GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com 561
mikesd81 writes "Wired is running a story about GoDaddy shutting down a police watchdog site called RateMyCop. However, GoDaddy can't seem to give a consistent answer as for why. From the article: 'RateMyCop founder Gino Sesto says he was given no notice of the suspension. When he called GoDaddy, the company told him that he'd been shut down for suspicious activity. When Sesto got a supervisor on the phone, the company changed its story and claimed the site had surpassed its 3 terabyte bandwidth limit, a claim that Sesto says is nonsense. "How can it be overloaded when it only had 80,000 page views today, and 400,000 yesterday?" Sesto says police can post comments as well, and a future version of the site will allow them to authenticate themselves to post rebuttals more prominently. Chief Dyer wants to get legislation passed that would make RateMyCop.com illegal, which, of course, wouldn't pass constitutional muster in any court in America.'"
Re:1984 (Score:1, Insightful)
They are people too with families and life outside of work. Being a policeman is not a good job if you want to be popular.
That being said. Police also need a strong watchdog towards them because they fail to police themselfs and a lot goes on espectially in my little city. That where the good guys get arrested for protecting themselfs while the bad guys get off scott free, because they are "friends" of the police men. There are a lot of good cops but there are also a Lot of bad cops. and we do need find a way to get rid of the bad ones who do it for the power vs. the good ones who do it to keep a civil society.
Big Companies==Arm of Government (Score:3, Insightful)
GoDaddy is the largest registrar and webhost. Do you think, even for one second, that they would dare sully their good relations with government by allow a "seditious" site like ratemycop.com to exist on their servers? Of course, we can talk about the rights of "private companies" and "free association", but lets face it; that's mostly a crock of shit.
Western governments no longer officially nationalize companies. They now get the companies to come into the fold all by themselves.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Free speech has nothing to do with what's "fair".
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:4, Insightful)
Streisand Effect World Tour t-shirt (Score:3, Insightful)
This will earn its place on the list for sure.
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
3 TB a month or a day? (Score:2, Insightful)
Where did you get the 30 days from?
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the guy was the driver for a disabled guy, and the card was proof of disabled vehicle exemption to parking restrictions in that area?
Don't be too quick to assume corruption.
Nothing to hide argument (Score:5, Insightful)
We should definitely have websites like this.
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but the Internet is a little skewed, don't you think? "Reviews" are often "criticisms", especially when anonymity and charged opinion is concerned. Check your local gaming forum for details. (Hardware and book reviews do a better job, mostly because there are user accounts tied to the reviews...not always. But even then, it's anonymous accounts -- and a rateyourcop site isn't going to have the single-author prolificness to tell whether they're angry or right.)
And then you think of rating your cop. I don't know any cops, though I'm sure my city of 100,000 has at least one. And if I did meet them, I would probably give them an honest rating, because I tend to be sort of level-headed, even on the anonymous Internet (well, since my 2nd year of Everquest back in 99...). But most people have bad experiences with police, even if the police were doing the right thing. "Yah, I was doing 85 miles per hour in a 30, but American Idol was on. The cop laughed at that, but still gave me a ticket. Bastard."
Cops have a sucky enough job as it is and while I see a rating system like this as useful for many things, it'll be used for pettiness most of all. The serious issues cops get called out on have more efficient means of getting handled.
Not a cop. I just think of pulling someone over at 3 AM and wondering, every single time, if you're going to walk up to that window and get shot.
Our police forces deserve their privacy! (Score:-1, Insightful)
If only there was some way to have a police force that was "secret"... You know, the kind of force that operated outside the standard boundaries of law. We could call them a "Secret Police"... I like the sound of that.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
where 1984 comes from (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that you all-too easily assume that the erosion of our freedoms is driven mainly by malicious intent.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree VEHEMENTLY. I don't think Secret Police belong in any country that claims to be a free society. IMO every police agent should be in uniform with his or her badge prominently displayed. Rather than bring a slashdotting to my site, I'll reproduce a blog posting from September 2005 [mcgrew.info] here in its entirety.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
The example you post is silly; people will judge the comments too, they just won't blindly agree with them.
