I have a bad feeling about this HCI vs TFL lawsuit

K

kcglocker

Inactive
I want to stimulate open and honest debate about this suit. I am posing a question, not trolling.


I see cybersquatting as problem. I wouldnt want my daughter to stumble onto www.justforkids.com and find porn when she was looking for justforkid.com . It seems to me that the TFL and supports of the websites are trying to discourage disinformation using a disinformation technique. I dont dispute the false nature of HCI's web stats but the precedent has too apply to all people. and they have a right to post those stats. We wouldnt want www.nra.com (when the real cite is .org or something similar) to be taken by antis and used to propagate their views...

Flame suit on, but this is not a flame...just discussion

Kc
 
Kinda like..."if it just saves one life"..?

Fact is HCI, et al have their domains and have had them for a long time. If they wanted exclusivity, they should have bought and paid for all domain-name combos. They didn't, they didn't care until recently.
Second fact, cybersquatting implies that Jefe and John are holding those domains in order to drive up the price. They aren't cybersquatting and the domains aren't for sale.
 
Well, I think that we need to respect the first, as well as the second. As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of the discussion.

Thank God that your thoughts do not control mine and the other way around. We can express ourselves freely. It isn't always pleasant to all concerned, but that is the price that we pay. Does intentional disinformation bother you? I think that you will find that HCI may not always be honest in their representations. It is reasonable that other citizens are able to set the record straight. This was done in a legal, above board manner. I say well done.

On the other side of the issue, I support HCI's right to honestly promote their position. I would not suggest that they be shut down.

BTW: I would guess that HCI activist will be generating some interesting threads, which they hope to use to their advantage. Don't think that this is one, but they are coming.
 
"I support HCI's right to honestly promote their position."

There's the rub, Gary.

With HCI, honesty is TOTALLY subjective.

If numerous blatant LIES are subjective, that is.
 
Mike:

The inclusion of the word "honestly" was intentional. I would hope that folks on this side of the issues alway "honestly" promote. I think that HCI relies a bit more on emotional blackmail and less on facts, but then again, I'm biased.
 
I see cybersquatting as problem. I wouldn't want my daughter to stumble onto http://www.justforkids.com and find porn when she was looking for justforkid.com
Click to expand...

Kcglocker,

Nor would I. However, there is quite a difference in spreading the truth and trapping children in a pornographic site. I believe such a thing is illegal, and certainly immoral. The site that you have chosen to use as an example would certainly run afowl of federal law regarding the distribution of pornography.

While I believe that the lies that HCI propogates are immoral, they are not illegal because they have the right to say such things. And one day they will be held accountable for those people who are hurt because of them.

We are countering their lies with truth. This is obviously a concern for them, or we would not be in the litigation that they have initiated.

And as DC has pointed out, these domain names are NOT for sale. Therefore we are not cybersquatting. :D
 
legitimate satire is protected...

If the site is engaging in legitimate political satire (which the sites in question are) then they're protected. I realize that sometimes courts haven't upheld that right, but it needs defending. It's the same deal as using trademarks.

Situations where the site would not be protected: if the site is trying to use "name confusion" to sell a product, if the site was run by a competitor in order to siphon off customers (this wouldn't really apply to political sites, IMHO), or (and this is based on different laws) if the site was libelous.
 
Exactly, Folkbabe.

Our sites are NOT FOR PROFIT. We have nothing to sell, and no consumers. The information that we have is free for the taking.

I've recieved one letter asking if donations are tax-deductable, and I responded that they are not. They never wrote back, nor did they send money. I have not ever accepted money from anyone. Everything from my host service to the graphics on the site are donated.

Gary H, you said:
I support HCI's right to honestly promote their position.
Click to expand...
I agree with you whole-heartedly, even if they don't do it honestly.

True freedom requires choice. Without an opposing view (honest or not) there is no choice, therefore no freedom.
 
I remeber reading awhile back that a guy who had registered PETA.org (People for Eating Tasty Animals) was sued by PETA and had to give up the name. I don't recall the details, but according to a friend of mine who visited the site, it was satire.

For more info see: http://mtd.com/tasty/editorial3.html


I'm not defending the guy who runs the site since I know nothing about him, but the precedent may be pertinent - or not. They are different cases.

Food for thought. Tasty animal food :p
 
Screw HCI. I am right, they are wrong. Not "somewhere in the middle". Some like to believe the "moderates" or those between the "extremes" are the ones who are always the most "correct". So, they will see HCI as one extreme and the NRA at the other extreme (though I personally consider the NRA to be too "moderate"). They then decide (with little real experience or knowldege of the subject) each is a little bit right and wrong in someways.

I see it a little differently. The ultra conservative view on firearms is correct. The ultra liberal few is wrong. And the moderate view is more wrong and less right. I don't care what "mainstream" is. Going with what is popular is simply following the pack. 51% is not always right and can often be wrong. It is never acceptable to do wrong just because "everyone else is".

Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But all this moderate "mainstream" crap often has people who just can't figure out what they think, so they have to pick one side or the other. They are also easily persuaded one way or the other. This is very evident in any major election. Many will often have trouble dedicing who they "like" more up until election day. Even after, they still don't know. Often, "moderate" views on guns have no solid foundation. They simply pick and choose ideas from the different sides depending on what sounds good at the time.

This might be a little OT now, but the point is, I don't care about HCI's problem. They blatantly lie and they are wrong. Too bad if it's not "fair".
 
EricM,
I don't agree at all. I see the "Burr Brothers" winning big here. It all boils down to truth vs lies. If Sarah and Co want to push the consumer issue, they're dead meat. There are thousands of consumer protection laws in place that protect consumers from lies used to promote a product. LOL! Imagine this. Ralph Nader, exulted Poooh-Bah of consumer protection, facing off against HCI.

Viva le Burr Bros!
 
First, on cybersquatting...

The entire concept of regulating cybersquatting is stupid. A domain name is a product, purchased and owned by an individual. As such, a domain is private property and can be used for whatever the owner likes. Banning cybersquatting is simply another collectivist attack on private property rights.

In response to a posted scenario, no, I'd have no problem whatsoever if HCI bought http://www.nra.com and started the "No Rifles Association."

Second, on the HCI lawsuit...

To be blunt, I don't think that we'll win it. HCI has legal precident on their side. I hope we do win, and I'll continue to support the effort in any way possible, but I hope that we have a fallback plan for when the judgement comes down.

Later,
Chris
 
RAE:

I applaud your idealistic view, but political correctness may have more to do with this sort of case. I don't believe that truth is terribly relevant in the legal process. Win, or lose, this is a fight worth fighting. If we don't fight on all levels, then we might as well hand over the keys to our houses and provide the combination to our safes. A winning attitude is important, but most important is the quality of our legal representation. Do we have the best attorneys? Are we better prepared? Do we have an impartial court?
 
I think the parody web sites, especially the ones of the quality of John/AZ should be looked upon as beneficial. Say a young future leftist wants to look up "gun control". If it were not for John all the li'l tike would find would be Sarah Brady's insanties. Now, thanks to the close proximity of the URL name, we get to show both sides of the story.

Let freedom ring.

Rick
 
Rick,

Gotta give credit where it belongs. El Jefe (www.handguncontrol.net) started this parody thing, I just followed suit! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top