Mixed Signals: Is There A Broadband Price War? Is It A New Thing?

No One Is Obligated To Take Down Perfectly Legal Content You Don't Like

from the just-so-you-know... dept

Wed, Sep 3rd 2008 4:59am — Mike Masnick

We get angry requests every so often, demanding that this or that comment be removed from Techdirt because someone doesn't like the content of the comment. However, unless the content is illegal, there is no obligation to remove that content. Unfortunately, many people don't see it that way. They seem to think that, if they don't like any particular content (especially when it has to do with them specifically), it must be removed. Unfortunately, it seems that those who should know better are perpetrating this myth. I recently came across an "advice" column in the UK where a young girl asks the columnist what she should do about an embarrassing photo of her found online, and the columnist responds:

YOU can email YouTube or wherever the photograph appeared and ask them to remove it, which they are obliged to do.

Of course, beyond the fact that YouTube hosts videos, not photos, this advice is simply incorrect. The site is under no obligation to remove the photo unless it's a copyright violation -- and since the girl did not take the photo, she doesn't own the copyright on it. Sure, perhaps it's too much to expect an advice columnist to understand such things, but this is how these myths continue to live on, when supposedly knowledgeable people give advice that is completely false.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: obligations, takedowns

75 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 5:12am

WTF . . . . ?
I have been envolved with forums (and later blogs) since before the web had images. I have seen the trend over the last decade of people complaining about being "offended" more and more by the speech of others (of course also attempting to get that speech silenced). What I would like to know, is where in the HELL people think this right to go through life un-offended comes from? I dont get it and I never have?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 5:14am

What many people simply do not understand including the US Congress, the US Court System, the Spanish Court system, the court system in Holland and the UK is the concept of independence expressed in the US Declaration of Independence where the US stopped being subject to UK law. This is expressed most diametrically in the following Pirates Bay exchange shown on their legal page.

Dear Peter,

I'm referring to the Digital Millineum Copyright act. We have tracked over 250 thousand downloads of the album in question on torrent sites globally. Many of the sites
have removed the link as per our request over the past year. Your reluctancy to remove the link is incomprehensible. Happily you aren't as popular as Minnova and bit-torrent. I am simply requesting that you remove the URL
link to the torrent. I am giving you notice as to prevent any copyright infringement.

As you are aware , the DMCA, does not grant blanket protection from copyright infringement liability. The service provider may not take advantage of the DMCA's safe harbor provision if:

1. The service provider has actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
2. The service provider is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
3. The service provider does not expeditiously remove or disable access to the material upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness of the infringing material.

In addition, if the service provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and if the service provider receives a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, the service provider
will not be protected by Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If the service provider satisfies the above requirements of the DMCA and receives a proper notice of infringing material, the service provider must
expeditiously remove or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

I am a millionaire and do not claim to be bankrupt. Your opinion is not necessary or relevent to my request that you remove the URL.

Thank you,

Indiana Gregg

from bkp
to Indy
date Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM
subject Re: Response From a Pirate Torrent Site - Something has to be done now ! ......Re: TPB: Legal threats

Oh my, this is such a treat. You keep on surprising me with more and more displays of stupidity.

Let's go back to the basics.
1) TPB follows Swedish law, the country where we live
2) DMCA is an american law
3) Sweden is not a part of the United States
4) TPB has no connection to United States and hence does not follow US law

Is that understood? Ok, great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 3 Sep 2008 @ 5:57am

Not Obligated!
Why do people think they have a God given right to not be offended? This is a BIG world with LOTS of points-of-view and if one of those views does not sit well with you: DEAL WITH IT! Rest assured one or more of your views offends someone!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alphager, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:00am

Just so you know, Mike
There exist jurisdictions which do not follow US law.
In most european countries, you retain the right of personality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:08am

makes sense to me!
I dont like Techdirt.

TAKE IT DOWN!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:09am

Re: Just so you know, Mike
Quite so, although I think you're not allowed to profit from commercial use of someone's image without their consent (IANAL though). I'd be interested if given the lack of 'safe harbours' provisions this side of the pond that could include service providers being liable - hopefully not, but technophobe judges making detrimental decisions on issues they don't understand is hardly an uncommon phenomenon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:14am

Not the same law everywhere
First of all, the lady does say "YOU can email YouTube or wherever..."