As far as cops having sucky jobs and "wondering if they'll be shot." Well, my only response is they choose that line of work. Given that I've been directly bullied by cops, and that none have ever directly protected me, I can't say that I really want them around anyway. Not talking about detectives.. I'm talking about the more or less useless ones that drive around randomly or park near an interstate with a radar gun.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that this additional layer of transparency is helpful. Cops should embrace it, and try to be the best darned cops they can be so they get good ratings on the site. It isn't easy to make an arrest and leave a good impression. But if a cop is a real jerk, there shouldn't be anything preventing someone from posting that on the internet.
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
competence isn't necessary to suppress (Score:5, Insightful)
it would be easier to put a colony on Mars than to organize that gaggle into any sort of overlord-type Big Brother organization...
I've often rolled my eyes when people have suggested varying data-collection-from-various-agencies kind of conspiracies; here in Massachusetts, they can't even handle informing the Registry of Motor Vehicles when you've paid a parking ticket that was overdue.
However, competence and thoroughness are not necessary to suppress and control. You can have a third world dictator whose goons are lazy slobs and sleep all day and never manage to come to the right conclusions on investigations when they're not taking naps. What makes them feared is whether they run around shooting people.
Want a great example? The TSA. They're feared and hated, and it has nothing to do with them being thorough or competent. Tests have repeatedly shown that they miss more than half the stuff secret testers try to sneak by. Rather, it is their complete ineptitude and nearly limitless power- you never know if you're going to get pulled out for additional screening, or told your car key is a 'switchblade' key and thus can't be allowed on, or told to drink your own breast milk because agents think it's liquid explosives instead of milk for your baby, or, or, or...and there's always the thought that you could end up in Gitmo with a black bag over your head 18 hours a day.
In fact, incompetence and power are more likely to suppress the population, because now they can't even count on living by keeping their noses squeaky clean.
Re:1984 (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to slander and libel, from an anonymous post, I would wager most people reading the post would consider the source and move on. Or at least I would.
Anonymous posting is great when it comes to combating injustice via the dissemination of information. The dissemination of vital information outweighs the risk of government retaliation of the poster is known. The elimination of this form of posting would hurt those working towards keeping the government accountable.
With respect to your response to unlikelyhood of a police force to systematically marginalize those who speak out, please consider a smaller community. A small police force can easily implement an unspoken marginalization technique against a citizen it finds to be a threat. I will concede that in a small community most people to recognize the anonymous poster.
Anonymous speech is an important technique to keep the government as honest as possible.
There's no "right" to undercover investigations (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a legitimate concern for cops that do go undercover (they tend to do so off and on throughout a career), in that once they do, there's a big, fat online database that folks can check against before even asking "are you a cop?". This can present a legitimate danger if there's pictures or other personally identifiable information right there on the site.
Where in the US Constitution is the right to conduct undercover investigations, or to do so free from risk? Or to conveniently use the same officers for beat duty and undercover duty, instead of having separate officers/departments?
Re:Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (Score:5, Insightful)
I can show you countless documented cases where cops have killed innocent people or severely hurt them that were given paid vacations and then let back on the streets as a cop again. Make it so if a cop screws up they are removed from ever being a cop again and I'm all for it.
Until then, our only recourse is to publicly police the police. They refuse to do it themselves and refuse to clean up themselves. Hell most people know a cop or two that happily breaks the law daily simply because they are a cop. They speed like they are above the law in and out of uniform. That act alone should get their asses fired. If you are a cop you need to be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us.
Fix that nationwide and I will personally convince the guy to take down his website.
Re:Big Companies==Arm of Government (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who disagree and would work to change that are being marginalized via media and communications industry "cooperation" with government...
I may think Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are a bit out there myself, but on this I heartily agree with their followers.
