City Sues To Prevent Linking To Its Website 429
Mike writes "In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind case, the Sheboygan city attorney ordered Jennifer Reisinger to remove a link to the city's police department from her Web site. The city went further, she claims, launching a criminal investigation of her for linking to the department on one of her sites, and in response she's suing the mayor and the city. 'The mayor decided to use his office to get back at Jennifer for her efforts in the recall and picked this to do it,' said her attorney, Paul Bucher. It appears this will go to court, and the question will be can a city (or any business or Web property) stop people from posting a link to its site?"
ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
This is even a question? (Score:5, Insightful)
the question will be can a city (or any business or Web property) stop people from posting a link to its site?
The answer is (or damn well better be) no. This is completely obvious. When you put something up on the Web without a form of access control (meaning logging in, not meaning "I only give out the address to certain people"), it's public every bit as much as if you put an ad in the newspaper. Linking to your site is no different than me saying, "Hey, check out this newspaper ad CmdrTaco put in, it's really cool!".
Even if that weren't the case (and it very much is), this is a government web site. They have no right to keep anyone out at all. I don't know what the city was thinking, but they have no ground to stand on here. Maybe they're hoping they'll get a really clueless or corrupt judge, I dunno.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.
SO um, what's the issue?
The problem is that the city issued a cease and desist order in the first place.
Just because they withdrew it doesn't change the fact that they engaged in an abuse of process.
Good on Reisinger for counter-suing and hopefully establishing some case law on the matter.
Example: In November, the **AA withdrew its cease and desist order that Slashdot not link to bittorrent sites.
Still don't see the issue?
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
Intimidation to cause censorship. The city attempted to hinder her 1st amendment rights. She fought back and the city backed down, but that doesn't make what they did right.
The city needs to be made an example of in the court of law for all to see so as to dissuade others from trying the same thing.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling people who disagree with your political views "lunatics" isn't racist. But it sure is bigoted, arrogant, and insulting to people who have mental problems.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:4, Insightful)
I defend not what you say, but your right to say it. Go eat the earth flag.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the statute of limitations is probably going to be at least 2 years and possibly 3. It would even be legitimate to file the suit right before the deadline.
In most civilized countries one doesn't have to rush out immediately to file suit, people are generally able to try to fix the problem or to mull things over. November was only 10 months ago. She'd likely have at least 14 more to file.
Otherwise, I have no idea what you're getting at.
one sandwich please, hold the bread (Score:2, Insightful)
How dare she make the Web be a web!
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
a woman posts a link to a municipal government website, so the mayor sends her a cease-and-desist letter and then launches a police investigation on her to intimidate the woman and coerce her into removing the link. and you see nothing wrong here?
it doesn't matter that the city withdrew its demand after the lawsuit was filed (or possibly after the media broke the story). the point is that government officials should not be bullying political dissidents like this--especially not in concert with the police department.
the woman in this story was smart enough to contact a lawyer and fight back, but most people would probably be intimidated and just back down. this story should be reported if only so others know that such demands have no legal basis.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excessive? In a case like this the maximum is $500,000 per charge. Asking for half of that is not excessive, especially when it comes to the government stepping on a citizen's 1st Amendment rights.
Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste (Score:5, Insightful)
A web designer created a web link to the main site of a public, government institution. The city then issued her with a cease and desist order and began a police investigaton againt this person. This is patently wrong, and is behaviour which needs to be discouraged.
The fact that they withdrew the order later is really beside the point. A police investigation when the person instigating it knows(and TFA pretty clearly shows he did know) that it is baseless and illegal is intimidation.
The fact that this woman may or may not have undesirable political and/or racist opinions doesn't really matter. It wouldn't even matter if she's the second coming of Hilter(queue Godwin), using the police to intimidate or harrass someone who hasn't done anything wrong is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional, and saying "Oops we're sorry" when you get caught doesn't get you off the hook.
It would have been a slightly different situtation if she was attempting to incite violence, or using the link in some other non protected way, but there seems to be absolutely no indication that this is the case(I'm not entirely sure how you could incite violence against a web address in the first place).
She ought to sue, she ought to win, and the idiots who ordered this ought to be out on the street. The fact that's she appears to be a racist redneck fool doesn't change any of that.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
If /. wants to pontificate about censorship they should do it in the cause of a more upright citizen.
Isn't the whole point of free speech that people should be free to say what they'd like especially when others find it distastful or inappropriate?
