Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

Domain-Name Protest Is Protected Speech 177

Posted by timothy from the damn-straight dept.
Lunartik links to this Detroit Free Press report, writing "The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled Friday that Michelle Grosse did not violate the law when she used the name of Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc. for a Web site she created to complain about the Canton, MI nursery. 'This is a very important case,' said Paul Levy, staff attorney with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. 'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Domain-Name Protest Is Protected Speech More

Domain-Name Protest Is Protected Speech

Comments Filter:

  • I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R ( 734295 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:49PM (#8486797)
    "This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate."

    How is this not legitimate???

    I thought usuing the name of a company to criticize said company was perfectly legal

    ...or am I supposed to refer to Micro$oft as something else?

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:52PM (#8486825)
      EXACTLY.

      Certain powers were attempting to twist trademark law into, essentially, outlawing negative speech about their products. They were just fighting it in the realm of the Internet, a place regarding which the courts can make very silly decisions, due to their misunderstanding of it.

      Now we just need a judgement striking down "Thou shalt not speak badly of us," terms in EULAs, which have been used to intimidate publications into not running negative reviews.

      • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Vancorps ( 746090 )
        haha, wow, I like that sig

        Anyway, this has been a long issue but it is a little different on the net. On the net you find things by their name and so if the name is trademarked then using that name could be a complicated issue. I think its terrible that it was ever even and issue since going to microsoftsucks.com would in no way make a user think they could get microsoft products there.

        Yes it hurts the trademark but there has to be limits otherwise the only way to complain about something is to post on s

        • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:03PM (#8486912)
          Wow, someone likes my .sig. Mainly I get flamed for it. :-)

          You point out the major argument that the Trademarked Powers were making. They were saying that the proliferation of (Company)Sucks.com sites was cutting into their market share by keeping people from seeing their official sites. This decision basically says, "Tough. Free Speech means you too can get shouted down."

          • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Vancorps ( 746090 )
            Bah, its worth a little flame cause its so damned true.

            Its nice that under this administration we are actually seeing an expansion of free speech rather than the reverse. I can see both sides of the argument. I basically I see it a lot like celebrity. If a lot of people know about you there will invariably be people that don't like you and as long as they don't print or otherwise spread lies then it all falls within the spirit and lettering of bill of rights.

            • Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Watch out.

              You can't listen to what you like on the radio! Somewhere in the midwest a truant son of a minister might tune into Howard Stern.

              The public airwaves aren't for a hetrogenious public, but in reality only for a small minority of an extremely pious public who never offend anyone with anything they say or do.

              Howard Stern, salacious, but ultimately shallow and boring. My opinion of course. But he does have millions of fans. People who love his show and need it in some strange, and depressing, ca

            • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by iminplaya ( 723125 )
              Its nice that under this administration we are actually seeing an expansion of free speech rather than the reverse.

              It really doesn't make one bit of difference what administration we're under. Remember, it was the "other" administration that signed the DMCA into law, expanded the death penalty, gave $20 bil to his corporate buddies to cover their bad investments in Mexico, etc., etc. You're looking at two sides of the same coin(old cliche, I know) or as Kucinch put it, "they're both dialing for the same d
              • I wasn't referring to the DMCA which being an utterly stupid idea that somehow made it all the way through and into law but I was more talking about the PATRIOT Act and how it essential makes you a criminal for saying any negative. Not a criminal per se but it guarantees an investigation into your life rather than taking the statements at face value.

                In many ways the DMCA didn't really become effective until this administration because of policy and the passing of additional laws. There is one enigma that i

                • This will change as soon as we elect a new Pres whether it be the end of this year or four years from now.

                  Hate to disappoint you, but it aint gonna happen, unless the country suddenly finds enlightenment. I've seen nine different presidents pass through, and, with some exceptions, it's been pretty much a downhill ride all along.

                  • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Vancorps ( 746090 )
                    Sorry but... how so? Every pres right up to Bush Jr basically expanded on what the pres before them did. The difference here is that Bush rolled back all environmental regulations for power plants in the name of the economy, yeah, that worked!