Re:1984 (Score:1, Insightful)
Certainly many cops bully unnecessarily, but giving traffic tickets is not something that they have any say about.
Easy, a license to park illegally? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doctors for instance have them. Think next time will you?
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree; there are good cops and bad cops. My wife used to be a police dispatcher where I live, and by virtue of that, I met a lot of cops. Every one I met was a pretty good guy (or gal), but I have had run-ins with cops who seemed to have a severe case of "Barney Fife syndrome". For example:
* when I stopped behind the stop sign at an intersection, waited for a car to clear the intersection, then drove through the intersection (all as I was supposed to do), but was pulled over by a cop who couldn't see me stop at the stop sign because of a bush on the corner of the third street where he was stopped. He intended to give me a ticket for failure to stop until the passenger in the car with me verified that I had, in fact, stopped;
* when, as a teenager, I was asked for ID while standing in my own driveway in front of my own open front door at dusk. I was doing absolutely nothing suspicious (talking with my g/f), I was in a place where I absolutely had a right to be, and I most likely hadn't been anywhere else since I was barefoot at the time (in fact, I had been in the shower until my g/f came by).
IMHO, web sites like this one are *exactly* what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment. While that doesn't preclude GoDaddy from terminating a domain (it's a private entity, not a public one), it does reflect poorly on GoDaddy.
Re:1984 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
So, criminal investigations notwithstanding...
Would this even be permitted by their department? I don't see why it wouldn't be. A police officer is still private citizen. Maybe he'd get in trouble for doing so while on duty but there is no real premise to prevent him from commenting on his own time.
How do they know the identity of who they're responding to? This is a minor sticking point, perhaps. I have not seen the site itself but I would imagine things like officer name and badge # would be included. After that, the details of the complaint would likely spark a few memories.
Regarding otherwise good cops getting heat from angry people - that's the breaks. You'll get heat from anyone for doing anything eventually, and cops just happen to deal with more people in stressful situations (who ENJOYS getting pulled over?) so naturally they'll catch more bitching. Doesn't mean we should deny these people their forum though.
=Smidge=
fuck undercover (Score:5, Insightful)
I should mention that I live in Portland, Oregon. We have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Whenever there is a story of a shooting on the news, it is most likely a police officer shooting an unarmed man. A few years back, police tasered a man to death while he was still in his car with his seatbelt on. The excuse that the police gave was that it looked like he was putting drugs in his mouth.
A couple summers ago, in the neighborhood I grew up in (A peaceful lower middle class suburban neighbourhood, I never heard of a crime anywhere in the area the entire 18 years I lived there), a woman called the police saying that her 18 year old son was suicidal, and he needed help. When the police arrived, three officers shot him a total of 8 times in the back.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2008/01/previous_stories_and_the_tort.html [oregonlive.com]
These police officers are all back on duty doing their regular routines after murdering all of these people. These are the people that are protecting and serving me. This is why we need services like this.
Re:1984 why give cops more protection from civ (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops who are problems to other cops sometimes get dispatched to an "upcoming shootout" radioed as a domestic disturbance or petty theft or 2-11 in progress, or something. If s/he's riding alone, it's easier to take him out. The shoot out starts, s/he agonizingly awaits non-arriving backup, and other radios and their freqs are blacked out or knowingly ignored until it's pretty certain that s/he's a a gonner.
i've sometimes tell people that the Rodney King incident would NOT have happened had things been different. Oh, you ask, "what?" Well, as i understand (read/heard from a source), it was a FEMALE CHP officer in pursuit, but she was (purportedly) bullied by LAPD officers assisting in the pursuit. If this is true, then since CHP has authority to pursue and arrest just about ANYwhere in the state, whereas local LE has to make a courtesy request (can't have Rosemead police running over Glendale or Burbank pedestrians or crashing into property outside PD jurisdiction...), she recalled the history of "The Jungle's" PD (LAPD) and knowing she was outnumbered and could be felled, she likely assented to their demand to take him into custody themselves. Likely THEY wanted him because he had a history with them.
