    114. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish your mom would finally decide to get that post partum abortion.

    115. Re: They didn't know he also... by swalve · · Score: 1

      Copyright is a right held by the creator of the content. He has the right to choose whether to release his works into the public domain. Or not.

    116. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the fate of the world should revolve on your personal failings as a human being. Go kill yourself so we can end this type of rule.

    117. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A dead person can not be part in a contract.

      In that case, I'm cancelling my pre-paid funeral arrangements.

    118. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the Streisand effect always invoked inadvertantly, by definition?

    119. Re: They didn't know he also... by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it makes not statement as to whether he did or not. I did not have the mirror of the site to work off, therefore, from my point of view, his copyright was still in tact.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    120. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said but fuck lolol

    121. Re: They didn't know he also... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If you're going to kill yourself before anybody has a chance to issue a rebuttal, there's no point in free speech at all.

      That's bullshit. The conversation continues for those who are alive. The lesson here is that if you're going to put up a suicide site, you need a host committed to keeping it up.

    122. Re: They didn't know he also... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Holy run-on sentences.

    123. Re: They didn't know he also... by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      My point is that (absent an enforceable term in the TOS that says the contract ends if the customer dies) the estate owns the *contract*. The owner of the actual content is unimportant.

    124. Re: They didn't know he also... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      A dead person can not be part in a contract.

      So... a person's estate isn't responsible for any of their contractually incurred debts? So Bob's dying great uncle can take out a loan for $1,000,000 against his property, then die and leave the $1,000,000 and the property to Bob and Bob will owe nothing (except inheritance taxes) since the loan contract ended with the death of the great uncle?

    125. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw Yahoo, they are being disrespectful!
      I mirrored the site so Manley's final wish be honored.
      He prepaid his site for five years but Yahoo took it down anyway!
      http://www.ussolutions.net/suicide-explination.html?lt

    126. Re:They didn't know he also... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Oh, goodness no, if they deleted the Geocities data then they did a laudable favor to future generations. I had a Geocities site, it was stupid, and if it's totally gone then I'm glad.

      Well, I agree that Geocities was full of godawful rubbish, but that could be ignored- and probably would be these days- and there *was* enough worthwhile stuff in there to be worth keeping.

      The access costs would have been negligible (and probably still lower than the potential profit from showing ads) and the storage costs for unaccessed sites would have been sub-negligible (as in tens of sites for under a penny).

      Besides which, I'd rather have left the deletion option to the site creators. The idea I suggested in my linked comment would have allowed you to remove your sparkly graphics and non-scrolling starry background atrocity to the best boyf ever!!!!1111 from 1999 if you'd wanted to. In the meantime, there was no reason for Yahoo to deprive us of the opportunity to laugh at its dated awfulness :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    127. Re: They didn't know he also... by tragedy · · Score: 2

      The journalist disclaimed all rights to the site's content and released it into the public domain. Thus there is no content to inherit.

      Not quite correct. There is no mechanism in copyright law to transfer anything to the public domain except by expiration of copyright (even then it's a little fuzzy whether copyright law really recognizes a "public domain" except in the constitution). Saying that you release something to the public domain creates an implied license for everyone in the world to copy and modify their copies of the content as they see fit. The estate still inherits the copyright itself, there's just not much they can do with it that everyone else can't. Under current copyright law, the time clock on the copyright starts ticking as of the author's death.

      The hosting contract ending with death is a matter of law. Many jurisdictions may not actually allow that. At the very least, the estate is probably due compensation in just about every jurisdiction.

      The terms of service forbidding information condoning self-harm is the strongest legal argument Yahoo! has. It's also the most disturbing. Modern common carriers are, unfortunately, not recognized as such. Even your ISP or an Internet backbone can, in this day and age, restrict speech on its network and force those restrictions to everyone downstream. That leaves us in a situation where we have free speech in theory, but in practice it's heavily censored. We can still have individual speech on a person to person basis, but free speech is effectively non-existant in modern public forums.

    128. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo: Pay us money and follow our TOS/contract and we'll be your voice platform Manley: Okay, here's some money, also excuse me while I violate your TOS by advocating harm against an individual (oneself) and die which your contract explicitly says will terminate the contract. Yahoo: Okay then, contract terminated.

    129. Re: They didn't know he also... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      umm yeah so that's why publishers are getting sued for genocide because they published mein kampf after hitler died...

      then again, streisand effect. wouldn't even known about this otherwise.

      it's pretty much just yahoo going "he's dead, the traffic costs, fuck him".

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    130. Re: They didn't know he also... by devman · · Score: 1

      In some states even if the bank forecloses they can still come after you for the balance if the sale of the house doesn't cover the outstanding debt (i.e. the value of the house dropped significantly after you bought it).

    131. Re: They didn't know he also... by Holladon · · Score: 2

      If you're talking about the United States, the answer you're looking for is "never." (Btw, this is separate from the question of rescinding a life insurance contract for fraud, which they can do if you die within the contestability period. But they can't refuse to pay on the grounds that a contracting party is dead. This would obviously defeat the purpose of the contract itself). IAAL, btw.

    132. Re: They didn't know he also... by Holladon · · Score: 2

      Closer but still not quite there. There are only two ways for someone to be saddled with a dead person's debt: (1) to have been married to that person (and even then it depends on state law, e.g., is it a community property state and was the debt part of the community), or (2) to have signed a guaranty on behalf of the decedent. That's it. Those are the only two ways you can be legally bound to pay a dead person's debt. Kids are NEVER responsible for their parents' debt unless they sign a legal document agreeing to take responsibility for that debt. Period. Now, if the kids are living in a house on which the estate owes money still, they may be faced with electing to pay the mortgage themselves or moving. But it won't be foisted on them without their consent. They have the option to move, etc.

    133. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bob won't get anything the bank will take the land and the money. Though they may have to sell the land at market prices and if anything is left after that bob gets.

    134. Re: They didn't know he also... by Misterfixit · · Score: 0

      What part of your enraged Id does the comment originate? No wonder you posted Anon. Please take your Oedipus Complex someplace else. Thank you

      --
      nar
    135. Re: They didn't know he also... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Guess he should have assigned the rights to a small publishing company then, managed by the estate. The print, recording and broadcast companies are very good about enforcing their "rights" and contracts long after the original content creator has passed on.

    136. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can sign away rights. like the right to a court trial of contract disputes, instead of 'arbitration' by the company's hirelings.

    137. Re: They didn't know he also... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it wasn't OK to commit suicide. I asked whether people could see why Yahoo might not want, from a business perspective, to be seen hosting a site that says it was.

      Right or wrong, even a formal sort of euthanasia process for people with terminal illnesses has a bare majority of support if you describe it as "assisting the patient to commit suicide", let alone pushing the opinion that someone who is in decent health for their age should, without consulting anyone, commit suicide. Which is what the site was saying.

    138. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which does say that disagreement should not be expressed through negative moderation and defines what is deserving of a "-1, Troll" moderation.

      As far as I can tell from the FAQ "Troll" is the correct moderation for posts, which contain nothing but misinformation. Some people cannot tell the difference between spotting misinformation and moderating it as such and simply disagreeing.

      Posts do not deserve a negative moderation because you disagree, that is an entirely subjective matter. But if your posts are factually incorrect and you get moderated as troll because of that, then you have no reason to complain about it. The moderation was based on an objective view of its correctness. If you do complain anyway and try to imply you got negative moderations just for disagreeing, then such complaint's usually deserve a "Flamebait" rating.

    139. Re: They didn't know he also... by narcoleptic5052 · · Score: 0

      It is also available via Google Cache although you have to preface each link with cache: as in cache: http://martinmanleylifeanddeath.com/ .

    140. Re: They didn't know he also... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The robots of course.

      And therein lies one of the truths we're going to need to confront as a society before too much longer, but that's another conversation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    141. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he no longer cares...

    142. Re: They didn't know he also... by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      You ABSOLUTELY can sign away your rights. People do it all the time.

      I have the right to work for whomever will hire me. But in many states, I can sign away that right via a non-compete clause.

      I have the right to say whatever non-defamatory statements I want to make. But I can certainly sign that right away as part of a confidentiality agreement, or non-disclosure agreement.

      These are just the most trivial of examples. There are countless others.

    143. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a panel of a White woman, a Black disabled man, and a Hispanic transvestite, and if what you say offends them, it should be illegal. That's the only way to secure progress. Onward to year one of perfect human felicity.

    144. Re: They didn't know he also... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't, once the party instigating the conversation is dead, that conversation ceases. Magic Johnson could have killed himself when he learned he had an incurable disease that killed most within a year or two. He opted instead to try and fight it and to start a debate about it.

      Had he opted to kill himself, there wouldn't have been much to debate.

    145. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Since he's dead and can no longer defend his publication, it effectively becomes Yahoo's own publication

      Maybe I'm a slow reader and all, but how in the name of satan's green fuckjuice is mickey mouse still protected and a recently warm corpses last words not? Please explain to me how the dick that is anything other than reprehensible.

      Captcha=murders. I think I might be receiving a message here.

    146. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct that it's to do with the content. Apparently he also paid Yahoo to have this site maintained for five years after his death: http://www.sportsinreview.com/blog/

    147. Re: They didn't know he also... by douglas.w.goodall300 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Unless his contract had a specific clause about termination at his termination, they breached the contract. I wonder who still has standing with the court to bring this up?

    148. Re: They didn't know he also... by douglas.w.goodall300 · · Score: 1

      I agree :-) I wonder if they returned his money by reversing the credit card charge.

    149. Re: They didn't know he also... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Bob won't get anything the bank will take the land and the money.

      Yes, that was the point. The AC I replied to was basically claiming that contracts end at death and don't transfer to the estate. That's clearly not the case.

    150. Re: They didn't know he also... by jbee02 · · Score: 1

      Tecnically it becomes the property of his next in kin

    151. Re: They didn't know he also... by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      The content does, but the publishing contract ends.

      It likely doesn't end. If it did, then other contracts would end too, such as the one that gives Michael Jackson's estate the right to the music he's bought over the years.

      I'm not an attorney, but I recently did some future-proofing for my business, and I discovered that (at least in the US) while a proprietorship effectively ceases to exist upon a proprietor's death, his estate continues to be responsible for his contracts.

      But really, the important issue to his legacy and his thoughts and beliefs isn't whether or not Yahoo did right or wrong, but rather whether or not there are copies. If there are, I'm sure someone could be found to to publish the information.

    152. Re: They didn't know he also... by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      The hospital was in an urban area , I wasn't. in fact if i had called an ambulance the earliest they would get out to where i was living was 20 minutes and pretty close to the same to reach the hospital.

      secondly it was chest pains and i figured i needed an ecg so where else to get one but the hospital i'd been in before.
      Thirdly mostly driving was not a problem the problem was there was no car park at the hospital so i parked in the nearest public car park.
      Fourthly the reason it got hard was because I had to walk which is why i was getting chest pains on the final stage. Technically it was angina although it was a pretty major restriction.