                    Might add every pres up to Bush was actually for the expansion of technology, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all really pushed the country to modernize which gave it a very strong economy that took some time to take hold but nevertheless Clinton had a much easier time o

                    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)

                      by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @06:47PM (#8487862) Journal
                      We can spend all picking out pieces of the good and bad. I'm talking about the general demeanor of the country. In my life the slide started when Kennedy was killed (there went camelot) The sheer ugliness of the Johnson and Nixon years is still prominent in my memories. The lies about Vietnam and Nixon's political enemies list are there for all to see, but it's still business as usual. Before the 80's a one income family with 70 percent(!) of one's paycheck going to the IRS could still keep a very nice house out in the 'burbs. That's all gone now. Clinton was just a bad reaction to Bush Sr. And now with 9/11 the march towards fascism is moving double time. Please don't think for even the briefest second that Bush Lite(Kerry) is going to make any meaningful changes.
                    • I don't even for one second think that Kerry will make meaningful changes, but I also think Bush Jr. will continue to make things worse until this country only has but a memory of what freedom meant. Kerry will stop things from getting worse!

                      Hopefully after a stabilizing period when the U.S. becomes a bit more predictable then the economy will improve simply because stability breeds a good economy.

                      I have no illusions about either party, the man I was hoping would become the dem candidate (Howard Dean) Is

                    • Kerry will stop things from getting worse!

                      That may or may not be true. More likely he'll just distract our attention with some sex scandal or something. It worked before.

                      Most of what we hear about the economy are lies used by corporations to drive wages down in order to make us "competitive". They tell us the economy is bad, we must lay off or export our workforce. Overall, things haven't changed much. My Hostess Cupcakes haven't changed prices much over the last five years. I've been able to find good w
                    • As a Vermont resident I'd have to disagree with your assessment of Dean. Everything he has ever promised he has always done his best to accomplish, sometimes the legislature made it difficult for him but he'd keep fighting until the ultimate good was accomplished (Think Civil Unions) It was a temporary step he created to get himself closer to his goal. He did the same thing with universal healthcare, he knew you couldn't have the government pay for it all so he took steps to make healthcare cheaper and now
                    • "Please don't think for even the briefest second that Bush Lite(Kerry) is going to make any meaningful changes."

                      At least Kerry doesn't seem to want to turn my country into the Christian Republic of North America, and didn't tell everyone in the country to place little American flags on our vehicles.

                      In that sense I agree with Bill Maher's When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden concept. Rather than put stupid little flag stickers on our cars, we should have been encouraged to depend less on Musli
                    • we would physically not have to have presence in their countries, which seems to be part of their beef.

                      Precisly, they don't care about your way of living - as long as it doens't involve large amounts of interference of their way of living. The best way to protect the homeland is to keep the soldiers *on* the homeland.
                    • what about kennedy and cuba? I admit I wasn't alive during the administration, but I've seen and heard various recordings. I'm not so quick to say all was holy just a few short years ago. It seems this has been occuring for a long time, the only thing that is changing is the amount of resources and technological achievement that allows a bigger boom if you will. Think about it, the bombs have gotten bigger but earth is still the same size. I will agree however that government is becoming more and more
                    • You are 100% right on that. We should start testing for oil in our own country and drill for it locally.
                      The problem is that testing, and then building the facilities to get to finds takes a while, and we have a huge amount of short sighted people who don't like that.

              • It does not matter which head stands at the end of the corporate money trail. After all, the same trail will lead to the same place no matter who walks it.

                I will never vote democrat or republican. To wear that tag simply says you favor the status quo.
          • But can you ever be liberal in the right ways? ;)

            Anyway, the thing here, as I read the article, was the site name was not www.lucasnurserysucks.com, it was simply www.lucasnursery.com. If you truely do believe in trademark infringement, this would seem to be a reasonable example of it, as this would be a reasonable guess for someone to type into the adress bar who is trying to get to the official page.

            Well, it wouldn't surprise me if this gets overturned. It's basically a court saying the First Amendm

            • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Alsee ( 515537 )
              If you truely do believe in trademark infringement

              I do. And patents and copyrights.

              this would seem to be a reasonable example of it

              Nope. I suspect you have (conciously or not) adsorbed the "intellectual property" theory of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. It's a lousy model and routinely leads to erroneous conclusions, as it does in this case.

              Such a radical departure from normal court rulings

              Nope. It's exactly in line with the law and "normal court rulings".

              The purpose of patents, trademarks,
              • Nope. It's exactly in line with the law and "normal court rulings".

