"A JUDGE yesterday ordered a website to be shut down and said lawmakers should think about making it illegal to post "patently untrue" allegations about people on the internet."
And yet, Rupert Murdoch supports censorship. I'm sure he's rethinking his stance right now.
If you make a site's sole purpose to defame someone, that is wrong.
In the same breath going after the service provide,r who simply did what they do, is wrong
Defamation of character has been illegal in various forms since the development of common law. Just because it happens on the internet doesn't make it exempt.
Then sue the person who did it but the site didn't make the statement - the author did. if he has issue, then go after the real perpetrator of the act.
Because Krauthammer or Rove or Kristol makes defamatory comments about Obama in WaPo, does that mean the Washington Post should go down?
And the patently untrue news from those organizations that you're referring to?
If I were a betting man, I'd wager that all the untrue statements (that weren't simple mistakes) issued by all those organizations combined would not equal those issued by Fox.
Well, it alludes to SOPA / PIPA / ACTA ... and it's not about that, but in a way, it's kinda fitting --
The US wanted ways to make it easier for them to force websites it other countries to shut down ... but the first shot is a foreign country ordering a website in the US shut down.
So, will the US fight this, and claim the judge (mind you, it *did* go through a judge, unlike some other proposed legislation) overstepped his authority and that this is considered 'free speach' over here, or will they let a foreign nation force a US business to comply with their ruling?
ghostofdiggpastFeb 2, 2012Buried
Am I the only one who read this article? The judge was in Ireland, and the defendants were all IRISH.
The site was registered to a PO Box in Vancouver, WA, US.. That seems to be the only connection to the United States.
Might want to amend that overblown headline, Nostradamus.
barfomaticFeb 2, 2012Buried
A website that rates lawyers! Did you really think it would stay up ?
WhoNewMediaFeb 2, 2012Buried
I guess everyone wants to be "big brother" now eh?
anomaly100Feb 2, 2012Buried
"A JUDGE yesterday ordered a website to be shut down and said lawmakers should think about making it illegal to post "patently untrue" allegations about people on the internet."
And yet, Rupert Murdoch supports censorship. I'm sure he's rethinking his stance right now.
WhoNewMediaFeb 2, 2012Buried
I know this is serious, but I'm very tempted to make a lucky charms joke... After all they are taking out bytes /s
sonicomegaFeb 2, 2012Buried
First STOP ACTA.
If you make a site's sole purpose to defame someone, that is wrong.
In the same breath going after the service provide,r who simply did what they do, is wrong
ninhFeb 2, 2012Buried
If posting something patently untrue on websites becomes illegal, they have to shut down their own campaign websites. Hardly likely.
NeosopheusFeb 2, 2012Buried
And what about patently untrue news passed on by alleged news organizations?
mbraynardFeb 2, 2012Buried
Defamation of character has been illegal in various forms since the development of common law. Just because it happens on the internet doesn't make it exempt.
equinox2o12Feb 2, 2012Buried
Absolutely! WND & FOX have operated far too long.
cosmicsurferFeb 2, 2012Buried
Then sue the person who did it but the site didn't make the statement - the author did. if he has issue, then go after the real perpetrator of the act.
Because Krauthammer or Rove or Kristol makes defamatory comments about Obama in WaPo, does that mean the Washington Post should go down?
salbatrossFeb 2, 2012Buried
Similar issues are occurring in the EU. Heard of ACTA? The headline is applicable, I think.
thechauvinistFeb 2, 2012Buried
Yeah. I was wondering what the .ie was and then clicked their "national" news link.
Then I read the whole article in an Irish accent lol
gregwhitworthFeb 2, 2012Buried
That's what keeps bugging me. Let's start shutting down car, knife, gun manufactures for murders and deaths.
limitgovFeb 2, 2012Buried
you know dang well this is not about protecting people. Its about government having full control over the internet.
sonicomegaFeb 2, 2012Buried
yeah The Cheat!
anomaly100Feb 2, 2012Buried
Only Democrats' sound bytes, if you're referring to Fox, my favorite news source.
particleman420Feb 2, 2012Buried
just great actually, since i dont live in Ireland where this article is from.
salbatrossFeb 2, 2012Buried
And the patently untrue news from those organizations that you're referring to?
If I were a betting man, I'd wager that all the untrue statements (that weren't simple mistakes) issued by all those organizations combined would not equal those issued by Fox.
jhourcleFeb 2, 2012Buried
Well, it alludes to SOPA / PIPA / ACTA ... and it's not about that, but in a way, it's kinda fitting --
The US wanted ways to make it easier for them to force websites it other countries to shut down ... but the first shot is a foreign country ordering a website in the US shut down.
So, will the US fight this, and claim the judge (mind you, it *did* go through a judge, unlike some other proposed legislation) overstepped his authority and that this is considered 'free speach' over here, or will they let a foreign nation force a US business to comply with their ruling?