You should make the determination as to whether the words warrant legal action and if you believe that you were harmed by the false words, you have the right to sue for damages. In this case, the government, not the individuals allegedly harmed, is considering suing him criminally and put him in jail along with murderers, rapists, robbers, etc. This is not about libel. It is about censorship in its worst form (censorship under the guise of protecting the populace).
This is not a libel case at all. This is about censorship. This town wants to send a clear message to everyone that saying terrible things (no matter how true or how laughably and ridiculously unplausible) about it and its established residents (especially if the speaker is an outsider) will not be tolerated. Just read the article carefully. If they go through with it, this will be the first prosecution under this particular criminal libel statute. Criminal punishment for libel and slander are usually associated with countries like China, Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba and Iran. It is pretty astounding that such laws have not been struck down by the Supreme Court already, perhaps because there has not been a test case yet since prosecutors in real cities and states have better things to do with their time than prosecuting people for criminal libel, such as going after murderers and robbers.
I am glad that you had the chance to see the "unpleasant" side of a totalitarian society. It is amusing to see so many people, who have never lived a day of their lives in a dictatorship or totalitarian state, posting messages about how terrible and frightening their political and economic systems really are. I grew up in a slum in Brazil in the 70's when the military controlled the government. Back then, most "police officers" were essentially federal soldiers and I vividly remember how they routinely rounded up certain regular criminals and certain "leftist elements" such as union organizers and put them into police trucks and how most of these people simply "disappeared." The current Chinese government makes the Latin American dictatorships during their "anti-communist" internal war campaigns seem benevolent and liberal by comparison.
You are a simpleton. The world is not as simple as the world that your childish mind has created for you. Although it is moronic to suggest that "government controls everything" in a coummunist country, it is true that political and economic powers are generally more concentrated in a communist system. In a capitalist system, political and economic powers may (but are not necessarily) be dispersed. If "big business controls everything' in capitalism, anti-trust cases against Microsoft, IBM, AT&T and Standard Oil would never be brought. Furthermore, do you know anything about labor unions, consumer advocates, public interest groups, ambulance chasing lawyers, etc? Groups such as these wield a significant amount of power in the U.S. version of capitalism.
If you don't know the difference between governmental action and private action, you are an idiot. As much as one may fear the power of the Microsofts and the IBMs, the government has, and frequently does, exercise its power to imprison and kill you legally whereas private parties do not have such power legally in this country.
Stopping Microsoft from abusing its monopolist position by prohibiting the abusive actions which damage Microsoft competitors is one thing. But breaking up the company may well result in a drastic devaluation of the company, as evidenced by the recent fall of the price company's stock in anticipation of the breakup ruling. The Constitution forbids the government from taking property (even if such taking is for the public good) without compensation. No matter how you cut it, the type of breakup being proposed for a tech company like Microsoft amounts to taking of private property for the purpose of public good. Is the government prepared to compensate Microsoft's shareholders for the devaluation?
And you must be from one of those countries where (i) people must rely solely on political favours bestowed by bureaucrats and politicians to protect themselves and their property because your judicial system is a joke and (ii) people are too ignorant, stupid and/or dirt-poor to care about respecting and protecting intellectual property.
AOL is a very powerful player in the online world, especially among mass consumers who are technologically inexperienced and/or view online communications as just another form of communication (these people value simplicity and ease of use above almost everything, which explains why AOL is so popular with them). However, AOL is not nearly as powerful as Microsoft is in the desktop arena. Microsoft controls almost 90% of all desktop PCs. AOL's share of internet users around the world is probably not even 10%. In fact, you could make a strong case that AOL users are not real representatives of internet users since they seem to spend around 80% of their online life within the AOL' proprietary areas.