      The way a heart attack works is first a clot forms in a coronary artery. then because there is no blood flow the heart muscle is starved of blood. If that restriction can be cleared within 20 - 30 minutes and blood flow restored the heart should not be damaged. after that 30 minute window the heart muscle begins to die. At this point it depends where the blockage is as to how long before your heart is unable to beat and pump blood around your body at this point you are in serious trouble and you lose your blood flow and if your heart isnt restarted you die. But that could be hours after the initial clot.

      In actual fact it was severe angina I was feeling not a heart attack but with the amount of restriction I was pretty darn close to having a heart attack but so far its still 1 and one near miss. Funny thing was the heart attack i had 3 months prior didnt hurt i just felt out of breath. Actually the really funny thing was the day i was in hospital getting my 2nd stent was the day i was due to start a heart rehabilitation course. About 4 days previous i had been on a treadmill, had an ultrasound, and been passed as fit enough to do the course.

      It kind of helps to learn a bit about heart attacks once you have had one. It helped me recognise when my friend Joseph had one and i got him to his GP not that far and the GP was able to treat him till the ambulance took him up to the city. Joseph nearly died had to wait for two weeks before he was fit enough to have a triple bypass and a pace maker fitted. Silly old sod wanted to wait till the afternoon for a scheduled appointment with the GP. He's okay these days but I think if I hadn't pushed him to get to the GP he would be dead.

      One last thing since a heart attack is a blood clot, you might do worse than chew a couple of aspirin as it thins your blood and might just get the blood flowing again.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1253024/Why-man-carry-giant-chewy-aspirin.html

      Hopefully that will do as an initial reference for that. I actually had plavix at home and I could have taken that my dose at the time was 75mg (at the hospital they gave me 300mg to help stabilize me).
      Still prescribed aspirin today and to the end of my life apparently but its only 75mg (over the counter aspirin is a lot stronger).

      Also while in theory ambulances are available they are in relatively short supply, to make matters worse ambulance crews spend far too much time waiting at hospitals to get their trolleys back. A&E departments are underfunded and it can take a while to find a bed or a trolley to free up the ambulance cart.

    153. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any halfway decent lawyer could rip Yahoo to shreds on this:

      Manley did not attempt to transfer his account. So no problem there.
      Manley's Yahoo! ID can be reclaimed by Yahoo!, but Manley's SITE is not the same as his ID. Yahoo! TOS in fact says nothing about Yahoo owning the contents, just that the deceased owner has no copyright.
      Manley gave up rights to the content of his site upon his death. However, just becaus Manley held no copyright does not mean that it was not still his property. For example, I hold no rights to Moby Dick, but I still own the book copy I have and Yahoo! cannot come into my house and shred it.

      The controlling issue here is that the site was pre-paid and Manley had every expectation that it would stay up. He no longer had a need for copyright or his Yahoo! ID, so Yahoo could have them, but that does not mean that Yahoo OWNED the material, only that they could copy and reuse it as they saw fit. That is exactly what Yahoo's TOS says.

    154. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The supposition that you only have freedom of expression or speech if someone can argue with you is absurd.

    155. Re: They didn't know he also... by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Sorry should have read starved of oxygenated blood.

    156. Re: They didn't know he also... by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      Still just excuses to not execute a dead man's wishes and meet his expectations.

      They need to just come out and admit:
      1) We love money, and if we could get away with it, we'd come into your homes and just take it.
      2) Now that he's dead, his wishes, understanding, and intent do not matter. Especially since they cannot be enforced.
      3) We are cowards, and will not expose ourselves to litagation, reguardless of whether we would be protecting the truth or not.
      4) What's RIGHT has no impact on our decisions. What is PROFITABLE is the only measurement of success we recognise. All other considerations, like legality (as long as it's still profitable), morality, honesty, and even honoring a contract have no place in our decision-making process.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    157. Re: They didn't know he also... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      The hospital was in an urban area , I wasn't. in fact if i had called an ambulance the earliest they would get out to where i was living was 20 minutes and pretty close to the same to reach the hospital.

      You still should have waited for an ambulance for one very simple reason: if you come in with heart-attack symptoms and self-admit, you are treated as a lower priority for triage than somebody who called an ambulance. There have been cases of people dying in the emergency room waiting for triage because they got bumped by somebody else who came in by ambulance... additionally, the paramedics would have been able to administer oxygen as soon as they got there, where you may very well have had to wait for it at a hospital.

    158. Re: They didn't know he also... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The only reason we're talking about this guy is because he killed himself and left a public suicide note, and Yahoo censored his speech. Think of all the dead people whose writings are taught in school. They can't talk back anymore either, but their words live on and so does the conversation among the living.

    159. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not who the contract is with but what the contract states. It seems the contract states that Yahoo's obligation ends upon death. If anything Yahoo is obligated, after pulling the content, to refund to his estate the unused portion that was paid upfront.

    160. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom to do whatever you want with the data includes the freedom to delete it. He also agreed that the hosting contract terminates upon his death. Yahoo is not obligated to host or store his site.

    161. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the gay, the young, the old, the asian, the oriental and pretty much anyone who isn't American don't count?

    162. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, Misterfixit, no wonder you posted previously as Anon as well, you're rather notorious around here, explaining why your comments start at and stay at 0. I tip my hat to your worthlessness.

    163. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please mod this guy down -1 offensive?

      (CAPTCHA: clitoris)

    164. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 months in the Insurance Industry and you'll change your tune.

    165. Re: They didn't know he also... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Not if said contract has loopholes to allow the private party out of it if it doesn't like the contract. As other posters pointed out, Yahoo's terms included banning content promoting self-harm. So I could pay for a 5 year contract with Yahoo, start a site promoting cutting yourself with a razor blade (NOT something I'd ever do or promote - just to clarify) and Yahoo would be within their rights to pull down my site.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    166. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd drive. My hospital is less than a mile away. I can be there in under 5 minutes even hitting red lights. Ambulance would take 60-90 minutes, if I was lucky.

      Oh, and I'd splurge on valet parking.

    167. Re:They didn't know he also... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, and I've gone back to try and find old projects or software, only to find that it was hosted on geocities, tripod or the like.

      Yea, the HTML was horrid, but the files the HTML linked to were not necessarily.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    168. Re:They didn't know he also... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      By those same ToS, having a chart of information such as "thefts per capita" would be in violation...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    169. Re:They didn't know he also... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Oh look, it says the same fucking thing!

      11. INDEMNITY
      You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify or otherwise make available through the Yahoo! Services, your use of the Yahoo! Services, your connection to the Yahoo! Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    170. Re: They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contract states specifically that it must be paid upon death. The contract ends at death, the obligations of the agency do not. The beneficiaries are only the terms of the contract, not the ones bound by it. So at death the contract ends. If the beneficiaries needed to go to court, they would be fighting that the payee did not live up to the contract with the deceased, not with themselves.

    171. Re: They didn't know he also... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      In his defense, he did balance out all the run-ons with the fragment "Wanting to leave a legacy and not to be a burden on the state."

      Nitpicking aside, it was a good post. You don't see heartfelt ramblings about love on slashdot very often.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    172. Re:They didn't know he also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YAHOO is a CHINESE company. Consider it that way. And I do not even think it was original but was a reflex, probably even industrial espionage. I WANT MY GEOCITIES SITES BACK. Why did they close GEOCITIES when it was HISTORICAL? I had LEGAL EVIDENCE in that site that would have given me a NAME attached to a credit card I did not use but closed my site for me. I could not get it nor backup my files before GEOCITIES closed. - djb

    173. Re: They didn't know he also... by MA179 · · Score: 1

      Attempting suicide is unlawful, committing suicide is not.

    174. Re: They didn't know he also... by bkk_diesel · · Score: 1

      You have no clue about how this really works.
      It is not possible to inherit something that you don't want regardless of whether it is a debt or an asset.

  2. treasure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methinks yahoo wants the treasure to themselves.

  3. Mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have one?

    1. Re:Mirror? by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:Mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Luckily a redditor mirrored the site almost as soon as they became aware of it. Fuck Yahoo.

      mirror

    3. Re:Mirror? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Informative
    4. Re:Mirror? by temcat · · Score: 1

      Links from there are broken because they point to Yahoo.

    5. Re:Mirror? by xaosflux · · Score: 2

      Use http://web.archive.org/web/20130816143409/http://www.martinmanleylifeanddeath.com/why_not even before it was down there were some bad links when omitting the hostname.

  4. Yahoo! is getting in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the author pre-paid for the service, Yahoo! had no business removing his blog. I'm not a betting man usually, but I would put down a grand that someone will sue Yahoo! on the deceased author's behalf.

    1. Re:Yahoo! is getting in trouble by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If he has an heir who wants to go the effort of trying to get a refund from yahoo, I'm sure yahoo will refund it as soon as the lawyers send the appropriate letter. It won't get it back online, though. They could use the money to put the site up somewhere else, if they wanted.

      So my guess (gambling is for fools, that's why I only make guesses) is that yahoo would not ever be sued. To be sued they would have to first be asked for the refund, and then refuse; and then refuse again when threatened with legal action. At that point it would be punted to the lawyers, who would look at the amount of money for 5 years of hosting, and recommend refund very quickly.

    2. Re:Yahoo! is getting in trouble by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You would lose the bet.

      Yahoo would have taken the site down if he was dead or not. It doesn't matter how much he has paid in advance. It violates the terms of service.

      It's not like they get a notice every time a customer dies. Somebody would have complained to Yahoo they are hosting a site both advocating suicide and describing many methods of doing so. Not very legal in California.

    3. Re:Yahoo! is getting in trouble by cpghost · · Score: 2

      So my guess (...) is that yahoo would not ever be sued.

      Whether David sues Goliath is pretty much irrelevant. It's whether Yahoo! suffers a (IMHO well deserved) PR disaster that counts. It's news like these that people keep in mind when they think of companies. Next time I think about using Yahoo, I'll remember: "Oh, that was that bunch of jerks that kicked a dead customer out who pre-paid for 5 years? Okay, better look elsewhere."

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Yahoo! is getting in trouble by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Anybody who hasn't heard about any of the other sucky things yahoo has done over the years probably won't hear about this one either. Or if they do, remember it. If he'd been from slashdot he would have used prgmr.com or something

  5. don't see where it matters by roc97007 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    He *thought* he had a website up for five years when he died. He'll never know the difference.

    But because geeks always want to fix things ... it seems to me that if he had the website in someone else's name, or even in a lawyer's name, it'd still be up.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:don't see where it matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What a strange response, regardless of the reasoning behind Yahoo canceling the service (looks like they're pushing the ToS button). I see this as tantamount to somebody buying a burial plot and funeral services, and being dumped in the wilderness with the justification, "they'll never know, since they're dead!"

