Sorry, but her use of 'freetard' appears to be an attempt at humor to you... to me, it appears to be an attempt to feel superior to those who disagree with you by using a [sic]derogatory term to describe them.
Disingenuous? Like comparing Tim's post about a study that was delivered in a sarcastic light while still leaving the whole thing up to discussion...
To a hypocritical, self-centered bitch who thinks that only her opinion should be heard (or at least only those who echo hers) while trying to hop on a high-horse about how we need open discussion and those 'freetards' just won't discuss it rationally?
We'll see if this works. Based on the idea that Google returns results based on keywords (yeah, I know... not that simple), I posted this http://angryhuman.blogspot.com/2011/07/spreading-word-about-leslie-burns-of.html to see if I can come up above her own blog. We shall see. And even if it doesn't, at least I got to say my piece and others can spread the word. :)
I actually decided to come at her calmly... much like she said...
As a business person who is deeply involved in using public forums (such as Facebook) in the business world, I have to say you're quite wrong about the 'need' to censor that space. If you post your opinion in a public place and filter out any dissenting opinion, you come off as insincere and fearful of being proven 'wrong'.
I help insurance agents set up their Social Networking space... one of the things I teach them is to NEVER delete derogatory posts. If an irate customer (or ex-customer, as would probably be the case) posts insulting things that calls to question business ethics, et al, it is far better to respond politely and rationally to the concern and invite them to discuss it further (usually in person or on the phone)
Deleting offensive language is a different matter. That's just respect for other readers. But it would be far better again to repost an 'edited' version of the origional post which removes the one or more offensive words.
This is your blog and you're welcome to handle it as you wish. But when you state that calm, rational ~discussion~ is needed to convince others that you're right... it's best not to completely silence those who may disagree with you. It makes you seem like someone who is afraid to actually have to defend her position and would rather surround herself by like-minded yes men.
Funny thing... I gave my own name and none of what I said is untrue.
I'm not sure this will be a case of "getting off the hook". It would be more like "getting the domain name back without further fight". Remember, they aren't doing anything illegal in their own country. They aren't being tried as infringers (regardless of party) here in this country... all ICE did was grab the only US property in the whole thing here (because that's all they could do).
I think that's the problem most of us have with this whole mess... the government seizes the domains and defend the action by saying "well, they were infringing/abetting". But without proof of that, can that be the justification for the action?
Sure you could say that the government is only accusing and not acting on assumption of guilt, but when you read their defenses for holding on to the domains, it seems clear that they have judged these sites guilty and are trying to 'keep it from happening again'. Never mind the fact that they haven't actually stopped anything other than users getting to the destination by typing ".com" at the end of the address.
"The US laws do stop at the border. But when your website / business crosses the border, you are subject to the laws."
Well, that's a ridiculous claim... considering that the internet has no boundaries. That's why China tried blocking everything out... it knew there was no way in hell it would be able to get the rest of the internet to fall in line with what it thought should be out there.
You're right that businesses have to comply with local laws... but guess what happens when they don't... they get kicked out. If the president of the Mitsubishi Corporation (assuming we don't own them yet) makes cars that criminally fail to meet our requirements, we don't demand he/she be extradited over here to face trial... we just block the import of the product. Again, see my comment about the Great Firewall of China.
"Don't think so? Consider EU privacy laws and US based websites. Think really hard about it."
E xactly how is that going to be enforced? If Facebook 'thumbs its nose' at the EU's demands for compliance, is the EU going to demand the CEO be sent over for trial? And how do you think the US would react to demands for extradition of one of our citizens to face trial over running a website in a way we find legal? Just because the EU says we have to comply, doesn't mean shit if we disagree.
"Stop trying to protect a pirate. He screwed up, he thumbed his nose at the US authorities, and now he is getting ready for his date with Bubba."
You really do think that everyone in the world should follow our laws, don't you? How often do you thumb your nose at those extremist Muslims who think that YOU (personally, you specifically) should convert to their faith, pray exactly how they say, or face death? Every time you do, I want you to hear my voice in your head saying “stop trying to defend a Christian… you thumbed your nose at Sharia and Allah and now you’re getting ready for your date with a rock”.
Every time you think our laws should apply to the whole world, I want you to think about how EXACTLY like those extremist Muslims you are when they demand that we adopt Sharia law.
3) It was pressing to the Site who filed a timely request for their domain back. ICE was dragging their feet on it. And now they're saying "well, since it's been so long since you had it..."