Its not really freedom if you're only allowed to say tasteful things, is it?
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:1, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be. [wikipedia.org]
Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this: if you sue somebody and lose (or back out, etc.) then you pay the defendants lawyer's fees as well as your own.
How about this: No one ever sues large corporations again because if they lose they're going to be broke for the rest of their lives.
but can't stop a Telco from suing it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
A city sues a single person to prevent him/her from linking to a public website, but keeps silent when a Telco sues it for providing free internet...
Guess cities are bullies like corporates.
Pick on the small guy.
I dearly, dearly hope the defendant not only prevails, but also countersues the City Mayor for Fraud, deliberate attempt to subvert justice, manslaughter (what the heck, file anyway), and personally report him to the FBI for corruption.
Counter Attack is the best form of defence.
Damages (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps we should note the difference between compensatory and punative damages. Compensatory damages are to compensate the plantif for damage done to her. In this case, GP is probably correct in assuming that she did not suffer 250K in damages.
But in the question of the government stepping on a citizen's 1st amendment rights, as P mentions, 250K is not excessive, as it is not big enough to make most municipalities pay attention. In this case, it should be a huge ammount, and it should be under punitive damages.
Re:Oye (Score:3, Insightful)
their landing page is titled NEW PAGE 1 and was made with FrontPage 5.0
I'd have to say I like this better than a situation where city hall spends half a million on some stupid hip web design agency who does nothing more than creating a Flash site.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, from TFA she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years If /. wants to pontificate about censorship they should do it in the cause of a more upright citizen.
Talk about an upright citizen!!! Why is it every time someone does not toe the liberal line of allowing ILLEGAL aliens into this country they are labelled racist??? If you do not like the law, do something about and get the law changed. Otherwise stop calling everyone a racist just because they dont agree with your particular point of view.
People are allowed to disagree with you and want our laws upheld.
Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mayor was acting on behalf of "the people", with the weight of the power bestowed on him by "the people". So, IMO, it is the "the people" who should ultimately take the responsibility for his abuse of power. If the courts can sanction the mayor personally, all well and good. If not, then responsibility again falls on "the people" for not electing people who will pass the laws to make that an option for the courts.
Re:Pretty cut and dry if you ask me (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians and other public figures would rather their mugshot be boring and unremarkable, like they're smiling for just another photo. A scowling, haggard mugshot is perfect for front page in the newspaper.
Re: whole point of free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
If we just started ignoring the idiots in real life, they would go away, too. Instead, we put them on the news. All you have to do is wave a Nazi flag or hang a rope from a tree [wikipedia.org], and you automatically get +5 mod points just for being a moron.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:3, Insightful)
I *hate* illegal immigration I think that the aliens should all be crated up and shipped back to their home countries. If they want to come back so bad, they'll have to do it legally.
I DO have standing, my wife is a *legal* immigrant, and everytime I hear that someone wants to let the illegals stay, I/we feel like we've been kicked in the collective nuts. I mean we're idiots right? for doing things legally I mean. Who knew that there were things like laws and stuff.
Regarding Racial Slurs (Score:5, Insightful)
But use any of the assorted names for black people, and watch the brains of everyone in the room reboot as they look around in a panic to see if any of "them" heard you.
I think this classically illustrates how racism still exists in America. Mexicans don't like being called spics, don't call a lesbian a dyke, a gay a fag, and so on...unless you are tolerant. I can say whatever I choose in mixed company and rarely will a person of particular race,gender or ,who ever fits into whatever slur I said , will get mad.(I'm not talking about running into the tube and screaming "Stupid-ass, watermelon munching. Nigger") Why you ask?
Because they know I've got nothing against anyone. Shying away from certain words shows that you are afraid of them. If you would say something amongst close friends, such as saying "don't be so niggardly", but wouldn't say it in front of a black person- you are racist.
Minorities aren't stupid, yet we treat them like they are. Its like when you have that friend who acts like he enjoys your company but know he talks shit about you. Everyone gets it.
Here's an example, I am a white male in the IT sector. I play in a jazz fusion band called "Spook and the Ghosts". One of my best friends is the black drummer. You know who worries about the name or protests against it? White people. If I were to mention it at work- amongst my ivy-league-PhD-toting-engineers coworkers, they would get freaked out- but then make racist jokes. My black and Hispanic friends in Jamaica Plain [one of the ghettos(in the original sense) in Boston] think its hilarious, but they aren't going to make racist jokes because they think its safe. The PhD's (and most of white America) is racist at home and pretends like they aren't in the street. No one fools anyone.