And article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects "the right to respect private and family life".

Generally speaking one can only publish photos of private people without consent in the context of a newsworthy story...

So, um, yep, YouTube (or whoever) would have to take down the photo if it was complained about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:18am

Not obligated, but...
You're right. They are certainly not obligated, and the columnist made a mistake there. However, it never hurts to request it, anyway. This was not an inflammatory comment, but rather an embarrassing picture of the herself. Does she have a legal right to force it down? No. But she can certainly request it, anyway, and the service provider may comply.

On another note, if the picture was taken without her permission, there may be an illegal privacy violation on the part of the poster. She should not be going after the service provider, but she may actually have legal rights against the poster, just not those that the columnist suggested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YesNoMan, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:20am

Was she photographed on public or private property?

"Filming while on private property follows many restrictions. The owner of the property is permitted to film their own property. However, they must receive permission from others on the property to be allowed to film that person."

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:26am

not quite correct
lets keep it simple here

short and long answer: public photo = public presence. Don't like photos there, don't go there. Otherwise, if you're in a photo, too bad.

People don't seem to get that about their rights/lack of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:26am

Re: Not the same law everywhere
"So, um, yep, YouTube (or whoever) would have to take down the photo if it was complained about."

Firstly, why do you believe YOUTUBE is subject to an agreement among European countries? Also, can you demonstrate in what way this image doesn't respect "the right to private and family life"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Angry Mob, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:30am

makes sense to me! by Anonymous Coward - Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:08am
Dear Techdirt administrators,

It has recently come to my attention that a Mr "makes sense to me!" has been posting defamatory thoughts in the comment sections of your website.

I am writing to request that you remove the offending comments forewith as I happen to take them rather personally. i am a big fan of the Techdirt website and i will not "stand idly by" and let a crass young man such as "makes sense to me!" come in a ruin my experience.

I know that you do not recieve any funding directly from me and that i have no input into your business, but as a busy body of the highest stature i will take it extremely personally if you do not comply with my request.

If the comment is not removed by the end of the day (02.09.2008) i will be forced to write to your ISP and have your site removed from internet explorer.

Yours sincerely,

Angry Mob
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAtt, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:38am

Re: Not the same law everywhere
What if the photo is hosted on a US-based web server? The protections from which she benefits in her country do not apply here just the same as our laws do not apply in her country.
There certainly is a growing trend in America - and I suspect abroad, as well - of people who think they have an inalienable right to get their way all the time. If ten million people want something that 11 million people don't want, it isn't going to happen and those 10 million people need to just accept it. Unfortunately the trend in adults is to kick and scream like children until they get their way.
More to the point of this article, the internet challenges our traditional ethical and legal standards in a way which was perhaps anticipated but definitely not fully understood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Twinrova, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:43am

Pictures of people are a bit different than blog entries.
A while ago, someone I knew posted a picture of some of his friends on MySpace. One of the pictured protested and asked the picture be removed, but the "owner" said no.

Turns out this wasn't a good decision, as the offended quickly contacted the family lawyer who sent a letter stating since the subject was under 18 and did not give consent, the image was to be removed or legal consequences would ensue.

This is where I got involved and it seems the law is iffy when it comes to pictures posted of those who don't want them. After consulting with several lawyers, I got several different responses (including one stating the under 18 law doesn't pertain unless the subject is nude, which she wasn't).

For the most part, I do agree if your image is plastered all over the web and you don't like it, you've just got to deal with it (it'll only last 15 minutes until the next image takes to these attention-deficit web surfers).

I'm curious to know if there is some protection of people's images on a legal standpoint, regardless of age. Anyone know?

It never hurts to ask the image be removed (without threat of legal recourse) and one will just have to deal if the answer returned is "No".