So, had SHE taken custody of him, the LA Riots might VERY WELL not have happened.
A rate-my-cop system might very well have weeded out overly-aggressive cops and forced them to resign or STAY undercover instead of interacting with the general public. I'm not for "rooting out and endangering" u/c cops. I'm just saying, just as in war and spying, they KNOW the risks/statistics when putting on the uniform, taking/making the oath, and hitting the beat or warrant task. I'm not trying to be inhumane. It's a dirty, dangerous job at times. Not one I'd rather do, mainly because i'm not one for suppressing corruption and malfeasance if I see it. So, DEFINITELY, i'd be set up for a fall, most likely, if I were a cop in a PD of over, say, 2 officers.
Re:lawsuit? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://forums.nodaddy.com/index.php?board=3.0 [nodaddy.com]
They've all got those escape clauses somewhere. Every single alternative someone points out has at least one person popping up and posting a horror story. There are no real alternatives.
1984 vs Brazil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Are some cops assholes on a power trip? Sure. Are most just decent hard working people? Yep.
Re:1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:2, Insightful)
Off-duty cops are a valuable resource to the police force. In an emergency, they can call off-duty cops for backup - and forcing them to run to the station to change and get a weapon could waste a vital half an hour that gets someone killed. That is a horribly bad idea.
Your comparison to a "Nazi brown shirt" is not simply ridiculous but it comes across as alarmist propaganda designed to incite the negative feelings associated with Nazis. It contributes nothing to the point you're trying to make.
Cops do not have to be wearing a uniform to still be cops. Forcing all cops to wear uniforms while on-duty could perhaps be the worst possible idea. It's easy to avoid cops if they're easily identifiable, meaning it would be easier to hide crimes simply be checking for cops. It's the same with concealed weapons - if they outlaw concealed weapons, only outlaws will have concealed weapons, and the crime rate will increase, since armed criminals could be much more certain that no one would or could resist them. Uncertainty about who might have a concealed weapon likely deters quite a few potential crimes. Uncertainty about who could be a cop likely deters quite a few potential crimes.
Without undercover cops it'd be hard to infiltrate illegal smuggling operations, gangs, and so on, in order to obtain actual solid evidence. I'd guess there are many criminals now in jail that would still be running free if not for undercover operations. Are you saying this is a bad thing? How do you propose these things be stopped?
You make a mistake if you believe that "undercover" == "Secret Police". Secret Police are, in the sense you use them (comparing them to Russian Secret Police and so on), full-time plainclothes cops with virtually unlimited authority. Undercover cops aren't anything like that. They are not full-time, as others have pointed out, instead they don their uniforms most of the time like most cops. They do not have unlimited authority, they must instead (generally) act within their jurisdiction. Traffic cops don't generally get involved with murder investigations, even if they're the ones that found the body in the trunk.
Also recall that not all cops have uniforms as we conventionally think of them. Detectives and other officers often wear normal clothes as they go about their duties. They are not undercover, they simply do not wear the same uniforms as (for example) traffic cops.
Mistakes that happen; whoever killed that cop at that game should not have shot on sight, but at the same time, that plainclothes cop that shot into the air could have come up with a better way to break up the fight. Sometimes people die when people make mistakes - this is true in any field, not just the police force.
Your "but I had a nagging worry" reminds me of an article some time ago by a lady who wrote an article entitled something along the lines of "My Flight with Terror" wherein she details her "harrowing" experience on an uneventful flight with a group of Arabic passengers (a group of musicians, if I recall correctly) who were, by all accounts, minding their own business.
Basically you were letting your imagination run wild, and it got the best of you.
Re:you can do better... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are horror stories about every domain registrar I've heard of, Verisign, register.com, network solutions, they charge way too much, and there are a huge number of bad stories about all of them... Horrible customer service, domain front running, and I'm sure they pull domains at a moments notice too.
The other options are small time bit players that you have to worry will go out of business and take your domain with them.
So... what is your list of A grade registrars?