If someone has a mental disability, call them retarded. That's what they are. When your jewish friend complains about the 25 cents he was shorted at Dunkin Doughnuts, even though he makes 100k a year, tell him to not be such a jew. He knows what your referring to.
The worst thing you can do is act one way in public and another at home.
Re: whole point of free speech (Score:1, Insightful)
Turn off -1 comments, and you'll miss 99% of the GNAA, Goatse or "FIRST!!" posts.
And you'll miss 99% of the insightful posts. The /. moderation system is hopelessly broken at this point. Insightful comments are often modded down because someone either disagrees with it or is too ignorant of the subject matter to be modding in the first place. The meta moderation system has far too few participants and the vast majority of the false moderations never get fixed. Worse, the current generation seems to ignorant of proper terminology and often redefine words or out of stupidity and never bother to learn the actual definition. Few under the age of 20 seem to understand the definition of words like "flamebait" and "troll". Many here seem to falsely presume "flamebait" means I disagree and "troll" means I really, really disagree.
To make matters worse, many people now mod troll. They specifically target people via multiple accounts and immediately snipe their posts, forcing them down before they can be modded up. Since many people do not read 0 and -1 posts, very insightful posts are never even seen. Some people have dozens of accounts for the sole purpose of trolling and mod trolling, whereby, they use their accounts to mod their other accounts and trolled posts up.
As is, slashdot is a shadow of what it once was. Now, the dopes and idiots plus the high number of bad moderations which are never fixed chase most of the intelligent would-be posters away. This means we are largely left with the ignorant that think they have something to add but sadly don't. And the few that do are often modded down by the mass of ignorance that is common here. Worse, their friends mod them up without regard for the content provided and they mod down any real content.
Slashdot is hopelessly broken. Either live it or move on. You'll find most have moved on. In other words, by ignoring -1 posts, you are likely missing out on the entire point of visiting slashdot's comment system in the first place.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its just the initial act of asking her in a C&D letter to remove it. They officially as government representatives attempted to abridge her 1st amendment rights. Thats pretty much all it takes for her to have a basis for a pretty darn good lawsuit. Someone will be regretting the hell out of that.
Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits? (Score:3, Insightful)
The link was removed, then reinstated and the claimant complained - a public apology was made by the Mayor.
End of.
We call that, "Can dish it out but can't take it".
Re:You do realize who actually pays such suits? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you live that the mayor can have the city attorney try to stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights? And then sic the police department on you to "investigate" you for linking to their website?
That is a pretty clear violation of your constitutional rights. This should be stomped on pretty hard!
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is it that you live that people don't cringe in panic at any of those words? Calling someone any of those terms in NYC will likely result in you getting your ass kicked.
Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind though, this is white-bread Wisconsin. A few anecdotes for ya.
Over a decade ago I was in boot camp in San Diego. We had one guy in our platoon who didn't pull his own weight. He was lazy, lacked motivation, and was about as bright as a door stop. Field days in particular, he would sit on his foot locker while everyone else was working. One morning, another recruit, fed up with the guy's lack of effort called him a porch monkey and told him to get off his ass. Being from white-bread Wisconsin, I just assumed he was calling the guy lazy, I mean, we have people who sit around on their porches sucking up unemployment insurance and welfare in Wisconsin, and in the town I grew up in, where we had 4 black families out of a pop of 7k, the vast majority of the 'porch monkeys' were most definitely white. I was a little surprised to see the recruit who said it get raked over the coals for it by the DI's.
Just two weeks ago, some republican senator referred to the Obamas as "Uppity". That's another term, being from white-bread Wisconsin, I was familiar with. It's used to describe someone who is behaving not of their social/economic class. It's crass and rude, but I had never heard of it being referred to as a racially charged word. But apparently, it is. Who knew?
I've traveled around the world, and at every stop there are differences in language, social interactions, and social expectations. What is clearly a racial term to one person can be just another insult to a different person. So while I haven't read the TFA or websites, bear in mind that not everyone has the same experiences as you.
-Rick
Re:Regarding Racial Slurs (Score:3, Insightful)
If you would say something amongst close friends, such as saying "don't be so niggardly", but wouldn't say it in front of a black person- you are racist.
Nah. That just makes you an idiot. The words "nigger" and "niggardly" are completely etymologically unrelated.