    2. Re:don't see where it matters by O'Nazareth · · Score: 2

      We could use your argument to make murder legal as long as the victim does not get to know about it.

    3. Re:don't see where it matters by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      What a strange response, regardless of the reasoning behind Yahoo canceling the service (looks like they're pushing the ToS button). I see this as tantamount to somebody buying a burial plot and funeral services, and being dumped in the wilderness with the justification, "they'll never know, since they're dead!"

      And you think that doesn't happen?

      I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted, if there's anyone who would do so. Just pointing out that for him, the important thing is believing up to the moment of death that the arrangements he had made would continue afterwards. Such arrangements are, usually, in a practical manner, for the benefit of people still alive.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:don't see where it matters by roc97007 · · Score: 0

      We could use your argument to make murder legal as long as the victim does not get to know about it.

      Um, no we couldn't. The prosecution of and punishment for murder is of benefit to the living. Do you think we prosecute murder so that the victim's ghost can find peace? I suspect that only happens in television shows. No, we prosecute murder because it's a behavior that society wants to discourage. (Usually, for most societies. Although I'm beginning to wonder about Chicago.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:don't see where it matters by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted

      What for?

      "...any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:don't see where it matters by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted

      What for?

      "...any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death."

      Because they took money to provide a service (he'd paid some years ahead) and then reneged on that agreement. (presumably keeping the money) It may appear through their TOS they've given themselves permission to do this, but it remains to be seen whether this would hold up in court.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:don't see where it matters by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      or just make sure your suicide site is mirrored and backed up in a bunch of places, which can be done essentially for free. he should have been spreading his torrents and usenet files.....

      heck, did the wayback machine scan his site? there are ways to prime the pump for that

  6. Fuck Yahoo! by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the meantime, there is a mirror located here.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      Streisand effect in play. (Or maybe Obi-Wan effect perhaps)

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    2. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by byuu · · Score: 2

      For whatever reason, the zeroshare.info/us_financial/ page is blank. So try this mirror instead for that:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20130816143503/http://martinmanleylifeanddeath.com/us_financial

    3. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slashdotted :(

    4. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, there is a mirror located here.

      I do share your feelings.
      I'm glad there's a mirror, but it's not the same - be it how long the mirror'er will host it and the links name.

      I read it yesterday (the original) when it was linked on another website. I read of his two loves, his first had a Yellow Merlin (car)
      that she crossed the l to read Martin. The second had a car that was parked with the emergency brake set
      when it rolled into the water; young en's had been seen in the vicinity before the mishap.

      All in all what I read was up beat.

    5. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      He didn't understand where money comes from, how it's created by banks that automatically attach debt to it when they don't have to and charge interest on top of that so there isn't enough money in existence to pay back all the debt plus interest. So the only way you can pay back a loan plus interest is to force someone else to default on their loan. Thus does the artificial scarcity of money create a needlessly ruthless and dog-eat-dog world.

      Instead, the government should follow Lincoln and create debt-free money. Give everyone a basic income, and peg it to inflation. If the sociopaths that run corporations raise prices, the basic income goes up to match the prices; and it's all handled virtually so there is no need for wheelbarrows full of cash (it's all virtual cash). Inflation is psychological and can be dealt with by creating as much money as the business owners charge, forever.

      So, with a basic income, and consequently no need to force others to default on their loans so you can pay back your own loans, individuals will be free to pursue their natural creative instincts. Give them challenges (like the Netflix prize, Google bug bounties, X Prize, etc.) to encourage them to use their time in working on things to help society. MOOCs provide free education already.

      Freed from the chore of having to worry about economics, mankind will advance knowledge and technology faster than ever before, increasing standard of living and better enabling us to predict and survive sudden catastrophic events, thus improving our survival fitness.

      Darn, I wonder if I could have given Martin Manley some hope if he would have read this!

    6. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Give everyone a basic income, and peg it to inflation.

      That doesn't work well, because nobody wants to do the shit jobs if they have a guaranteed income. Yeah yeah, one day we'll have machines to do them all. Right now we don't.

      Darn, I wonder if I could have given Martin Manley some hope if he would have read this!

      Probably not. First is the problem of getting a political solution implemented even supposing it would work. Second, he said he didn't have any health issues, but he did. He was in early stages of dementia, and that is what bothered him the most.

    7. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the Obi-Wan effect?

    8. Re:Fuck Yahoo! by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK it is not an attempt at censorship.
      Yahoo just don't want to pay for bandwidth and be associated to a website promoting suicide. They probably don't care about the contents of the website being leaked all over the internet.

  7. Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only was this website paid for, it was obviously part of the deceased's last wishes. If Yahoo has no respect for the law or its customers, it should at least show some respect to a dude's last wish.

    1. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the website was in the deceased's name, the contract ended upon that person's death. You are under no obligation to honor a contract to a dead person.

    2. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      You are under no obligation to honor a contract to a dead person.

      You are under no obligation not to honor it either, which is the point of the "at least show some respect to a dude's last wish" argument.

    3. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If the website was in the deceased's name, the contract ended upon that person's death. You are under no obligation to honor a contract to a dead person.

      They may not have an obligation, legally speaking; but they have the guy's money (so, unless their pricing minions suck, they should be able to make at least a slight profit on the contract) and they sure look like dicks by immediately going against the customer's expressed wishes.

      It is not illegal to exploit absolutely every angle not forbidden by law or contract; but nobody has to like you for it, nor should they.

    4. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the deceased should show some respect to Yahoo's "Terms of Service"?
      Since he wanted to promote suicide he had to find some entity willing to respect his sick life views - or stay alive and manage his own server or something...

    5. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then how the hell does life insurance work? The contract is with the person whose life ended. Especially if the only beneficiaries are two minor children.

    6. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Need to right the release of rights page, read his last line.

      Release of Rights

      I, Martin Manley, being the creator and owner of all information on the site "MartinManleyLifeAndDeath.com", neither hold nor retain any claim or copyright on any part of this web-site. I do not grant these rights to any individual person or entity either in life or upon death. Rather I release all rights to this work - making it public domain. Anyone can do with it whatever they wish.

      Martin Allen Manley

      August 15, 2013.

    7. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Apparently Melissa Meyer is a big fan of Ayn Rand.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Argh. MARISSA.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a blatant lie ie a lawyer appointed by a person to carry out their last will and testament is bound by contractual law to honour that contract. Same for leaving estate to pets et al. Face it Yahoo are a bunch of douche bag shits heads for what they have done and the stink of an ex-google bimbo is all over it.

      As for some of the reasons the dude committed suicide, reincarnation might obviate the exercise and even worse place him in even worse circumstance ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Yahoo! When did they EVER listen to anyone's wishes? It took about 5 years and millions of complaints before Chris Chase got fired, but supposedly it was unrelated to his piss-poor editorials. Yahoo has nothing good to offer anymore besides their mail client and they can only blame themselves for their failures. Listen to your consumers or face extinction.

    11. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If Yahoo has no respect for the law or its customers, it should at least show some respect to a dude's last wish.

      Actually, Yahoo might be breaking the law by hosting the site. Free speech law goes pretty far in the US, but encouraging suicide, or any other major illegal activity could get them in trouble. I also assume there's something in their TOS that forbids such content, so they're all good.

      And someone's "last wish" isn't legally binding for good reason... Just because you're dying doesn't mean your motives are free of decades of bias, prejudice, etc. Dying declarations tend to be treated specially, but not "wishes".

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      See this is why you retain copyright but give a permissive license like creative commons, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    13. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a blatant lie ie a lawyer appointed by a person to carry out their last will and testament is bound by contractual law to honour that contract. Same for leaving estate to pets et al. Face it Yahoo are a bunch of douche bag shits heads for what they have done and the stink of an ex-google bimbo is all over it.

      As for some of the reasons the dude committed suicide, reincarnation might obviate the exercise and even worse place him in even worse circumstance ;D.

      How about you go ask a lawyer before you fire off with your Internet legalese?

    14. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo?

      Because it's not censorship.

      And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.

      Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.

      It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.

      And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.

      When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.

      But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.

    15. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      That is a blatant lie ie a lawyer appointed by a person to carry out their last will and testament is bound by contractual law to honour that contract. Same for leaving estate to pets et al.

      Not all contracts can be transferred and the laws concerning digital goods and services are not there yet. A Yahoo Account is most likely non-transferable so when you die it doesn't get transferred to your heirs or whatever. Anyway the site was taken down because Yahoo deemed that it violated the ToS, most likely because it can be interpreted as "advocating or promoting suicide", so it could have been taken down even if transferred and still valid.

      Face it Yahoo are a bunch of douche bag shits heads for what they have done and the stink of an ex-google bimbo is all over it.

      I actually think they had the legal right to take down the site but had also the option to keep it online if they wanted to. They made a choice, they didn't want the site, had a fine print in the ToS which allowed them to make it disappear from their little world and decided to go for it. That's what I criticize.

    16. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      As for some of the reasons the dude committed suicide, reincarnation might obviate the exercise and even worse place him in even worse circumstance ;D.

      Or maybe reincarnation rewards suicide (because it quickens the reincarnation cycle), and he's reborn in a much better situation. Or maybe, when you commit suicide, you're reincarnated into an equivalent existence. Or (most likely) there is no such thing as reincarnation, and therefore there is no next life which might be better, worse, or just the same. Of course it could also be that he just lives on in a parallel universe where he failed to kill himself. So many possibilities ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      As soon as you're dead, you've lost copyright anyway. Then your heirs own it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    18. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      since when has Yahoo given one fuck about their currently living customers?

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    19. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between a legal obligation and a moral/ethical one. The law allows all sorts of tacky behavior that will get you off of everyone's guest list.

      This is one of those things IMHO.

    20. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      That is why Yahoo shut it down. Because he didn't understand that it gave Yahoo a right to kill it too.

    21. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Not according to current copyright law. You and your estate keep it for up to 70 yrs after

    22. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo's contact said it ends when the person dies. This person clearly died (though I don't know if that was proven to Yahoo or if Yahoo is assuming it). Moral or not, they no longer needed to host the site.

    23. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Wanting to die before you rot in a nursing home is a "sick life view"?

    24. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Speaking his justifications for why suicide fit him in a positive light is not illegal. It's illegal to encourage people specifically to commit suicide ("I think I want to kill myself." -- "You should do it!", or telling people that suicide is the answer to their problems, etc)

    25. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyer does have to carry out their will, but they cannot force a pet to receive the estate, said pet is under no obligation and can refuse the estate.

    26. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Actually, Yahoo might be breaking the law by hosting the site. Free speech law goes pretty far in the US, but encouraging suicide, or any other major illegal activity could get them in trouble.

      He specifically linked to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention website for those whom it may help. That to me is evidence that he was not advocating suicide nor encouraging anyone to do so.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    27. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > Because it's not censorship.
      [SNIP 5 paragraphs that say nothing to support that assertion]
      > But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.