Re:fuck undercover (Score:4, Insightful)
That is entrapment. It is illegal, and the evidence cannot be used in court. On the other hand, I would like police to be able to infiltrate criminal organizations and gather evidence.
Most people with an attitude like yours bring it on themselves. If you are polite to the cops, then things tend to work out. If you are rude, they do so less so. Is it ideal from a moral standpoint? Probably not. But it does work.
civilian oversight (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there are enough bad cops, and enough other cops who will protect their own even if they are doing something clearly wrong, that *some* kind of civilian oversight is needed most places to avoid the worst abuses. That said, I think this board is a really bad idea, and is actually probably illegal.
First, why it is a bad idea:
The fact is that it will get a lot harder for police to do their job if anonymous systems like this become widely used. Anyone from someone receiving traffic ticket, to someone who got busted for heroin trafficking can them go online and anonymously pretend to be some totally innocent guy who suffered horrible police brutality for no reason whatsoever by officer John D. Law. Hell, people could go online from *jail* and talk smack about their arresting officer in a totally anonymous system.
Second, why this is probably illegal:
Libel and slander are and always have been illegal. The fact that it happens on "the intertubes" where information "wants to be free" does not change the law. If you start false rumors (the false part is important here) about someone being a murderer or something equally horrible and that person can't get a job and their wife leaves them, etc because of it, that person can legally sue the crap out of you. To make this clear why this is, consider if there were a website called "ratemyemployee" and people could go online anonymously and say that they were your boss and give you a performance review. Now, since that person did not have to identify himself, he could be anybody including some random guy you never worked for who had a grudge against you. You could easily lose your current job and not be able to find a new one in such a situation. Suing the person who started the rumor provides a way to clear your name in court and get monetary compensation.
As it stands, the web site may be liable for slander or libel if they don't give up information on who posted.
I think the correct thing to do is for the site to hold users contact information in escrow, and to provide some kind of means of redress, without immediately handing out addresses to police officers who just want to find out who talked smack about them. Futhermore, the site itself should probably require a contract is signed and make it clear it will fine users if they make a habit of posting slander on their site.
People on both end, police and civilians, need to be held accountable for their actions.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
your free to say what you like, but you have to be prepared to take responsibility for it.
Re:1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
and don't talk to me about tazers or pepper spray. they don't put crazy's and druggies down.
Re:1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
Free Speech does have limits - see also the US Constitution and a shedload of USSC cases.
You cannot legally slander, libel, raise false warnings (e.g. shout "fire" in a theater), etc...
IOW, Free Speech doesn't trump everything.
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
I've only been pulled over once in my life. It was going into the queens midtown tunnel, aka, going from queens into manhattan. So yes, this qualifies as a NYC cop.
Going up to the toll booth, the cop was standing there, chatting up the tool booth lady. I probably should have picked another lane - you see, my registration had expired. The police officer noticed this and had me pull over. When he came up to talk to me about it, I realized I had lost my driver's license. I was flying frequently at the time, and had lost it in LGA. (I later got it mailed back to me anonymously after I had replaced it already.)
To keep this short, after explaning myself nervously, he let me go, no tickets for either my registration or lack of a license. There are some nice people out there. This counterexample to your nightmare NYC cops certainly doesn't mean there aren't nightmare NYC cops - there probably are. We just shouldn't lump all the people in any large organization into a single sterotype. There are good and bad - I tend to think there are more good cops than bad, but I'm not about to argue over the exact percentages. I haven't seen this site that was pulled down, but if it gave people an honest way to handle bad cops while not generalizing to every cop in the world, it was probably doing much more good than it was doing harm. People need to take things they read online with a bit of skepticism, and I think anyone reading a site like RateMyCop would realize that the people writing the reviews may have a rather large bias.
Remove your tinfoil hat, sir (Score:3, Insightful)
It is truly unfortunate that people make up their minds with ridiculous assertions based on anecdotal evidence. And yes, your personal bad experience with law enforcement does count as anecdotal evidence.
