City Sues To Prevent Linking To Its Website

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?"

Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[tjstork (137384)]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Rary (566291)]

In November, the city withdrew its demand that Reisinger not link to city government sites.

SO um, what's the issue?

Not only that, but the headline says that the city is suing the woman, but both the article and the summary state that the woman is suing the city. Did the editor even read the summary?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[oldhack (1037484)]

...Did the editor even read the summary?

"editor", eh?! You'll learn soon, grasshopper.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[by Anonymous Coward]

she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years):

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?

[theNetImp (190602)]

oh be quiet you lunatic ;-)

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[TeacherOfHeroes (892498)]

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?

Well...

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

It used to be. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[RMB2 (936187)]

I'm sorry, citizens have the "responsibility" of acting "responsibly"? And whom exactly is in charge of the subjective definition of "responsibly"?

Additionally, you earn +0 Karma for misinterpreting the First Amendment. A very simple search [wikipedia.org] would tell you that
1) The Supreme Court decision (Schenck v. United States in 1919) only described falsely shouting fire in a theater, and
2)

Schenck was later limited by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day.

You might notice that no mention is made of "responsible" action. I, for one, find the lack of such subjectivity to be a good thing.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Repossessed (1117929)]

you can't shout out "FIRE" and cause a panic

Why do people constantly use an argument meant to typify speech which leads to violence, injury and destruction, when attacking speech which does no such thing?

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Malevolyn (776946)]

Go eat the earth flag.

Not the one made out of skin, of course.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[TubeSteak (669689)]

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?

[hedwards (940851)]

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.

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[digitalunity (19107)]

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?

[lysergic.acid (845423)]

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.

sheboyganpolice.com

[Entropy98 (1340659)]

http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/ [sheboyganpolice.com]

Sheboygan Police General Information:
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Chief of Police / David E. Kirk
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Deputy Chief of Police, Operations Division / Allen J. Sherven
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Captain of Criminal Investigation Unit / James A. Veeser
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Shift Commanders / Phone: [phone]
First Shift ( 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM ) Captain David A. Derus
Email: [e-mail]
Second Shift ( 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM ) Captain Stephen B. Cobb
Email: [e-mail]
Third Shift ( 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM ) Captain Bob V. Wallace
Email: [e-mail]

Training / Resource Division / Lieutenant Michael Williams
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Administrative Services / Lieutenant Janet Reinfeldt
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Drug Unit / Lieutenant Kurt Brasser
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Traffic Section / Sergeant Thomas Tuszynski
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Court Services Section / Lieutenant Janet Reinfeldt
Phone: [phone] / [e-mail]

Community Policing Unit
Lieutenant Jeffrey Johnston / Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]
Officer John Winter / Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]
Officer Todd Priebe / Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Street Crime Unit
Officer Kurt Zempel / Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]
Officer Brian Retzer / Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]
Officer Paul Olsen / Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Criminal Investigation Division / Phone: [phone]
Detective Mark Kolosovsky / Email: [e-mail]

K-9 Unit / Officer Trisha Miller
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

School Resource Officers
South High School / Officer Terry Meyer / Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
North High School / Officer Doug Hall / Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Urban Middle School / Officer Patrick Leichtnam / Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Farnsworth Middle School / Officer Eric Edson / Phone: [phone]
Horace Mann Middle School / Officer Eric Edson / Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Police Property Office / Julie Lamb
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Administrative Assistant & Office Supervisor / Paula Haelfrisch
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Communications & Electronics Technician / Russell Schreiner
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Fleet Operations Mechanic / David Daniels
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Web Site Administrator / Officer John Winter
Phone: [phone] / Email: [e-mail]

Re:Did the editor read the last paragraph?

[Khyber (864651)]

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.

You do realize who actually pays such suits?

[unassimilatible (225662)]

City governments do not have printing presses to churn out $20 bills to pay off lawsuits. This is taxpayer money, and as one of those taxpayers sick of property tax assessments and hearing how broke my city is - and as someone who has helped defend such lawsuits for my local city attorney's office - I can tell you first hand that city governments are far too free wheeling with other people's money when it comes to paying off lawsuits. It really is disgusting how they will settle suits rather than stand up and fight and risk taking any political positions.

We've got enough fiscal problems without you throwing around other people's money like it is free.

These city politicos look like dipwads, but how does giving this woman a cash windfall at taxpayer expense hurt them? Take my word for it, the *taxpayer* money the average city pays out on junk lawsuits is the real rights being trampled daily.

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[multisync (218450)]

If you don't want people to find your website, don't register a domain. Once you do, it's public knowledge. Printing the URL of the city's website is no worse than printing the premiere's mugshot [wikimedia.org] when he gets busted for DUI. (Sorry, OT political commentary, but it seemed a good example).

don't do what?

[JLennox (942693)]

oh, this. [sheboyganpolice.com]

Re:don't do what?

[The Ancients (626689)]

Have you looked at the code and graphics on that site?

It should be illegal to link to it.

Re:don't do what?

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

Have you looked at the code and graphics on that site? It should be illegal to link to it.

I wonder why?

meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"

This is even a question?

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

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.

Oye

[ohtani (154270)]

You know a organization knows what they're doing on the web when their landing page is titled NEW PAGE 1 and was made with FrontPage 5.0

Re:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[Eskarel (565631)]

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of frivilous law suits out there, but how is this one?

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:The bigger question... changing the legal syste

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.