      Let's take the definition of censorship from wikipedia:
      """
      Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body.
      """
      Yahoo are the controlling body and the media outlet in this case. They have suppressed public communication which they think "promote[s] or provide[s] instructional information about illegal activities, promote[s] physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote[s] any act of cruelty to animals." I.e. material which they consider objectionable, harmful, or sensitive.

      It's bang on censorship. It couldn't be more censorship. Just because thier T&C effectively say you agree to them censoring you doesn't mean it's not censorship.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    28. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Please read again what I wrote. I did not claim that the copyright ended (quite the opposite; I explicitly said that your heirs own it then). But you don't own it any more, just as you don't own anything else. Dead people cannot own anything. So your claim that you and your estate keep it is wrong.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    29. Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      You need to read case law as the state of decease has nothing to do with ownership.

  8. I permamarked it by zidium · · Score: 1
    --
    Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
  9. so? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    So where's the mirror? You'd expect someone to mirror this. Even just to investigate a death with unnatural causes, you'd expect the police to want a full copy of the web site?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:so? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      So where's the mirror?

      There are several in comments posted before yours.

  10. Vogue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's okay--Marissa will make the lost traffic up in Vogue hits. Also/Obligatory: Yahoo is still in business?

  11. Yahoo Doing Evil Again by interval1066 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The site is paid for, Yahoo needs to do the right thing and leave the site up. Dead people don't have rights, so the poster who asked about Manley's lawyers is right on the money, hopefully he set up a legal trust to deal with these issues. If Manley had set this up with Japanese hoster they probably wouldn't have thought twice about hosting the site.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    1. Re:Yahoo Doing Evil Again by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Dead people don't have rights, so the poster who asked about Manley's lawyers is right on the money, hopefully he set up a legal trust to deal with these issues. If Manley had set this up with Japanese hoster they probably wouldn't have thought twice about hosting the site. --

      Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.

      I think setting up a legal trust would involve a level of research and planning not suggested by his choice to simply use Yahoo hosting. Furthermore --- suing Yahoo would be expensive and probably unsuccessful. A much better option is to demand a refund and switch hosting providers to something like NearlyFreeSpeech.net

      If I were setting something like this up; I would have a foundation with prepaid custodians, and a duty to hold ownership of the domain and move the site or DNS services to different providers as necessary to keep the site up.

      And if I was concerned about them failing in their duties --- i'd launch two or more sites, with different custodians for redundancy.

      The custodians would be required to demonstrate 99% uptime for the site, and a MD5 digest match on the author's page content, using a 3rd party independent website monitoring provider (MD5 match to prevent custodians from framing my content or changing my message or inserting advertising).

      After each year, the custodian would receive ~$1000; plus after showing invoices and proof of payment with the costs -- reimbursement for domain registration cost of up to 4 domains for each site (not more than the average .COM domain renewal price), plus reimbursment for cost of website hosting with a national hosting provider not more than $100 a year adjusted for inflation, after producing reports from a minimum of two independent 3rd party monitoring website monitoring services to my foundation.

    2. Re:Yahoo Doing Evil Again by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.

      I assume all bets are off if Yahoo dies. But getting back to the point;

      I think setting up a legal trust would involve a level of research and planning not suggested by his choice to simply use Yahoo hosting.

      Uh, if I understand your terrible use of English... legal trusts, living wills, etc, are fairly common place and any lawyer who specializes in such, and there are many, would have it set up in a jiffy. You're not really sure what you're talking about, are you?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    3. Re:Yahoo Doing Evil Again by mysidia · · Score: 1

      any lawyer who specializes in such, and there are many, would have it set up in a jiffy.

      He prepaid 5 years of hosting in advance, and you think he was shelling out probably a minimum of $1000 plus a few hundred bucks an hour to have a lawyer setup a trust? :)

      If you have long-term arrangements such as a trust -- it makes little sense to prepay 5 years, and take the risk you might not even get the hosting or get your money back (if the account is terminated before term); the money should be sitting in your bank account earning interest, until it needs to be paid out for the service, possibly with an annual check.

      If he had a trust; his site would already be back up on a new provider.

    4. Re:Yahoo Doing Evil Again by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.

      Thank you for that information. I want my daughter Patty to have my slashdot account when I die, and it's registered with a yahoo email address. I'll be sure to tell her to change the /. preferences when I die (and post an obit in my journal).

    5. Re: Yahoo Doing Evil Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought md5 was no longer considered secure. And sha-1 has some weakness too. Anyway I have not seen many legal documents that specify a cryptographic hash function.

  12. mirror of the site (fta) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. WOW !! I BET HE IS PISSED !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who'll walk me down to church when I'm sixty years' of age
    When the ragged dog they gave me has been 10 years in the grave
    And senorita play guitar, play it just for you
    My rosary has broken and my beads have all slipped through

    You've hung up your grey coat and you've laid down your gun
    You know the war you fought in wasn't too much fun
    And the future you're giving me holds nothing for a gun
    I've no wish to be living sixty years on

    Yes I'll sit with you and talk, let your eyes relive again
    I know my vintage prayers would be very much the same
    And Magdelena plays the organ, plays it just for you
    Your choral lamp that burns so low when you are passing through

    And the future you're giving me holds nothing for a gun
    I've no wish to be living sixty years on
    And Yahoo! I am pissed

  14. TL;DR by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    There is a novel sized amount of text here.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:TL;DR by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Novella-sized, perhaps. If you want a Tolstoy-esque novel by someone who committed suicide, check out Mitchell Heisman's suicidenote.info.

      Bonus: check out the chapter titles.

    2. Re:TL;DR by Nimey · · Score: 1

      o.0 You aren't kidding. "The Noble Aryan Anus" was the first one to jump out at me.

      Crazy guy was crazy.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re: TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to say he had something in there (anything that references the Norman conquest has got to be interesting - truly the most formative event in the English speaking world), so even though he was sounding a bit too Unabomber-ish I gave it a chance.

      Then at page 48 he says current computers are more powerful than a brain, because your CPU is faster than a single neuron. Did this guy have any idea how many neurons were in his brain and how many freaking cores you'd need to make that a true statement? I mean, I would think if he's going to kill himself over this he would do that basic research.

      So I think I have to stop reading. I wanted to give the crazy guy a chance, I mean it's wrong to speak ill of the dead. More interesting than the Kansas guy I will give him that.

    4. Re:TL;DR by Macchendra · · Score: 1

      Here's the TL;DR: "I’ll try anything once!".

    5. Re:TL;DR by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Ah, you have to go to the site map for that. And then you're also greeted with "Barack Obama: Supernigger". I can't say that I feel any temptation to read even a paragraph of his writings, I suspect my brain might implode.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    6. Re: TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have read a bunch of it and parts of it make sense. He is excerpting heavily from people who are better writers on a number of topics. For example this makes me want to pick up Richard Dawkins' books or read about the English civil war. But the weird thing is how these topics are "linked" in his mind. And his views on the Normans, the way he says the same thing over and over again, it seems like an obsession.

      I never have been exposed to the idea that the Southern US aristocracy was anglo-norman and that this could explain a willingness to have slaves. Or that northern emphasis on civil rights could be rooted in Anglo-Saxons wanting to get back what the Normans took. I have to admit it's an interesting idea, even if inaccurate fantasy. He cites a bunch of white southerners actually writing this overtly in the 1860s. Of course they are going to find whatever BS they can to justify their positions.

      I am thinking this guy had mild mental illness, wanted to write a book on his favorite pet topics, but ultimately knew he was a failure and offed himself.

  15. Yahoo Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo going downhill since the rise of Google? Say it isn't so...

  16. uh oh by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's gonna haunt the shit out of them now

    1. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      YaWhooooo!

  17. Living in the now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shame no one had given him a copy of Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now".
    Reading the "Why suicide?" section it's a classic example of a human mind at it's absolute worst creating abstract future's that will probably never happen.
    e,g, "I didn’t want to die having my chin and my butt wiped by someone who might forget which cloth they used for which."

    Rather than brush his "thoughts" under a carpet like Yahoo has done I'd leave them there for others to link to who can better explain what when wrong in his head.
    "The power of linking" could turn this negative into a positive.
    It should remain as a warning to the living that you are not your mind, your mind and your thoughts are a product of an organ that can mis-fire just like any other organ in your body.
    If you are wondering what I'm talking about pick up a copy of Tolle's bestseller and find out for yourself.

  18. Re:good for him! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This little quote from the guy's site:

    The thought of being in a nursing home, physically or mentally disabled, was the single scariest thing I had ever thought about

    This is exactly what I've been thinking for years now; I've always thought that I will commit a suicide and end my life one day when I feel I'm getting too old, when I feel I'm losing control over my own thoughts and body. Honestly, the most horrible thing that I could imagine is being locked up in a bed 24/7 at the mercy of others without being able to do anything by myself -- I do not want to end there. I will commit a suicide if it looks like it's coming to that, I want to be in charge of my own life. As such I fully understand the guy's reasoning and I agree: good for him.

  19. demanding refund in full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is Yahoo gonna transfer the refund to?

    1. Re:demanding refund in full by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I'll take it and host his pages.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  20. Re:good for him! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

    We'll get back to you in 30-40 years and see how you feel about it then.

    Or (here come the troll mods) if you're that dissatisfied with your own life, go right ahead and...

    But no, you're just mouthing off, aren't you?

    I'm 51, my life and work are going pretty well, my health is good, and I'm getting married in a few weeks. I've got every reason to believe that I'm good for another 25-30 years, at least--most of my forebears and their immediate kin have lived at least into their 80s in good health, and I've one great-great-uncle who lived to be 106. (They found him one evening leaned up against a fencepost, where he'd evidently stopped to take a little break whilst making his daily walk around his farm. Nothing wrong with him, the doctor said, except that he finally just wore out.)

    If you think I'm tossing away everything I've worked for and the advantages I've likely inherited a mere 9 years hence in order to meet some half-assed expectation of yours, think again, kiddo.

    I intend to be living a fantastic life and raising hell for another decade or three yet. Deal with it.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  21. You know what's even creepier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's another guy named Martin Manley who was born 2 weeks later and has the wikipedia page :D

    I mean seriously, not just the same name, or year, but the same month too!

  22. Understanding what death means by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Among many other things, death entails a complete lack of power.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Understanding what death means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among many other things, death entails a complete lack of power.

      Talk to Nietzsche about that -- he came up with the "will to power" as a replacement for Schopenhauer's "will to life" precisely to explain self-sacrificial behavior (including voluntary death), among other reasons.

      Then again, you can't talk to Nietzsche because he's dead. So I guess that makes you kinda right.

  23. agreed. Fuck Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the site has been going downhill anyway.
    this is just the final nail in thw coffin.

  24. Winning strategy by NoMoreMrNiceGuy2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Get customers to sign up for 5 year plans of web hosting.
    2. Kill customer, make is look like a suicide.
    3.?
    4. Profit!