Mike, care to take down the useless ads on Techdirt? They offend me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
boost, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:52am

Re: WTF . . . . ?
Aparently, those forums (and later blogs) did not afford you adequate knoweledge of english grammar and/or spelling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:56am

Here's the deal
Kissing someone in a public setting with one's knickers showing makes it a defacto public matter. One cannot then claim privacy rights after the fact.

If she didn't want people knowing she kissed "the lad", she shouldn't have kissed him in front of her high school, especially not if someone was waving a camera around.

The word "duh" comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:05am

Please don't write newsposts about Joan Burnie. She's a belligerent old misandrist with Victorian morals. She knows literally nothing about life in the 21st century, and she only keeps her job by virtue of having been there for fifty years.

Honest to god, you're talking about a woman who wrote a full-page obituary when her dog died.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:11am

Re: Just so you know, Mike
I couldn't get by your text if you were saying that YouTube is breaking "THE LAW" (assuming the letter is sent and YouTube doesn't remove it).

So if you are saying that they would be because of UK law, then YouTube (last I checked) was has it's HQ in the US. Therefore, US laws apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:13am

Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
"Unfortunately the trend in adults is to kick and scream like children until they get their way."

Mainly with Americans.

(and just for the record, I am one and I'm embarrassed almost every time I see stories like this)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:15am

Re: not quite correct
I agree. But I think that he was saying that she can request it be taken down and YouTube doesn't need to comply.

Also, if she wasn't in a public place (perhaps a peeping tom), then it would be something that is illegal in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:16am

Re: makes sense to me! by Anonymous Coward - Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:08am
"i will be forced to write to your ISP and have your site removed from internet explorer."

Thank goodness I use Firefox. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward #42, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:16am

I agree that the statement is incorrect. The hosts are not obligated to take down said content, since there is no law stating they must. However, that doesn't mean somebody can't submit a takedown request to a site. If somebody were to somehow take a very embarrassing picture of me and post it online, I would probably contact the site owner and ask to have it removed. Hopefully whoever reviews the request would have the decency to comply, even though they're not obligated. It's all about context, people. Sometimes things should be done regardless of whether a law states they must be done or not, and it's up to us to determine what the right thing is to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sgt99999, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:24am

The girl does have publicity rights
The girl who wrote the advice column may not own the copyright of the photo but she does have publicity rights in her own image. Unless it was a photo of something newsworthy, she probably does have the right to have the photo taken down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:26am

Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
Aparently, those forums (and later blogs) did not afford you adequate knoweledge of english grammar and/or spelling.

LOL no, but the grammar nazis have ALWAYS been with us. I guess it makes that English degree at least slightly less useless =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:28am

Re:
Ok.. So let me ask you this..

You have a new kid and you post a baby picture online of your kid because he/she is so beautiful and such.

I come along and say, "Hey.. I think that's the most ugly baby I've ever seen" and I email your provider saying that the picture is of my kid and I want it taken down.

Put yourself in the shoes of the provider. Is it easier to leave the picture up or take the time to verify that the picture is actually yours?

What if (because it's the "right" thing to do) you decide to take it down. You now have someone emailing you telling you to put it back up. You seriously can't win in that situation.

Ok.. Now multiply that for every YouTube video out there. See the problem?

Providers save themselves ALLOT of headache by just following the law and saying "Sorry". Either that or they have a policy to take down everything requested without checking. But the ones that really matter just say "Sorry".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:31am

Re: The girl does have publicity rights
You are incorrect. In the US, if you are in a public place, you have no "Publicity Rights" nor expectation of privacy.

Since YouTube is in the US, US law matters.

You can't have Pirate Bay being outside the US and not subject to it's laws, then turn around and say that companies outside the UK ARE subject to UK laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:32am

Re: Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
Wow... Goodwins law this soon. :) Neat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAtt, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:40am

Re: Re:
Isn't that tantamount to bargaining with terrorists? A relatively small percentage of people make a lot of noise and YouTube reacts. Then the rest of us have to start yelling. Then YouTube comes up with some hair-brained scheme to mitigate these types of situations. Then some jackass starts a company which specializes in having YouTube videos taken down/put back up. Then we lose our ability to share content so easily. Then a new variant of YouTube shows up. Repeat. Always repeat.