Slashdot Mirror
And the truth is that Moody cannot read or add. Number of OS Vulnerabilities by Year OS 1997 1998 1999 2000 AIX 20 38 10 3 BSD (aggr.) 8 8 26 7 BSD/OS 6 5 4 0 BeOS 0 0 0 4 Debian 2 2 29 5 FreeBSD 4 2 18 6 HP-UX 8 5 7 4 IRIX 26 13 8 3 Linux (aggr.) 10 23 84 30 MacOS 0 1 5 0 MacOS X Server 0 0 1 0 NetBSD 1 4 10 3 Netware 0 0 4 1 OpenBSD 1 2 4 2 RedHat 5 10 38 17 SCO Unix 1 3 9 2 Slackware 3 8 10 0 Solaris 24 31 34 7 SuSE 0 0 21 5 Unixware 0 3 14 2 Windows 3.1x/95/98 1 1 46 13 Windows NT 4 6 99 37
You should make the determination as to whether the words warrant legal action and if you believe that you were harmed by the false words, you have the right to sue for damages. In this case, the government, not the individuals allegedly harmed, is considering suing him criminally and put him in jail along with murderers, rapists, robbers, etc. This is not about libel. It is about censorship in its worst form (censorship under the guise of protecting the populace).
This is not a libel case at all. This is about censorship. This town wants to send a clear message to everyone that saying terrible things (no matter how true or how laughably and ridiculously unplausible) about it and its established residents (especially if the speaker is an outsider) will not be tolerated. Just read the article carefully. If they go through with it, this will be the first prosecution under this particular criminal libel statute. Criminal punishment for libel and slander are usually associated with countries like China, Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba and Iran. It is pretty astounding that such laws have not been struck down by the Supreme Court already, perhaps because there has not been a test case yet since prosecutors in real cities and states have better things to do with their time than prosecuting people for criminal libel, such as going after murderers and robbers.
I am glad that you had the chance to see the "unpleasant" side of a totalitarian society. It is amusing to see so many people, who have never lived a day of their lives in a dictatorship or totalitarian state, posting messages about how terrible and frightening their political and economic systems really are. I grew up in a slum in Brazil in the 70's when the military controlled the government. Back then, most "police officers" were essentially federal soldiers and I vividly remember how they routinely rounded up certain regular criminals and certain "leftist elements" such as union organizers and put them into police trucks and how most of these people simply "disappeared." The current Chinese government makes the Latin American dictatorships during their "anti-communist" internal war campaigns seem benevolent and liberal by comparison.
You really should stop believing everything that you read in the Enquirer and World Weekly News.
You are a simpleton. The world is not as simple as the world that your childish mind has created for you. Although it is moronic to suggest that "government controls everything" in a coummunist country, it is true that political and economic powers are generally more concentrated in a communist system. In a capitalist system, political and economic powers may (but are not necessarily) be dispersed. If "big business controls everything' in capitalism, anti-trust cases against Microsoft, IBM, AT&T and Standard Oil would never be brought. Furthermore, do you know anything about labor unions, consumer advocates, public interest groups, ambulance chasing lawyers, etc? Groups such as these wield a significant amount of power in the U.S. version of capitalism.
If you don't know the difference between governmental action and private action, you are an idiot. As much as one may fear the power of the Microsofts and the IBMs, the government has, and frequently does, exercise its power to imprison and kill you legally whereas private parties do not have such power legally in this country.
Stopping Microsoft from abusing its monopolist position by prohibiting the abusive actions which damage Microsoft competitors is one thing. But breaking up the company may well result in a drastic devaluation of the company, as evidenced by the recent fall of the price company's stock in anticipation of the breakup ruling. The Constitution forbids the government from taking property (even if such taking is for the public good) without compensation. No matter how you cut it, the type of breakup being proposed for a tech company like Microsoft amounts to taking of private property for the purpose of public good. Is the government prepared to compensate Microsoft's shareholders for the devaluation?
And you must be from one of those countries where (i) people must rely solely on political favours bestowed by bureaucrats and politicians to protect themselves and their property because your judicial system is a joke and (ii) people are too ignorant, stupid and/or dirt-poor to care about respecting and protecting intellectual property.
AOL is a very powerful player in the online world, especially among mass consumers who are technologically inexperienced and/or view online communications as just another form of communication (these people value simplicity and ease of use above almost everything, which explains why AOL is so popular with them). However, AOL is not nearly as powerful as Microsoft is in the desktop arena. Microsoft controls almost 90% of all desktop PCs. AOL's share of internet users around the world is probably not even 10%. In fact, you could make a strong case that AOL users are not real representatives of internet users since they seem to spend around 80% of their online life within the AOL' proprietary areas.
Let's see. Windows CE-based palmtops and mobile phones which, at least for now, use Iridium... I hope that they order extra body bags...