    1. Re:Winning strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant post, AC laughed :-)

    2. Re:Winning strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not really much of a question mark there... since you collect the money in step one, and presumably spent less on making their murder look like suicide... Thus an unknown step 3 would not be necessary for profit.

  25. Read a little of it by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable, and even a lot of the Alzheimer stuff is. That is, if you have access to the health care. This sounds more like a failing of our society than anything else.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Read a little of it by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why isn't he entitled to decide when he has lived enough? Why does he need valid medical reasons?

      I think you're right, it's a failing of society. Society rather plays for god and decide who lives and who dies.

      (I only hope he performed a clean suicide rather than jumping in front of a train, or something)

    2. Re:Read a little of it by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable

      That makes me feel bad for the dude. You mean he didn't actually have any reason to off himself? You could have told him that, I'm sure he would have listened to reason in his highly emotional state of mind.

    3. Re:Read a little of it by PNutts · · Score: 1

      A guy kills himself based on his own imagination and you think that's a failure of society? I think there are more than enough services available for anything he could dream up.

    4. Re:Read a little of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is liberalism clear and simple. EVERYTHING that is a problem is because there isn't enough liberalism. I'm sure there was some increased tax structure that would have prevented his suicide as well. It was OBVIOUSLY because there isn't free medical care, in addition he probably still had student loans because college isn't free, in addition he probably fretted over food costs going up because EBT cards are means tested and he couldn't qualify, also I bet his Alzhimers was a result of global warming to boot as well.

      Its amazing how liberals think they should take no responsibility for any part of their own life, but then the next minute get upset because the government is spying on them or telling them what to do. I really wish they would just grow up and realize their life sucks because they are too stupid to learn how to take care of themselves. Instead they collect wellfare, EBT, Obamaphones and everything else so they don't have to work and come to sites like this and post how even without having to work and living off of everyone else its STILL not fair for them. They won't be happy until slavery is reinstated and they are the masters ordering those of us who work for a living to make more crap for them.

    5. Re:Read a little of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there aren't enough services imaginable to make up for any illness we have. Try visiting a parent suffering from Alzheimer, or any elder stuck in a centre. They live miserable lives, and no amount of money or services could change that. It will take me a while to read his site, but there is no one to blame for anything here. You don't blame anyone on a death like this. It's his life, he made a choice. That's all there is to it. You agree, or you don't with his choice, but it was his choice, so you respect it.

      While this may be on a tangent from this discussion, the needless idiocy that some people put into staying alive at all cost is barbaric. Illness like Alzheimer destroy who you are. You not only forget yourself and the people you love, you also forget where you are and what's happening. Out of no-where, you panic, you want to go for a walk with your son, but you forgot that you can't walk. You need to pee but you forgot that you're wearing diapers because you can't use the bathroom anymore. The body is caged to a room, or a bed. Family may visit you, but you can't make sense of anything. Obviously, I speak from personal experience, and I can tell you that I despise anyone that is responsible for keeping people who are suffering beyond words like this alive. I don't mean the nurse, doctors and people helping those people, I mean the cowards who don't want to let people die with some dignity. This is society's failing people. We know when to put down an animal, when it's the humane thing to do, but death is taboo and feared.

    6. Re:Read a little of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.

      You might just be uniformed regarding "Alzheimer stuff." With my dad having Alzheimer's, I've read a lot of the recent research. The fact is that the current treatments, at best, result in very modest improvements (reverse about 0.5 years of progression) and slow the continuing progression by at most half.

      2.

      Alzheimer's was his primary concern. You could see it clearly in his writing. Even though he knew he needed to proofread his material nine or ten times now instead of just once, he still had tell-tale signs that would drive someone so analytical as him crazy (e.g. the incorrect use of heterographic homophones such as "pier" instead of "peer"). His pride was his precise mind (see the Triple Nine Society), which was clearly failing.

    7. Re:Read a little of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its amazing how liberals think they should take no responsibility for any part of their own life

      Dude took responsibility for his own life and conservatives shit all over that too.

      Conservatives: fighting for the freedom to do what they order you to do.

    8. Re:Read a little of it by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, you can't treat the decay of mental nor physical decay people undergo as they age. Some people decay more gracefully than others, some decay slower than others for whatever reason, but as far as I know we haven't found a way to return the brain to the state it is when it was when you had 20 years, or even 30. There is a decay you can't stop (for now).

      If I'm wrong, please do tell me. I'd like to know what my options are to have a long, long life with quality, and he does present a set of issues that as far as I know can't be dealt with by medicine.

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    9. Re:Read a little of it by jsepeta · · Score: 2

      It's his own damned choice to take his life. Not our business to judge.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  26. Yahoo definitely wrong choice. Or was it? by Joiseybill · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was gonna rant about refunding the estate for the residual value of his contract, and for the 5 year domain registration.. or at least transfer it to his estate.. BUT.. Yahoo's TOS specifically deals with death.
    "No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability. You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted."

    Allegedly, this was in effect for a while.. the page
    http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
    says it was last updated March 16, 2012.
    For a man who made a living with his words, maybe he should have read the TOS ( short by some comparison). Or, maybe like the false 'treasure hunt', he knew Yahoo would cancel his account, and through both methods he gains some post-mortem notoriety. Either way.. I hope he gets some pleasure out of all this attention to his life being generated today.

  27. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While I agree with the general thought there, I don't think I would choose his method of ending my life 'when the time comes'. Shooting yourself in front of a police station just sounds cliche, and way too urban.

    I would rather go out on a camping trip and never come back. Whether that's in the hot desert or cold mountains, or out in the plains of Africa with my final sight being a hungry lion. If I'm ending it all, I want it to be something more personal than a bullet in the head while standing in a city street.

    Posting AC to keep future searchers from discovering anythiing.

  28. Seems by no-body · · Score: 1

    that Yahoo folks have a problem with themselves in connection with dying, suicide and related things. For sure it's not a money issue to keep the page open.
    Now they have another PR issue and are exposes as jerks.

  29. Re:good for him! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

    Shooting yourself in front of a police station just sounds cliche, and way too urban.

    I just find it somewhat distasteful. I haven't yet decided how I'd wanna go, but I'd try to do it in such a way that it doesn't involve bystanders or possibly cause anyone to actually see me dying. So, I'd probably opt for going somewhere far out-of-sight and just overdosing on something that's certain to kill me -- no messy blood, no bystanders being sprayed with brains, no collateral damage, just a clean death.

  30. anti-conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti-Conspiracy Capitalist Pig Investment Banker Commits Suicide for Free Hosting from "Reddit" pg 11

    How is the Slashdot and Reddit crowd sympathizing with this wackadoodle?

  31. Re:good for him! by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Putting a bullet to your head in front of witnesses and the police means there's little to no investigation - or, cost to society. They clean up the street, but it's obvious why, how, and when you died.

    Disappearing into the woods could prompt a million-dollar manhunt trying to 'rescue' you, until or unless they find you first. And once they do find you, they'll have to do an autopsy to investigate cause of death - possibly quite an expensive one, as your remains will have degraded. You'll cause a lot of extra cost and grief to society that you could have avoided.

    Maybe that was important to him.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  32. Re:good for him! by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I intend to be living a fantastic life and raising hell for another decade or three yet. Deal with it.

    So... your magic number isn't 60, but possibly 85 or 90. Ok, that's fine. I am more than happy to let you define how long you think your quality of life is good. So what happens after that?

    I've one great-great-uncle who lived to be 106. (They found him one evening leaned up against a fencepost, where he'd evidently stopped to take a little break whilst making his daily walk around his farm. Nothing wrong with him, the doctor said, except that he finally just wore out.)

    Yeah, and I've got an 80+ year old great uncle in-law or something who's been bedridden for years now. Adult-onset type 2 diabetes. The diabetes so far has caused blindness, and has led to the amputation of both legs. It could happen to anyone, even you. 51 is a long way from 70.

    My own grandfather developed Alzheimer's, and although he remained perfectly healthy in body until the end, that was probably the most horrifying and heart wrenching thing to undergo. He was terrified at least for as long as knew what was happening, and it wasn't much better for those around him.

    We all wish to age gracefully, die in our sleep peacefully, and while I agree arbitrarily committing suicide on your 60th birthday is nuts... committing suicide when the circumstances of your final days are rapidly becoming apparent is pretty rational in my books.

  33. Yahoo and the Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So their latest CEO has been buying companies for ridiculous amounts of money in order to keep Yahoo in the press, and then they pull something like this?

    That is truly priceless.

  34. Let's help Yahoo to know who they really are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with most comments here. And I'm proud of the ones showing compassion towards this person's last wishes.
    I propose we all send a message to
    @YahooInc and cc to @marissamayer
    It would be most effective to use hashtag too to start a trend. Mine would be: #Fuckyahoo
    But not everybody would like to use profane language.
    What about #Yahoosucks ? or both?
    And a link to this page to let the world know?

    1. Re:Let's help Yahoo to know who they really are by Skapare · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, Yahoo is trying to commit suicide. I suggest we encourage that.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  35. Marissa Mayer response expected soon by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    In a follow-up edition of Vogue magazine. Yahoo is toast, with a raspy T.

  36. Why illegal? by jandar · · Score: 1

    Why would suicide be illegal? Where I live it isn't. How could be someone prohibited from suicide save livelong incarceration in a padded cell?

    1. Re:Why illegal? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Why would suicide be illegal? Where I live it isn't. How could be someone prohibited from suicide save livelong incarceration in a padded cell?

      More importantly: If you committed suicide, you're dead (otherwise it would be attempted suicide). How are they going to punish you after your death?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Why illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally, they're institutionalized until they die of old age or realize that they don't want to kill themselves. The people who really want to kill themselves tend to use a method that isn't survivable. Also, the bulk of the people who do survive suicide attempts don't do it again after they get treatment.

    3. Re:Why illegal? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of completely irrational laws on the books in the USA, and the criminalization of suicide is one that exists in many States.

    4. Re:Why illegal? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      More importantly: If you committed suicide, you're dead (otherwise it would be attempted suicide). How are they going to punish you after your death?

      Making it illegal allows for crimes like attempted suicide or conspiracy to commit suicide. Or if you attempted suicide and someone else died as a result of your actions, then you could be slapped with a murder charge because your felony criminal behavior resulted in a death. These ancillary crimes allow authorities to lock up the perpetrators in psych wards under forced mental health care, presumably until they're better and can become functional consumers of pop culture again.

    5. Re: Why illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By canceling your Yahoo account, apparently.

    6. Re:Why illegal? by Myopic · · Score: 2

      I've long heard suicide described as the only action which is illegal to attempt, but not to succeed at. The reason attempted suicide is illegal is because society judges that only a mentally ill person would do it, so we use criminal law as a wedge to force a person to get help. Obviously this is at odds with euthanasia so society has been discussing that for a generation or more.

    7. Re:Why illegal? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Why would suicide be illegal? Where I live it isn't. How could be someone prohibited from suicide save livelong incarceration in a padded cell?