Regardless, something will happen, and as usual it won't be good for the vast majority, just the small number of idiots shooting their damn fool mouths off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ehrichweiss, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
It's not Godwin'ed for mere mention of the word "nazi", one has to compare someone to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:48am

Re: Re: Just so you know, Mike
If this is true, how do the tabloids make money? They have TONS of pictures that are taken without the subject's permission.

Also, isn't it too late to prevent damage? The photo has probably been saved on 100 hard disks now. Little preteens jerking it to your thong. Ha.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
Firstly, no-one is suggesting that the site in question is YouTube. It could just as easily be a UK service.

But sticking with YouTube;

It doesn't matter if YouTube, Google, or anyone else, thinks that they don't have to take into account EU law. It only matters if the EU or the individual countries think that they do. Or haven't you been following the problems that Google, Yahoo, EBay etc. have been having?

Also, YouTube does in fact have a UK presence - YouTube.co.uk
And an Irish one. And an Italian one. etc. etc. Maybe these are just domain names, but Google has a big big office in Dublin, and that's in the EU.

Next, YouTube owners Google route most of their profits through Irish subsideries to avail of lower tax, so whether the content is in the EU or not doesn't matter, 'cos their money is.

So yes, I'll bet you my last euro that YouTube, Google, Yahoo etc. etc. are very worried about EU legislation.

Lastly, above and beyond the where, why and whatnots, anyone who thinks a company is NOT going to take down a photo of a (presumably underage) girl kissing a (presumably under-age) boy at a school party if the girl in question complains, had better have their head examined. Can you imagine the tabloid headlines??

"Girl bullied in school due to [insert company name here] publicity"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
I stand corrected. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re:
"Isn't that tantamount to bargaining with terrorists?"

Not at all.

"A relatively small percentage of people make a lot of noise and YouTube reacts. Then the rest of us have to start yelling. Then YouTube comes up with some hair-brained scheme to mitigate these types of situations. Then some jackass starts a company which specializes in having YouTube videos taken down/put back up. Then we lose our ability to share content so easily. Then a new variant of YouTube shows up. Repeat. Always repeat."

Exactly. Which is why I'm saying their response should be "Sorry".

"Regardless, something will happen, and as usual it won't be good for the vast majority, just the small number of idiots shooting their damn fool mouths off."

Agreed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 3 Sep 2008 @ 7:54am

Re: Re: The girl does have publicity rights
Are you comparing YouTube to Pirate Bay??

only joking... sorry Pirate Bay, didn't mean to insult you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:03am

Aren't there laws against publishing photos/video of an individual without their consent? Maybe it's just a Canadian thing, but whenever my picture might be in the paper or published elsewhere, I generally am asked to sign a form granting the publisher/photographer permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:08am

Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
Apparently not. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:13am

Re: makes sense to me! by Anonymous Coward - Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:08am
You are so full of win. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shohat, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:20am

Ahem
You are writing about a country which has quite a big set of laws you are not familiar with, and are quite different from the country you happen to live in.
US!=World.

But, considering the fact that Youtube is an American company (with UK presence), you might still be right.

Cheers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:27am

offended
i am offended by the use of punctuation and capital letters please remove all instances of punctuation and capital letters from your website or i will be forced to take legal action my lawyer has advised me that since i am an american i can sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars for each and every instance of punctuation and capital letters on your website solely because i have decided that i dont like it and it offends me so you better remove by tomorrow or else

ialsojustdecidedthatidontlikespacessotakethemdowntoo

sincerelyignorantmoron
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:28am

Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
"Lastly, above and beyond the where, why and whatnots, anyone who thinks a company is NOT going to take down a photo of a (presumably underage) girl kissing a (presumably under-age) boy at a school party if the girl in question complains, had better have their head examined. Can you imagine the tabloid headlines?? "

The issue is not whether or not they WOULD take the image down, its whether or not they MUST take the image down. I still see no evidence that shows they MUST take it down (except some dubious EU claim about a very vague statement referencing "family privacy"?) so the "advisors" statement of such is just incorrect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Joker, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:42am

Why so serious!!
The next question and answer is copied below. I am pretty sure the answerer is not a technically-inclined person and more of a psychologist/old-gramma/middle-aged-woman-with-no-other-job. I don't think it requires so much attention.