4) i.e. e.g. q.p.q. p.h.e.p.h. I can post Latin abbreviations too.
5) what? No one said that it is legal here because it's legal elsewhere. We're saying they weren't breaking the laws of the governing body that had jurisdiction over them.
6) Again, see point 1.
7) How about the ones that show that the site is not liable for what the people do on it?
8) Care to share what parts of both US and Spanish law regulate those lines? I'd be interested to know how much traffic there has to be for an entire site to fall under the jurisdiction of another country.
9) yeah, because that was the only source of income for the guy who owns the site and he was just raking in that money he was making through infringement... since, you know, that was his business plan all along. I'm just saying that the accusation of 'for profit' seems mighty weak when the 'profit' is less (by scale) than what I find in my couch.
10) ok... fair enough. Mike, do you have references for the threats of lawsuits?
Ok... I see the difference between the two seizures. But which one did the government claim? I thought (and could be wrong) that they are claiming they seized it to prevent the destruction of evidence. No, I'm not basing that understanding on Mike's statements in the article... I thought I read that back in the history of the case.
And even if it is for the 'stopping of further crime', how does that play into prior-restraint?
Right... now I'm going to go beat the shit out of a first grader to send a message to everyone else to watch out. Right... now I'm going to go beat the shit out of a first grader to send a message to everyone else to watch out. [cracks knuckles]
"Seizure and forfeiture of assets like this has been going on since the beginning of this nation."
The fact that we feel there's a problem is because seizures like this have NOT been going on. That's the issue. Here we have a part of a website seized under the guise of "preserving evidence" when the thing seized is not "evidence" of anything. The evidence (if there was any) would be on the servers of the website. Not the address of the site.
Go read back through what Rojadirecta is 'getting'... it's certainly not a fair process. What they're getting is more circular logic that ignores the very technology of the internet, threats of lawsuits if they continue perusing due process, and just straight-up failures of logic.
to see how the ICE-seizure supporting AC's defend this one. Let's take some score here:
1) Even tho nothing infringing is kept on your site's servers, you’re still infringing
2) This domain was seized to stop the destruction of evidence (that can't be destroyed anyway), but we're not giving them back even tho there's nothing of value to be used in a trial (that hasn't even been set yet).
3) Since it took us so long to respond, you shouldn't need the domain back anyway, so... yeah... move along.
4) Arcara V. Cloud. Re...really? AAAARCAAAARAAAAAAA!
5) We think you'll go back to doing something we haven't actually charged you with nor proven you guilty of.
6) Even though you work exactly like Google's more specific search features, you're different because we say you are.
7) Even though the existing laws say otherwise, you weren't stopping the infringement (you know... doing our job for us), so you were part of it. Because hey, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
8) Never mind the fact that you were told by your sovereign governing body… twice… that you were obeying the laws that apply to you... you were breaking our laws... maybe... even tho we never tried you or found you guilty of doing so. So... yeah.
9) Since you're operating somewhere other than good ol' 'Merica... it must be cheaper to do it there and that Thousands of Dollars you earned over the last 6 years MUST have been a profit...so you're obviously innit for the bennies.
10) Finally, if you try to use the methods set in place by our laws to argue against what we're doing, we'll sue you. Which means, of course, that you're responsible to obey our laws when we say you are, but you better not try to use those laws in your own favor!!
You know, if the US were a company that employed me, I do believe I would have quit on moral grounds and went to a competitor by now.
Well, it took you long enough to show up. So help me with this one...
An entity on foreign soil is running a business on foreign soil that is legal on said foreign soil.
They have one pipeline into our 'soil' (the .com).
ICE seizes that pipeline.
The entity continues running its legal-on-its-own-soil business on its own soil.
So... now we say that they're guilty of violating our laws and should be punished here?
I said it before, and I'll say it again... our laws STOP at our borders (with the obvious exception that our own citizens are subject to our laws no matter where they go). No wonder the rest of the world views us as imperialistic thugs.
You know... I'm sure you're guilty of violating at least one or two tenets of Sharia law... how about we extradite you to one of the countries that runs on it and let them punish you accordingly. Sound good to you?
Re: Re: Re: Why isn't there universal adoption of culture?
There are more layers here than just an individual culture vs. another individual culture. Think of our global, human culture. It is rich and diverse with many different religions, world-views, languages, beliefs, and music (enjoying some Putumayo right now, actually). The value of that culture to any one group or individual is in how it helps enhance that individual or group's world view.