      He's likely assisting. That's the illegal act.

    8. Re:Why illegal? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      It was meant for the living, not the dead. It was put in place by do-gooders so they could arrest and detain people after an attempted suicide under the auspices of helping them see that living is good.

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:Why illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally and constitutionally, you have no right to die.

      The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "person-hood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

      Personal Security (Life):
        (1) Not to be killed.
        (2) Not to be injured or abused.

      "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are three named natural rights in the US Declaration of Independence, however death is absent from the list and said list is not technically US Law anyways.

      And if that didn't sway you, suicide is technically homicide, specifically murder. Most suicide attempts happen after a few hours of wrestling with the idea which makes it premeditated murder. Would you advocate a world wherein murder were legally acceptable? What about schizophrenics and people with multiple personalities? Now you're talking several counts of homicide assuming only one personality wants to die.

      Suicidal people are mentally ill and should be treated with intent to make them well, not encouraged to end themselves.

    10. Re:Why illegal? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Lol. It's beyond the law's prerogative to make suicide illegal. It's like telling people it's illegal to take a piss. The law can say whatever it wants, but here's an example of it overstepping its bounds. Suicide is an absolute right - even beyond the law.

    11. Re:Why illegal? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      It's because of outdated beliefs about gods. For some reason, the most common religions that people like to worship all teach that suicide is some kind of sin. Thus the laws were conceived to reflect this view at a time when being an atheist would certainly get you killed.

    12. Re:Why illegal? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      So in America you use criminal law to deal with mentally ill people? To me that sounds like misuse of criminal law. A sane law system has a criminal law to deal with criminals (who then should go to jail), and a separate law to deal with the mentally ill (who can be forcefully put into closed psychiatry if they are a danger to themselves or others). I consider criminalizing the mentally ill a crime in itself.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Why illegal? by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 0

      It's partly because life as a peasant sucked so much in the Dark Ages and later times, that suicide was a frequent outcome. In addition, at a time where physical labour was by and large the only kind of labour, having someone die could have serious consequences for his or her family and community. The churches dealt with this in their characteristic way by widely disseminating the thought that the supernatural consequences of dying were even more dire than the prospect of living one's sorry life to its conclusion. For nobles, the story was different - suicide could be viewed as a selfless and honourable act. The attitudes we see from our religious contemporaries are just legalistic echoes of the practical if cruel response to the effects of suicide in earlier times.

    14. Re:Why illegal? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The reason that it is illegal to attempt suicide in most jurisdictions is that this gives people protection if they take actions to prevent you from doing so that would be illegal if you were attempting something else. Since historically most people attempting suicide have wanted someone to stop them, this was seen as a social good.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    15. Re:Why illegal? by egcagrac0 · · Score: 2

      More importantly: If you committed suicide, you're dead (otherwise it would be attempted suicide). How are they going to punish you after your death?

      Apparently, they cancel your webhosting service.

    16. Re:Why illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misread that comment. He said it's illegal to provide instructions on how to commit suicide. Not comitting suicide.

    17. Re:Why illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically, the punishment for committing suicide is that your life insurance doesn't have to payout to your family.

    18. Re:Why illegal? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was you who misread.

    19. Re:Why illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand what an "absolute right" is. By definition such a right is something that no one can take from you. The only such right is the right to die eventually.

      You have no right to choose the hour of your death. As long as someone can lock you in a cell, sedate you, feed you intravenously, and pump air into your lungs you'll stay technically-alive until your body shuts down of old age or disease.

      If your "rights" can be forfeited or taken from you by force then, by definition, they are not absolute rights. Lol all you want, you still do not have the right to die.

    20. Re:Why illegal? by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

      I think the real reason why most religions condemn suicide is to escape the following catch 22: If you really believe in god and you really think there is this great place called heaven, why don't you kill yourself to get there ASAP ?

      --
      Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    21. Re:Why illegal? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because nothing convinces someone that life is good like sticking them in a prison cell/padded room.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re:Why illegal? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >For some reason...

      Consider the societies which created these religions - most people were little more than slaves, and Heaven is presented as a pretty nice place where you get rewarded for a lifetime of righteous suffering. Obviously you need to install some sort of catch-22 so that your denigrated and exploited labor force doesn't opt out of their present misery in favor of eternal bliss.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    23. Re:Why illegal? by The+Iso · · Score: 1

      Historically, suicide victims forfeited their property to the king (often ruining their family) and were dishonourably buried.

      --
      "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
  37. Yahoo is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People still use Yahoo? Why? That site has totally turned to shit the last few years.

    1. Re:Yahoo is shit by Skapare · · Score: 1

      It was shit a lot more than just a few years ago.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  38. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A former girlfriend was a SAR volunteer. I'd guess the majority of calls she got were people who were known to be suicidal and had gone missing (usually into woods/lake area).

    Even with a suicide note, they're still going to come looking for you. Not only that, but your family is probably going to be freaking the fuck out.

    Seems like a pretty shitty way to go for everyone else.

  39. Re:good for him! by petsounds · · Score: 1

    The wouldn't need to start a manhunt if you just set up an e-mail to be sent at a certain time to the appropriate government agencies, describing that you committed suicide and provide GPS coordinates to your body. You could even draw a nice map for them.

  40. Yahoo! disrespects the dead by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Whatever they have in their TOS, and whatever their strange morals may be, ignoring the will of a dead person to leave something behind is considered not only petty behavior, it also above all pretty rude in almost all cultures around the world. Perhaps it's different in savage Yahoo!-Land, but we, the civilized world, are shocked by their lack of sensitivity.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  41. Satirical precedent by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

    The British satirist Chris Morris authored 12 columns in the Observer, a British newspaper. He built up to a spoof suicide under the pseudonym 'Richard Geefe':

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Class_Male/Time_To_Go/

    Interesting that his satire has now become a reality for one journalist.

  42. Clean suicides don't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read it. Some of it. If he did it like he planned he was standing in the trees at one end of the parking lot of a local police station, called 911 and told them where he was, what he was about to do, and how, and then pulled the trigger and killed himself via firearm. He says he did it this way because he did not want someone who was not trained in seeing such things to find him.

    Sadly, my personal belief is that someone not trained in it probably did find him, most 911 operators have not had the experience of being the final point of contact for a suicide and that he likely traumatized someone by doing it this way.

    I know damned well no matter how jaded I am, if someone called me, told me very calmly where they were and that they were committing suicide and then I hear a bang and silence until the police got to him and hung up the phone, I'd need the rest of the night off to pull myself into some semblance of together. I'd wonder for months if there wasn't something I could have done to stop it, feel responsible for it even though it was totally random. The only thing that might help would be finding out who this was, that he had a website and that he was not calling me to stop him, just to be 'tidy'.

    I hope that operator finds out who it was, reads the site on a mirror, and feels a little less terrible about it. Cause I know I'd want that for me.

    1. Re:Clean suicides don't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have at least had the decency to hang up before the trigger was pulled, but at the very least it doesn't seem like he planned to do it that way. The operator would not have known the suicide being reported was his imminent suicide.

    2. Re:Clean suicides don't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if a 911-called-in gunshot goes off at the end of the police station's parking lot at 5:00AM, the odds of it not being a cop to be first one there is pretty slim. i just think a gunshot would be heard to send officers scrambling. however, if it was at the sw edge, there appears to be a biking/walking path, so who knows.

  43. Re:good for him! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    We all wish to age gracefully, die in our sleep peacefully, and while I agree arbitrarily committing suicide on your 60th birthday is nuts... committing suicide when the circumstances of your final days are rapidly becoming apparent is pretty rational in my books.

    No we don't, that's a compromise wish. Many of us wish to age just enough to reach our prime, and die never, with no health problems, along with everyone we ever love or meet.

    Others have decided that since that's pretty unlikely to be attainable, they'll pretend there's virtue in "aging gracefully" or "dying with dignity" or some other malarkey about some number of years being enough for anybody. That just because you can't have something, it's somehow virtuous not to want it.

    I think far fewer in the age gracefully column than claim it. Just look at the extraordinary measures people will go through just for a chance for a few more minutes, even after a lifetime of declaring against the idea.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  44. corporate control of communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there's a broader topic: the more we centralize all our communications with a few corporate services, the easier it is to take "incorrect" or "inconvenient" speech offline.

    Companies like yahoo haven't taken that control, we've given that control to them. That trend would be better reversed.

  45. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little cost to society? What about the PTSD and anxiety treatment for the various witnesses? And the inevitable investigation as to what your motivation might have been in killing yourself like that?

    If you don't want your death to cost society very much, then don't die in a suspicious way.

  46. Re:good for him! by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

    They'd still need to send somebody in, drag your body out, prove there wasn't any foul play, etc.

    As I said: it depends on what was important to him. There are logical reasons to choose the street in front of the police station. There are reasons to choose walking into the woods to disappear - but they are different reasons. Apparently this was the statement he wanted to make, for whatever reasons. (Maybe for the reasons I gave, maybe for others.)

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  47. Re:good for him! by nbauman · · Score: 2

    I know somebody who died in the woods on a hike.

    It was a while ago, probably in the 1960s. His name was Eric, he was probably in his 50s or 60s, and he was a doctor (a radiologist). He used to lead day hikes in the New York City area for the American Youth Hostels, and his hikes were very popular.

    One day, he was hiking with his wife (I think in Bear Mountain park). He was coming down a mountain, and told his wife, "You go down that way, and I'll go down this way." His wife got to the bottom and he didn't show up.

    Volunteers launched a massive effort to find the body. They combed the mountain slope shoulder-to-shoulder, but never found anything. (This was fairly dense woods.)

    I remember seeing the "Missing" poster.

    Given how he felt about the outdoors, it was as good a way to die as any. But his wife, family, and friends had a lot of discomfort at not knowing for certain that he was dead. It's sort of like being "missing" in the Latin American dictatorships.

    Years later, somebody found the body.

    If I can be free to speculate, it was most likely that he died of a heart attack. Perhaps he felt it coming on and didn't want his wife to watch him die. But that doesn't make sense. Most heart attacks aren't fatal, and they could have gotten him to the hospital. He was also diagnosed as being clinically depressed (like lots of people his age). Maybe he just decided to give up. We'll never know.

    The moral of this story is that dying in a favorite place is a good way to face the inevitable. But just disappearing is painful for your survivors.

  48. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem that you're ignoring is that you don't get to kill yourself after you've gotten to the point of being unable to think. It's a choice you make before you get to that point. Which means that you're depriving yourself of some time as well as your family.

    Truth be told, the folks with Alzheimers probably don't suffer anywhere near as much as their family does as the recent memories are the first to go and the childhood memories are the last.

    By the time you know you've got Alzheimers, it's too late to consider suicide.

    Personally, I'll just take the best care of my mind and body that I can, and hope that I get lucky in old age. It's really the only sane choice one can make. Planning to be mentally out of it in old age is a self fulfilling prophecy, even if it wasn't your fate.