Q FORTY years ago, I was in love with a boy. It was very innocent but my dad split us up because we came from different religions.

Back then you did what your parents told you. He was really hurt. But life goes on and I married, had children and was widowed five years ago.

My daughter knew I was lonely and encouraged me to go out and also introduced me to the internet.

That was how I got back in touch with my ex. The years just rolled back as we chatted online. He is divorced.

It was really good being able to talk about old times together. Unfortunately, he'd moved down south, but he still had relatives up here, so we agreed to meet the next time he came up.

But I didn't recognise him. He used to be handsome, but now he's fat, balding and has bad teeth.

I'm not saying I'm any kind of beauty, but I haven't let myself go like he has.

We had a nice afternoon, but I wasn't sorry to say goodbye to him, though I was happy to go on chatting to him online.

The problem is, he wants me to go to his for the weekend.

I like him as a pen friend, but I don't want him thinking we could ever be more than that.

But I feel guilty about the way my dad treated him and I don't want to hurt him again. What do I do?

A WHILE I'm sure you could come up with an excuse to get out of going down to see your old flame, I think it would be better, and ultimately less hurtful, to tell the truth.

Maybe, however, not the whole truth. So don't mention his weight, his lack of hair or the state of his teeth.

Simply make it clear that, while you enjoy chatting to him online, you don't want the relationship to go beyond friendship. For all you know, it's not what he's after, either.

From what you've said, he didn't try to get physical when you met, so perhaps he's also happy for the pair of you to be no more than chums.

However, if he does want more, then it's only fair to tell him there's no chance.

Once that's established, you'll both know where you stand. Then, if he's willing, you can carry on chatting just as you did previously.

As you admit, the pair of you enjoyed a nice time together, so I don't see why you can't, next time he's visiting his relatives, enjoy another outing together as old friends, but not as potential lovers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CastorTroy-Libertarian, Lover, General Annoyance f, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:45am

Re: WTF . . . . ?
I really am beginning to believe that the are not "offended" but that they think what they say is SO important and correct that anything else is wrong, and therefore it is their RIGHT to have a competeting idea silenced or removed. I mean listen to the talking heads on TV now days, they don't report, they Sermon. Actors stand up and think because they play a Doctor on TV or Movie they now know better than anyone else, and what they say is more relavent even when (most of the time it seems) they are talking out their butts.

my two cents off topic :) but im in a mood today...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:46am

Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
> It doesn't matter if YouTube, Google, or
> anyone else, thinks that they don't have
> to take into account EU law. It only matters
> if the EU or the individual countries think
> that they do.

Baloney.

I live in the USA. If I put up a web site today with swastikas and other Nazi symbols on it, the police in Germany and France can't force me to take it down because such things are illegal in Germany and France. Nor can they (validly) sue me over it.

If a person or business doesn't have a physical presence or office in that country, then the person or business is only bound by laws of the country in which they reside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 3 Sep 2008 @ 8:52am

Re: Photography
> Filming while on private property follows
> many restrictions. The owner of the property
> is permitted to film their own property.
> However, they must receive permission from
> others on the property to be allowed to film
> that person."

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

Such blankets statements of law are next to useless because every jurisdiction has differences and often outright contradictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 9:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
What you suggest has been done.