So the value to me in hearing a new piece of music is that I am entertained and exposed to a new part of the world culture that I had never had before. Or, if it's bad music, it will help me appreciate the music I do like all the more.
Same with religious views. If I am exposed to more belief systems, I'm going to have more perspectives to weigh mine against. Take my personal view on the figure of Jesus... I was raised Southern Baptist (but I got better!) and was given the normal, biblical version of Jesus. Later in life, that view was greatly modified when I learned of how similar (almost exactly the same) that story was to many MANY other creation/messiah stories around at the time.
The value was that the more of the world culture I was exposed to, the more comfortable I am with my views on creation and religion. I am nowhere near as dogmatically 'religious' as I was before (mostly just spiritualist now). Now that I have seen more perspectives, and the more I learn about the collective Human Experience, the better I feel about what I do believe.
Does that help illustrate part of the value of the sharing of a diverse culture?
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To a hypocritical, self-centered bitch who thinks that only her opinion should be heard (or at least only those who echo hers) while trying to hop on a high-horse about how we need open discussion and those 'freetards' just won't discuss it rationally?
Yeah... great example of being genuine.
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Streisand Attack
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason
Re: Re: Re: Re: Precedent
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Comment thread hijack
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Comment thread hijack
As a business person who is deeply involved in using public forums (such as Facebook) in the business world, I have to say you're quite wrong about the 'need' to censor that space. If you post your opinion in a public place and filter out any dissenting opinion, you come off as insincere and fearful of being proven 'wrong'.
I help insurance agents set up their Social Networking space... one of the things I teach them is to NEVER delete derogatory posts. If an irate customer (or ex-customer, as would probably be the case) posts insulting things that calls to question business ethics, et al, it is far better to respond politely and rationally to the concern and invite them to discuss it further (usually in person or on the phone)
Deleting offensive language is a different matter. That's just respect for other readers. But it would be far better again to repost an 'edited' version of the origional post which removes the one or more offensive words.
This is your blog and you're welcome to handle it as you wish. But when you state that calm, rational ~discussion~ is needed to convince others that you're right... it's best not to completely silence those who may disagree with you. It makes you seem like someone who is afraid to actually have to defend her position and would rather surround herself by like-minded yes men.
Funny thing... I gave my own name and none of what I said is untrue.
So who wants odds on her not allowing the post?
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re:
Sure you could say that the government is only accusing and not acting on assumption of guilt, but when you read their defenses for holding on to the domains, it seems clear that they have judged these sites guilty and are trying to 'keep it from happening again'. Never mind the fact that they haven't actually stopped anything other than users getting to the destination by typing ".com" at the end of the address.
On the post: How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right that businesses have to comply with local laws... but guess what happens when they don't... they get kicked out. If the president of the Mitsubishi Corporation (assuming we don't own them yet) makes cars that criminally fail to meet our requirements, we don't demand he/she be extradited over here to face trial... we just block the import of the product. Again, see my comment about the Great Firewall of China.
Perchance are you talking about this? http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/03/16/non-eu-websites-must-operate-under-eu-privacy-laws/
E xactly how is that going to be enforced? If Facebook 'thumbs its nose' at the EU's demands for compliance, is the EU going to demand the CEO be sent over for trial? And how do you think the US would react to demands for extradition of one of our citizens to face trial over running a website in a way we find legal? Just because the EU says we have to comply, doesn't mean shit if we disagree.
You really do think that everyone in the world should follow our laws, don't you? How often do you thumb your nose at those extremist Muslims who think that YOU (personally, you specifically) should convert to their faith, pray exactly how they say, or face death? Every time you do, I want you to hear my voice in your head saying “stop trying to defend a Christian… you thumbed your nose at Sharia and Allah and now you’re getting ready for your date with a rock”.
Every time you think our laws should apply to the whole world, I want you to think about how EXACTLY like those extremist Muslims you are when they demand that we adopt Sharia law.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Can't wait...
2) you're right... I'm probably wrong on that one
3) It was pressing to the Site who filed a timely request for their domain back. ICE was dragging their feet on it. And now they're saying "well, since it's been so long since you had it..."
4) i.e. e.g. q.p.q. p.h.e.p.h. I can post Latin abbreviations too.
5) what? No one said that it is legal here because it's legal elsewhere. We're saying they weren't breaking the laws of the governing body that had jurisdiction over them.