  49. I didn't say he wasn't by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I just said that his reasons were mostly health related, and that with enough money his reasons go away. I think the money should be taken out of that equation. No one should kill themselves for lack of medical care...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I didn't say he wasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely disagree. His reasons were Alzheimer's related. In my view his reasoning was completely sound. It was clear that even with the best of current treatments, he was on a clear and sad decline. His Alzheimer's was bad enough that he would have been institutionalized within 3 years and dead within 6. Please read about Alzeimer's progression when the diagnosis is already clear at 58.

    2. Re:I didn't say he wasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL LIFE IS SACRED! screams the anti-abortion crazies... Until you are born.

      Then you're on your own chump. Pay up if you want to live.

      You need medical care? Tough shit.

      Yeah. Looks like he picked the right time to leave.. He got to live long enough to see money be king and humans to be worth nothing. That is something to see for sure. Not a good thing. But something to see.

      With money being everything. It's not that great to stay unless you're really rich.

      Time to leave. 60 years is a good run. And you got to see alot of good out of humanity. And alot of terrible evil. But pay to play gets old.

    3. Re:I didn't say he wasn't by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, we are not God. Even with unlimited funds he was in a long path towards being a drooling lump of flesh.

    4. Re:I didn't say he wasn't by fatphil · · Score: 1

      He explicitly says that his reasons are not health related.
      He also explicitly claims to be plenty wealthy.
      He explicitly says that he wished to have command over the time and manner of his death, that's all. It was an empowering move, nothing else, and in my opinion a successful one at that.

      It seems as if you're commenting without having read the pages this article is about.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    5. Re:I didn't say he wasn't by Raenex · · Score: 1

      He explicitly says that his reasons are not health related.

      So he does, but he was in the early stages of dementia, and that was the overriding factor, so he contradicted himself. Not that I blame the guy, health care wasn't going to save him, and he had other reasons too.

  50. It's not that simple by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it would have taken years of preventative maintenance and care. With the way things are set up today it's too expensive for anyone but the very wealthy to get that care.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is wrong.

      I've read a lot about Alzheimer's, including all of the recent literature. You're simply making stuff up. Stop it. Seriously. Pretending to know something is worse than simply not knowing!

  51. No Excuse by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    I hope that someone at Yahoo has a heart and will reconsider removing Martin Manley's website. Or is it so terrible for someone to express their feelings to others, whether they're talking face to face or they put up a webpage? You would think that techno geeks would be more encouraging of open dialogue or are they just in it for the money?

  52. The man had Alzheimers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote from http://zeroshare.info/why_suicide

    I began seeing the problems that come with aging some time ago. I was sick of leaving the garage door open overnight. I was sick of forgetting to zip up when I put on my pants. I was sick of forgetting the names of my best friends. I was sick of going downstairs and having no idea why. I was sick of watching a movie, going to my account on IMDB to type up a review and realizing I've already seen it and, worse, already written a review! I was sick of having to dig through the trash to find an envelope that was sent to me so I could remember my own address - especially since I lived in the same place for the last nine years!

  53. Euthanasia, Martin and a bogus treasure hunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In speech class we had to pick a subject for my finial grade, I pick euthanasia. I think it was mentioned
    as example, as I hadn't really thought of it before.

    In a shower moment, a feeling of epiphany if you will, I had my core:

    The anti abortionist claimed the child has no choice in the matter of their abortion. Well that child has grown up and has made a choice to end their life,
    it should be respected.

    Good or bad I was pleased with it and passed the course.

    Martin made the choice and shared with us moments that meant enough to him to pass on, Yahoo desecrated both his choice and his memories.

    The treasure hunt was in bad taste and I feel could of been the reason his work was removed (at the insistence of the police dept).
      A large X across the page, details blocked out and it being called a hoax should of sufficed; censorship yes but the alternative is this discussion.

  54. Re:good for him! by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

    What I could understand from the website, that would be something that mattered to him. Except he didn't do it in front of witness because he didn't want anybody having to face that, yet he did call 911 before doing so. In theory (that is, what he says he was planning at his website), he would be found rather quickly, by prepared people.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  55. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. You forgot to write 'WARNING TRIGGER' in the subject field.

    Oh. I see, you were not really concern about PTSD but simply wanted to be a smart ass.

  56. Website Backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like some kind soul has put up a mirror: http://www.ussolutions.net/martin/backup/

  57. Wow! by santosh.k83 · · Score: 1

    What a narcissist! Ironic as well...

  58. Re:good for him! by santosh.k83 · · Score: 1

    This is sad. With the state of medicine these days, I doubt there'll be the amount of physical suffering you imagine you'll suffer, and as for the mental angle...

  59. If you read his blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He states he was suffering from dementia.

  60. Re:good for him! by Cruciform · · Score: 2

    I'm going to use a tank of Nitrogen and put on some good music.
    I'll end up feeling happy and die in a matter of minutes.

    (Not now, when I'm older, and don't have pets and don't want to go to a home)

  61. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody that's going to be triggered like that would have already been triggered. This entire comment field is full of triggers. Oh, wait, you weren't actually concerned about people being triggered, you were just wanting to be a jack ass.

    Just because you know the word "trigger" does not mean you know jack shit about what it means. It's not really much of a trigger if it's buried 4/5 of the way down a page full of similar comments. It's certainly unlikely that somebody would randomly flick down the page and find the least likely to trigger post to be triggered by.

  62. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The irony of this didn't escape me. It did absolutely nothing to hurt the Yahoo brand to leave this website up. It was even the expected behavior, by passively doing absolutely nothing they would have done more good for their brand.

    Instead, they took deliberate action to cause predictable harm to themselves by undermining market confidence that they are capable of providing reliable service consistent with their contractual obligations!

    Yahoo is dying on the table, bleeding out essentially, and they decide to grab a scalpel and carve on themselves? WTF is Yahoo thinking?

  63. Yahoo Terms of Service by davide+marney · · Score: 2

    "No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability. You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted."

    Open and shut, IMHO. Yahoo is just following its terms.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  64. Re:good for him! by Kjella · · Score: 2

    By the time you know you've got Alzheimers, it's too late to consider suicide.

    No. Highly recommended to get perspective on things.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  65. Re:Yahoo definitely wrong choice. Or was it? by dbs1uk · · Score: 1

    I would guess that the more reliable way of setting this up would be through a separate entity managed, and officially owned, by someone else. Would be interesting to see if this is a service that could be offered by solicitors, essentially as an extension to your will? Or, perhaps find someone you trust to own and manage payments for the site.

  66. Hey Yahoo! by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    Fuck you.

  67. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought something along those lines too.

  68. He was heard to say: by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "They'll shut down my pre-paid legacy account over my dead body!"

    1. Re:He was heard to say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh such a dilemma here - do I mod up as Funny or down as Troll?

  69. What does the contract say? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is it void if the the party dies? If so, yahoo is in the legal right to do so ( tho uncool ).

    Most often contracts do terminate in some fashion, when the parties terminate.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  70. Yahoo has a thing against Dead people by crossmr · · Score: 1

    This is just a phase Yahoo is going through. Yesterday they informed me, like it was a good thing, that they had gone in and edited my address book without my permission and deleted an entry belonging to a friend who passed away many years ago. I think it's pretty clear that Yahoo seems to have some kind of hate on for dead people and legacy accounts. Thanks yahoo! I'll be sure not to die while using your service.

  71. Anonymous mirrored his site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous has mirrored his site.

    To hell with Yahoo's policies.

    www.martinmanley.org

  72. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also you're some sorta queer transbeast, might as well do it sooner than later.

  73. Small hosting firms FTW by skaag · · Score: 1

    Because at the end of the day, values and respect do not come from corporate entities. They come from people, they are between people. That's how it's always been, and that's how it always shall be.

    In other words: If he hosted it with me, I would respect his wishes, because I'm a person, not a corporation. His web site would still be up, and his web site would not make Slashdot news.

    --

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

  74. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overdosing isn't a clean death. There's always the chance you'll puke it all up and die in agony as your poisoned organs slowly shutdown. Inject it and you could miss the vain. Now instead of a massive sudden dose it'll slowly leach your bloodstream.

    Shooting yourself in the head works almost all of the time, especially if there isn't someone right there to help with the blood loss. There's other ways that are less violent, but I'm not going to write a how to. I've attempted suicide twice by methods that left things to a little chance (on purpose). There are many many ways to kill yourself. Do research before you decide. Some of the longer methods are more humane than lots of pain and a normally quick death. A suicide is hard to correct when things go wrong.

  75. New yahoo jingle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Martin, **** you! Yahooooooooooooooo.

  76. I got some of it by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Today is August 15, 2013. Today is my 60th birthday. Today is the last day of my life. Today, I committed suicide. Today, is the first day this site is active, but it will be here for years to come. Release of rights. Before I get into the nuts and bolts of this site, I first must say to those whom I have a special bond with, please don't think that I didn't consider your feelings. I'm sorry... very sorry for the hurt and pain I will have caused by my actions. In all probability, I won't be able to justify it to you - at least not today. Maybe someday you will come to understand... better. If not today, maybe someday you will be able to read what I've said and learn why. Maybe someday you will be able to forgive me. I love you! This site is divided into two major categories. The first is the suicide. The second is my life. To the left side of this page, you will see categories. Under some of them are subcategories. You can click and read anything you want. My life is an open book now that I’ve closed the book on my life. It’s important for me to have written quite a bit about my decision to commit suicide because it’s rarely been done. I assume the people I know would want to understand it better and I’m sure there are people out there who study suicide that would like to study mine – so I’ve left nothing to the imagination. It’s all here. I debated the idea of having the suicide (death) categories at the top above the life categories or at the bottom of the left side of the page. After all, chronologically, we live and then we die. But, which is more important the life or the death? I couldn’t decide that one was more important than the other at this moment in time and so I put the suicide categories on top because it's the headline, the 11:00 news lead. Besides, the suicide categories will reveal some things that nobody knows about me while the life categories have stuff in them that at least some people know. Having decided to put the suicide stuff first, it is technically something that took a very tiny amount of time to do - contrary to my life experiences which took a lifetime. So, what I hope will happen in the long run is that my life is remembered and the suicide is just an asterisk, a footnote. After all, we all die. The way we died doesn’t change one little thing about the way we lived. When remembering anyone who has passed on, hopefully it is the life that is recalled and not the death. So, if you want to understand everything I have to say about my death - simply read the first 12 categories on the list to the left - especially Suicide Preface. If you want to know what I have to say about my life, read the next 34 categories and 44 subcategories. I've tried to present them in some kind of order that makes sense, but you can read anything you want in whatever order you want. I just hope you will read it. I think it is fair to say that I owe you (assuming "you" are someone that I know) an explanation. It's unfair to rob someone of something they love or even like or even know without an explanation. Having said that, you also owe me. You owe me the time it takes to understand why I did what I did without prejudging. I've done my part. The rest is up to you. If you opt to not read it, then I'm tempted to say "You can't handle the truth!"... but won't. I discovered that I was often writing in the present tense as well as the past tense, so I decided I would write in the past tense for the death categories - except for the next two categories (January 1, 2012 and June 11, 2012), but present tense for the life categories. At least that will be the norm. Lastly, at some point in reading this site you would have asked whether I was ultimately satisfied with my life, so I decided this was the best place to address it. I suspect nobody is completely satisfied and I'm no different. No, I wasn't fully satisifed with my life, but I was fully satisfied with my death! "If death meant just leaving the stage long enough to change costume and come back as a new character, would you slow down? Or speed up?" -- Chuck Palahniuk In case this is of any help to anyone, coping with suicide. Martin

  77. What happens to the money? by singingjim1 · · Score: 1

    Does his estate get a refund?