Unfortunately for the web site owner he made the mistake of visiting Denmark where the police arrested him, and turned him over to German authors. He is now serving a very long term in a German prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Flyfish, 3 Sep 2008 @ 9:38am

Someone should tell Obama so he can call off his brownshirts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pema Norbu, 3 Sep 2008 @ 9:48am

Offensive vs False and Hateful Posts
Since the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950 (i.e., zero Chinese settlers and soldiers in Tibet before 1950) the CCP has run propaganda against Tibetans, Tibetan religion and the Dalai Lama. If you search internet or youtube you find Chinese or CCP shills with posts that claim "the Dalai Lama is a Nazi Dictator" (the Dalai Lama was 10 when Hitler died) or "Dalai Lama is a Slave Owner" (there is no independent evidence of slavery in Tibet). If Tibet were free then this may pass as free speech. But these posts aid and abet Chinese occupation of Tibet, religious and cultural suppression and the arbitrary imprisonment and torture of freedom protestors. In cases where falsehood is used to promote state policies, Shouldn't there be a case for independent review board or ethicist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:16am

Re: WTF . . . . ?
"...where in the HELL people think this right to go through life un-offended comes from?"

Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:39am

Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
"Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU..."

I doubt that. I know its fashionable to come down on the ACLU, but they simply test the limits. Truth be told they are hated mainly for thier defense of "objectionable" speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:46am

Wait . . .
"In cases where falsehood is used to promote state policies . . . "

are we talking about China or the Bush Administration?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michial, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:51am

Partially correct
Mike;

I believe that you are only partially correct about the photo. If she is the object of the photo, and did not sign a release for the photographer to use, then she is within her right to request that the photo be removed.

If I understand things correctly the photographer owns the copyright, but must have her permission to use/display the photograph if she is the object of the photograph, and not just incidental to the photograph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ken-san, 3 Sep 2008 @ 10:51am

Re: WTF . . . . ?
Sounds like it is time for an ammendment to the US Constitution to get that 'right.' Very nice comment, AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 11:09am

Nit Picking
Definition: "Obliged - under a moral obligation to do something."

Definition: "Obligated - caused by law to follow a certain course"

Perhaps the columnist knew that legally they weren't required, but for other reasons they would still probably take it down.

This also depends on the picture. If it were of a minor and her embarrassment was due to her being undressed, then this would cross over from a moral obligation to a legal one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 3 Sep 2008 @ 11:38am

Re: Not Obligated!
Well, take a look at the platforms for the political parties out there today. Many are based on coalitions of very very fringe groups that have now banded together under the liberal banner. Once they have critical mass, they start pushing their agenda. So, if you vote liberal, you're part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nipseyrussell, 3 Sep 2008 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
"...where in the HELL people think this right to go through life un-offended comes from?"

"Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU..."

isnt it sad and embarassing when what you think you know isnt just wrong, but actually the OPPOSITE of the truth? why do you hold an opinion, and speak out publicly, on an organization about which you know not even in the slightest ????

sometimes "best i can tell" just isnt good enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 12:02pm

"Sure, perhaps it's too much to expect an advice columnist to understand such things, but this is how these myths continue to live on, when supposedly knowledgeable people give advice that is completely false."

Are you talking about the person in the UK, techdirt, or both?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 12:06pm

Tony,

"Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU..."

Wow! Backwards! Most ACLU lawsuits are because some book (or equivalent) was supressed by someone who was offended. The ACLU ensures the boook (or whatever) continues to be available to you and me and everyone... even if someone, somewhere is offended.

And, yes, my family has been direclty involved in an ACLU lawsuit. To restore a book to a school library. Offended a bunch 'o folks, I'm pleased to say.

We also have been known to donate offensive books to libraries. Bound properly, so they will shelve them.

Anyway, ACLU is about keeping the boundaries large enough that at least some folks ARE offended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl Pierce, 3 Sep 2008 @ 12:18pm

I believe you meant "perpetuating" and not "perpetrating"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 3 Sep 2008 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
But he actually *went* to those countries. Sure, once you're physically in the jurisdiction, they can charge you but they can't tell an American living in America what they can and can't say on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Not Obligated!
So, if you vote liberal, you're part of the problem.
That's rich. Plenty of conservatives complain when they get "offended" by something. Just ask the FCC about Howard Stern or Bill Maher or Janet Jackson's half-time show or any one of a number of things that conservatives have gotten their offended panties in a knot about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Not Obligated!
Yea. Damn liberals. Always with their agenda of trying to help society and to secure our freedom and rights. Damn them all to hell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
I find this hard to believe. Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:27pm