6) Again, see point 1.
7) How about the ones that show that the site is not liable for what the people do on it?
8) Care to share what parts of both US and Spanish law regulate those lines? I'd be interested to know how much traffic there has to be for an entire site to fall under the jurisdiction of another country.
9) yeah, because that was the only source of income for the guy who owns the site and he was just raking in that money he was making through infringement... since, you know, that was his business plan all along. I'm just saying that the accusation of 'for profit' seems mighty weak when the 'profit' is less (by scale) than what I find in my couch.
10) ok... fair enough. Mike, do you have references for the threats of lawsuits?
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And even if it is for the 'stopping of further crime', how does that play into prior-restraint?
On the post: How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason
Re: Re: Precedent
threadception!
On the post: How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason
Re: Precedent
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that we feel there's a problem is because seizures like this have NOT been going on. That's the issue. Here we have a part of a website seized under the guise of "preserving evidence" when the thing seized is not "evidence" of anything. The evidence (if there was any) would be on the servers of the website. Not the address of the site.
Go read back through what Rojadirecta is 'getting'... it's certainly not a fair process. What they're getting is more circular logic that ignores the very technology of the internet, threats of lawsuits if they continue perusing due process, and just straight-up failures of logic.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Can't wait...
1) Even tho nothing infringing is kept on your site's servers, you’re still infringing
2) This domain was seized to stop the destruction of evidence (that can't be destroyed anyway), but we're not giving them back even tho there's nothing of value to be used in a trial (that hasn't even been set yet).
3) Since it took us so long to respond, you shouldn't need the domain back anyway, so... yeah... move along.
4) Arcara V. Cloud. Re...really? AAAARCAAAARAAAAAAA!
5) We think you'll go back to doing something we haven't actually charged you with nor proven you guilty of.
6) Even though you work exactly like Google's more specific search features, you're different because we say you are.
7) Even though the existing laws say otherwise, you weren't stopping the infringement (you know... doing our job for us), so you were part of it. Because hey, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
8) Never mind the fact that you were told by your sovereign governing body… twice… that you were obeying the laws that apply to you... you were breaking our laws... maybe... even tho we never tried you or found you guilty of doing so. So... yeah.
9) Since you're operating somewhere other than good ol' 'Merica... it must be cheaper to do it there and that Thousands of Dollars you earned over the last 6 years MUST have been a profit...so you're obviously innit for the bennies.
10) Finally, if you try to use the methods set in place by our laws to argue against what we're doing, we'll sue you. Which means, of course, that you're responsible to obey our laws when we say you are, but you better not try to use those laws in your own favor!!
You know, if the US were a company that employed me, I do believe I would have quit on moral grounds and went to a competitor by now.
On the post: How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason
Re: Re:
An entity on foreign soil is running a business on foreign soil that is legal on said foreign soil.
They have one pipeline into our 'soil' (the .com).
ICE seizes that pipeline.
The entity continues running its legal-on-its-own-soil business on its own soil.
So... now we say that they're guilty of violating our laws and should be punished here?
I said it before, and I'll say it again... our laws STOP at our borders (with the obvious exception that our own citizens are subject to our laws no matter where they go). No wonder the rest of the world views us as imperialistic thugs.
You know... I'm sure you're guilty of violating at least one or two tenets of Sharia law... how about we extradite you to one of the countries that runs on it and let them punish you accordingly. Sound good to you?
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Re: Re: Why isn't there universal adoption of culture?
So the value to me in hearing a new piece of music is that I am entertained and exposed to a new part of the world culture that I had never had before. Or, if it's bad music, it will help me appreciate the music I do like all the more.
Same with religious views. If I am exposed to more belief systems, I'm going to have more perspectives to weigh mine against. Take my personal view on the figure of Jesus... I was raised Southern Baptist (but I got better!) and was given the normal, biblical version of Jesus. Later in life, that view was greatly modified when I learned of how similar (almost exactly the same) that story was to many MANY other creation/messiah stories around at the time.
The value was that the more of the world culture I was exposed to, the more comfortable I am with my views on creation and religion. I am nowhere near as dogmatically 'religious' as I was before (mostly just spiritualist now). Now that I have seen more perspectives, and the more I learn about the collective Human Experience, the better I feel about what I do believe.
Does that help illustrate part of the value of the sharing of a diverse culture?
Next >>