  78. How we treat aging and old by MrKaos · · Score: 1
    I think this guy planning to suicide tells us a lot about ourselves as a society and how we treat aging. What is old anyway? Is there some magic line you cross and then you are old. If that's the case I think that age is 19. If you are over 19 years old, you are old because the whole thing is relative anyway.

    What does it say about us? Inevitably we will get old so, surely, it's in our own interests to treat old people well.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:How we treat aging and old by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, says nothing. a certain percentage of people commit suicide for a certain common list of reasons. nothing to see here, been true a thousand years ago and true now

  79. Re:good for him! by Sir+Holo · · Score: 4, Informative

    This little quote from the guy's site:

    The thought of being in a nursing home, physically or mentally disabled, was the single scariest thing I had ever thought about

    This is exactly what I've been thinking for years now...

    I worked as a nurses' aide in a nursing home one college during summer. (Nurses' Aide = butt-wiper.) It was a depressing, terrifying job. Most "residents" had bed-pads because they couldn't get up to go poo. We had:

    * A woman who had long lost her mind, was cemented in a fetal position, and regularly coded. Staff had to restart her heart each time, because she had no living relatives or living will.
    * A woman who had long lost control of her body, but not her mind, and was just never visited by any of her children.
    * The many who would be tied down to their bed, to prevent them from getting up and wandering around.
    * The profoundly retarded girl (36 yo) that staff would purposely put into (rigid) seizure, in order to make it easier to change her bedding.
    * The Alzheimer's woman who thought I was her son. When she'd be combative to other staff, they'd have me ask her, "please mom, just eat this pudding," which had sleep meds mixed in.
    * Bedsores.
    * And Golda, senile and assumed incapable of coherent speech. Staff were just to lazy to listen between the word salad and half-words. She eventually spoke a full sentence to me ("I need to go to the bathroom"), the only one in five years, I was told. I took her in, stepped away, and she had her first taste of freedom in years.

    Needless to say, I will not allow myself to fall into such a situation in infirmity. Adult children of old people –– Your parent knows that living alone at home, doing what s/he wishes to do, may suffer a fatal fall or similar in their home. They are probably at peace with this. Don't let your own fear of personal, potential guilt lead you to essentially put your aging parent in a white-walled jail for their remaining years. Would you want to spend your last 10 years of life in a bed, with only a TV to keep you company?

  80. What's Yahoo? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    Maybe it just felt too close to home for Yahoo.

    Yahoo should choose the same path, as it's clear that they've been spiraling down for many years now.

  81. Re:good for him! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    I really dont understand people who only think of life and death in terms of $. I would go to the ends of the earth for my loved ones, money be damned.

    --
    Good-bye
  82. Re:good for him! by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

    Well, then, think of it this way: Shooting yourself in public in front of the police station means they are spared the pain of uncertainty about what has happened to you.

    Money - treated properly - is only a proxy for other things. It is a quantifiable measure of time and effort. Do you want people to spend time and effort worrying about whether you have killed yourself, where your body is, what's happened to it, etc., or do you want them to know the answers - even if they don't like them? That's the choice we are discussing. It's a bit easier to discuss in terms of money - but that doesn't mean I'm thinking of it that way.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  83. Y No Mention of the Silver Coins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the original site, he listed coordinates in Kansas City with the location of buried treasure. Why has no one gone there yet?

  84. Re:good for him! by steelfood · · Score: 1

    If there's anything I've learned from being alive, it's that modern dying is about the most painful, horrific thing you'll likely ever experience in your lifetime. Death is quick and painless, but dying is the complete opposite. More than likely, you'll spend weeks, months, even years bedridden, wasting away in a hospice or assisted care facility until your body finally gives up. If you're lucky, you fall and it all ends in a few days, maybe a week or two. If you're not, you'll be stuck dying for years (technically, we're all dying since the day we're born, but by dying, I mean becoming more and more invalid physically and mentally).

    Suicide can be folly, and I strongly believe is foolish for most of a person's life. However, suicide means you get to chose the time and manner of death. And even for the empowered, with everything to live for and every reason to keep living, it can be a blessing compared to the alternative. Personally, if given the choice, I'd rather have a meaningful death (e.g. rescuing a cat from a tree) than a senseless one (e.g. ODing on pain meds). But chances are, I won't be so lucky.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  85. yahoo will delete all your email after one year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you don't login for a year, they will delete all your email content. so don't end up in a coma or forget to check it once in a while.

  86. Re:Yahoo definitely wrong choice. Or was it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a man who made a living with his words, maybe he should have read the TOS

    Perhaps he did and that was what finally pushed him over the edge?

    CAPTCHA: daisies, morbidly appropriate

  87. Re:good for him! by worf_mo · · Score: 3, Informative

    On his website he describes why he chose this method and place. He wanted to make sure that it did work and did not simply leave him in a vegetative state (hence the firearm), did not cause any harm to other people (5 AM at a police station's parking lot - the coordinates are on his website), and he placed a suicide call to the police before killing himself to make sure that his body would immediately be found by someone professionally trained to handle the situation. I love life way too much to think about suicide, but apparently this gentleman put a lot of thought into it and wanted to make sure he caused the least possible harm.

  88. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story (and your discussion of a cutoff age) sounds a lot like the plot of ST TNG: S4 E22, where David Ogden Stiers's character Timicin refuses to oppose the tradition where everyone on the planet Kaelon II performs the Resolution ceremony (i.e. commits suicide) on their 60th birthday -- especially the part where Deanna Troi's mother Lwaxana Troi (aka Gene Roddenberry's RL wife Majel Barrett) pleads with him, insisting that he is still in perfect health -AND- that he's the only one capable of saving his planet from sure destruction.

  89. Re:good for him! by fatphil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've made a dear friend promise that she will help me get what I need for the last hobby I take up when I feel I'm getting old - heroin-and-handgliding. Gonna go out with a splat!

    Suicide and euthenasia are ancient taboos, with a strong religious influence propping that view up in the supposedly modern day. A truly enlightened populace would be able to maturely address, and deal with, such issues as simple life choices.

    "Checking out today sir?"
    "Yes, thanks; I've enjoyed my stay".

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  90. Re:good for him! by fatphil · · Score: 1

    You should compare the various methods in the alt.suicide.holiday "Methods" file.

    Another internet (albeit usenet, rather than web, originally) resource that was famously censored - repeatedly. And, true to form, the internet viewed censorship as damage, and routed around it.

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  91. Thats OUR thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems strange that Yahoo of all companies should have a problem with suicide.

  92. Re:good for him! by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 0

    Heroin and a holiday to Iceland for me - I'm going to be really chill about it ^^

  93. Bad Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have had yahoo for a long time, and I don't really like them anymore. I deleted google because they are getting really bad, and I don't agree with the way they run their company anymore. I just wish I had the ability to work in linux administration, and I didn't accidently kill my computers because of my declining mind and body. I want to just host my own email.

  94. UK mirror by eneville · · Score: 0

    Mirrored in UK, http://martin-manley.s5h.net/. Yahoo when you die, maybe AOL will mirror your content.

  95. Re:good for him! by vux984 · · Score: 1

    That just because you can't have something, it's somehow virtuous not to want it.

    Virtuous to not want it? Or just a pointless waste of time to express that you do want it, before getting around to suggesting a "compromise" option that is at least plausibly consistent with the physics of the known universe, and has a reasonable probability of actually happening.

    You know, to save us all time.

  96. Re:good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't host the email account with Yahoo Mail !

  97. he should've incorporated.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and used it as a proxy to own the account. After all, the the supreme court upheld corporations as having the same rights as people....right?

  98. Wanted a Reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has the death been (actually) confirmed? Has the family made any statment about it? Publicy?

    The man sounded exceptionally resourceful. Any chance he 'faked' this suicide, in an effort to start a new (last phase of) life? (I think of the Andy Dufresne character from Shawshank Redemption). Maybe he set himself up a whole new life in a New Zealand backwater or some such. Dunno, just a thought.

    Aside from Suicide, I think this idea of simply 'ending' your current life (figuratively) and restarting anew is something many people secretly desire, although you'd never get them to admit it out loud in normal conversation. Rebirth, rejuvenation, reboot, Phoenix-metaphors lie deep at the heart of (at least) the American Experience (well, or used to in a certain era).

  99. contractual obligations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a person prepays for something, and dies during the contract, then it must be honored because payment was made. How does prepaying for your own funeral services work? Should they also be allowed to cancel the contract because you are no longer living?

  100. Yahoo is a toilet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo is a toilet. Why is anyone surprised?

  101. ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The content does, but the publishing contract ends. A dead person can not be part in a contract. "

    I wish someone would explain this to the Walt Disney Company.

  102. Reminds me of Arthur Koestler by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Who decided to do the same thing, but because of Parkinson's. Unfortunately, his wife Cynthia did the same thing, because she simply couldn't imagine going on without him...

  103. I'm glad there's a mirror. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    And that he left this record for the world.

    Of particular interest to me is the "Living Donor" section of the mirrored site. I hope people will read it and start asking some hard questions of the people responsible for our organ donation system. It's broken and needs to be fixed.

    There's a lot on the site. This was a person that was trying to do some good at the end of his life - I respect that. I respect him.

  104. so where is site now cached at? by raorajesh · · Score: 1

    ... or did I miss it somewhere here?

    1. Re:so where is site now cached at? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.zeroshare.info/

      I found it to be an interesting read, however YMMV.

      enjoy :o)

  105. Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the guy prepaid, the least Yahoo can do is refund the estate. I agree though that continuing to host the data opens them up to all sorts of imaginative litigation.

  106. Re:Yahoo definitely wrong choice. Or was it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem is, they have done it without his death certificate.

  107. the part i don't understand: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he paid yahoo. people do that?

  108. Re:good for him! by fatphil · · Score: 1

    Good plan! If I don't manage to get to Iceland before I die, maybe I should plan to get to iceland as I die!

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  109. im gonna blame by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    marissa meyer for that, this is an outrage against freedom of expression, i really thought you were the shit, girl

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?