Re: Re: not quite correct
Also, if she wasn't in a public place (perhaps a peeping tom), then it would be something that is illegal in the US.
Do you have some information that that was the case or are you just building straw men?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:37pm

Re: Re: Photography
Such blankets statements of law are next to useless because every jurisdiction has differences and often outright contradictions.
Yeah, and it didn't cite any references or sources either. It sounded more like something somebody made up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 3:46pm

Re: Pictures of people are a bit different than blog entries.
Turns out this wasn't a good decision, as the offended quickly contacted the family lawyer who sent a letter stating since the subject was under 18 and did not give consent, the image was to be removed or legal consequences would ensue.
Lawyers send out letters with bogus threats all the time. So what? It doesn't prove a thing. I'd bet "legal consequences" did not "ensue".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:19pm

Re: Ahem
You are writing about a country which has quite a big set of laws you are not familiar with, and are quite different from the country you happen to live in.
And you are a UK lawyer? And how do you know Mike didn't do any research?

US!=World.
No kidding, Sherlock.

But, considering the fact that Youtube is an American company (with UK presence), you might still be right.

Gee, you think maybe so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:24pm

Re: Partially correct
I believe that you are only partially correct about the photo. If she is the object of the photo, and did not sign a release for the photographer to use, then she is within her right to request that the photo be removed.
Sure, she probably has the right to request, but they don't have any obligation to comply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:37pm

Re: Nit Picking
ob·li·gate (bl-gt)
tr.v. ob·li·gat·ed, ob·li·gat·ing, ob·li·gates
1. To bind, compel, or constrain by a social, legal, or moral tie. See Synonyms at force.
2. To cause to be grateful or indebted; oblige.
3. To commit (money, for example) in order to fulfill an obligation.
So obligate can also indicate a moral tie and it can mean the same thing as oblige. In other words, same meaning. Sorry, try again.

This also depends on the picture. If it were of a minor and her embarrassment was due to her being undressed, then this would cross over from a moral obligation to a legal one.
Or if it showed her being violently raped and murdered. But that wasn't the case either. See, we can play the "if" game all day but that won't change the facts of the case at hand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Goofus, 3 Sep 2008 @ 9:29pm

Actually, the photographer needs the subject's permission
before the photographer is allowed to post or publish a photo of the subject (when the subject is a person), so she DOES have the right to ask for photos to be taken down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JPFife, 4 Sep 2008 @ 2:50am

Well I hope the girl in question has learned her lesson; that she shouldn't snog in public unless she's near some police. If the officers mentioned below were around the picture would never have got on the internet in the first place:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/23/camera_analysis/

Incidentally, there is no UK law. On mainland Britain English law applies in England and Wales and in Scotland Scottish law applies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 4 Sep 2008 @ 2:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
Last word?

"A divided U.S. court decided Yahoo is liable for a fine levied in France for Yahoo's failure to keep Nazi memorabilia off its Web pages." (InformationWeek, Jan 13 2006)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 11:17am

Re: Actually, the photographer needs the subject's permission
before the photographer is allowed to post or publish a photo of the subject (when the subject is a person),
Says who? Citation please.

so she DOES have the right to ask for photos to be taken down.
I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise, so you can put that strawman away. But just because she asks doesn't mean anyone has to comply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz, 4 Sep 2008 @ 1:55pm

That is incredible!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2008 @ 11:55pm

Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
"Aparently, those forums (and later blogs) did not afford you adequate knoweledge of english grammar and/or spelling."

I simply love how this "boost" guy criticises the first AC for writing "envolved", but then writes "knoweledge" himself!

Hilarious! Grammar Nazi, correct thyself! :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kilroy, 9 Sep 2008 @ 7:01am

Re: Not the same law everywhere
yes but what is newsworthy is open to interpretation ... I do not believe that a story is only newsworthy if it is ready for CBC, CNN or whatever is your local equivalent.

What is newsworthy to a 15 year old writing a blog is not necessarily going to be pertinent to a 42 year old who may never visit such a site. But does that make it any less newsworthy in the context of the author's life?
[ link to this | view in thread ]