Fortunately, most criminal cases do NOT involve coercion or entrapment. I have been around lawyers long enough and participated in enough criminal trials to know that even the most inexperienced lawyer is much more likely than not going to be able to have charges dismissed if there was any sort of coercion or entrapment going on. And this isn't to say coercion and entrapment don't happen, or that some rogue cops don't get away with it on occasion. But this is to say that those instances are much, much farther and few between than you seem to believe.
The system isn't perfect, to be sure. But the bottom line is, it is a system run by humans with their inherent faults, and because of that, it is probably about as good as it is going to get. By all means though, if you have any feasible suggestions, do feel free to bring them up.
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so your anecdotes totally overrides his anecdotes.
You're making huge generalizations.
So are you. One problem with even "good" cops is that are extremely hesitant to turn in "bad" cops.
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:3, Insightful)
Guns are legal. Why should a legal item need to be smuggled?
While I agree that we should all have the right to bear arms, I don't think criminals convicted of violent crimes should necessarily have that right - and illegal weapon smuggling gives them those weapons.
So does burglarizing the home of someone who legally owns that weapon. Criminals don't go to Mexico to smuggle weapons to use in holdups, they can get them here. They only need to smuggle weapons that the government has said nobody can posess, despite the 2nd amendment. There's no reason whatever to smuggle weapons unless the weapons are (illegally) outlawed.
While you might consider drug use to be a victimless crime, I do not - both the person taking drugs and that person's family usually suffer.
Freedom is the right to fuck your life up any damned way you choose. Alcoholics and their families suffer, too, but they legalized alcohol because the laws against it were as counterproductive as the laws against the other drugs are today. If you're against drug prohibition then you MUST be for outlawing alcohol and tobacco, the two most destructive drugs there are.
Prostitution? The families of men who use them suffer.
My marriage broke up because of my ex-wife's infidelity. You don't think my children and I suffered? The three of us were prescribed antidepressant drugs for our suffering! There was no prostitution involved (but there damned sure is now). Why is it legal for me to have sex with your wife so long as I don't pay her? It's not the prostitution that ruins lives and breaks up families, it's the adultery. Adultery DOES have a victim: the adulteror's spouse. But adultery is legal, at least in Illinois. It's grounds for divorce, but it doesn't affect the divorce settlement in any way.
Since I'm divorced, how does it hurt anyone if I hire a hooker? She gets needed cash and I get laid. If I have sex with your wife, you and your family are harmed, but no law is broken.
Gambling? If I lose all my money, if I take out a second mortgage on my house and gamble it away, where will my wife and kids live when the debt comes due?
I live alone. I'm no gambler but if I were, why should I be deprived of it because YOU are too weak and stupid to control yourself?
I actually am in danger of losing my house, but it's froem being stupidly kind hearted and loaning money to people who don't pay it back, then borrowing from places with interest that was illegally high just a couple of decades ago. Why are those places legal? Why is it legal fro the downtrodden I stupidly help to ask me for money? Why is it legal for me to stupidly give it away? My drug is empathy - I get an emotional high from helping people, and its bringing me to ruin. I can't see how that's different from drugs or gambling, yet it's perfectly legal.
If goverment is going to protect me for my own weakness, then it first should give me health care, particularly MENTAL health care. But government can't even protect me from you, how could it possibly protect me from myself? As to gambling, well, here in Illinois I can go to a horsetrack and gamble, I can go to a riverboat and gamble, why is it illegal to sit down in my back yard and play poker with my buds? Why is it illegal for me to bet on sports? Government already said gambling is ok - but only under their rules. It's a damned hypocritical law!
We are better off with them illegal. Sorry if I'm too conservative for your tastes.
Liberty is conservative. You should apologize for being a liberal, not a conservative.
but there's some pretty good evidence out there that I'm right. No, I'm not going to provide any here
That's because there is none. The Flying Spagetti Monster is real, I'll leave it to your google skills to to prove my point for me.