                Ah, I see you are humor impaired ;). It's in reference to court decisions stretching all the way back to Schenck v. United States and possibly best illustrated in Gitlow v. United States, where instead of abiding by NY State law and keeping Gitlow in prision, the courts decided to (wrongly) marry the First to the Fourteenth (just three years prior the Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth did nothing of any practicle use to the First), then
                • It's in reference to [1st amendment] court decisions...

                  Ah, I was thining in terms of Trademark rulings.

                  The Slashdot title refers to "protected speech", but as far as I can tell the linked story never hints that the decision touched on the first amendment at all. You only need to turn to the 1st amendment when the law attempts to restrict speech. In this case trademark did not restrict anything - trademark law says the site is fine.

                  We never reached the 1st amendment.

                  Just that it seems coming darn close
          • For more info, you might check out 2600 [2600.com]. They've been doing this for quite a while now, i think they own fordreallysucks.com . It's in court right now AFAIK. Donate to their lawyers if you care.

      • Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Informative)

        by 91degrees ( 207121 )
        Now we just need a judgement striking down "Thou shalt not speak badly of us," terms in EULAs, which have been used to intimidate publications into not running negative reviews.

        I believe there have been cases where these clauses were struck down. Of course, if I read this groklaw article [groklaw.net] about the difference between a license and a contract correctly, an EULA can't actually prevent you from doing anything that isn't forbidden by law. If this is the case, I'm surprised nobody has tried to use this poin

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )
      How is this not legitimate???

      Expect an appeal.

      Those PetsWarehouse [petswarehouse.com] suits a few years back were a mess, and undoubtably an abuse of the courts.

      Suppose someone registered a domain name www.robertnovakisaweasel.com, you could pretty much expect he would have filed similar suits to those he did.

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)

      by quonsar ( 61695 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:08PM (#8486944) Homepage
      I thought usuing the name of a company to criticize said company was perfectly legal

      well, it is, as long as you do it in a medium where nobody cares (ranting at pals in your living room) or where it costs you a ton of money and nobody pays any attention because you are not a well known content provider (tv, any print media) or where you get arrested for disturbing the peace (car-mounted loudspeaker). but if you think for one second that 500 meg/50 gig shell/ftp/email account you pay $5/month for gives you the right to besmirch the public-minded selfless corporate sugar-daddys who improve your sad little existence on a daily basis, and to do it in front of the entire wired planet, at no additional cost, well, you are a thief and a traitor to the [insert greed-driven dog-eat-dog financial philosophy of choice here] dream. and that's the reason we'll have that upstart internet so enmeshed in restrictive laws - within a short time we'll have made the internet safe for business, just like tv is now! </bile>

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:25PM (#8487022)
      I think the issue is that she didn't just say "the company sucks," she registered "thecompany.com" for herself and put up her web page there. So if PETA had beaten mcdonalds.com in registering that domain name, it would still take you to a protest site today.

      Anyways just wanted to clarify, this was about domain names rather than any old use of the company name in protests.

      • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jackb_guppy ( 204733 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:47PM (#8487134)
        But the domian name was *NOT* the company's legal name. It was "www.lucasnursery.com" that you may imply belonged to "Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc."

        Since she did not sell or offer to sell the site so cyber-squating was out.

        If PETA did grab McD's first they would still in control, if they did not offer it for sale. That is why Mr Nissan lost use of his site in a fight with Nissan Motor Corp.

        Though my opinion he was business man working under his name as a business name first, so Missan Motors should be paying him.
        http://www.nissan.com

      • PETA == "People Eating Tasty Animals" (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's interesting that you mentioned PETA, which was involved in one of the earlier domain name disputes. peta.org once pointed to a site which linked to webpages pages dealing with animal products and hunting, under the banner People Eating Tasty Animals. Sadly, the lobbists managed to take control of the domain.

        You can still find a copy of the page at http://mtd.com/tasty/ Since it is so old, most of the links are broken. However, the hate mail section is still up.

      • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
        So if PETA had beaten mcdonalds.com in registering that domain name, it would still take you to a protest site today.

        Bad example, someone beat peta to the punch on registering peta.org, they sued him for it. Primarily because his "organization" was the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. Eventually Peta won and they now control the domain name, but here is an archive of the original peta.org [mtd.com] page.

        LK

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:34PM (#8487059) Homepage
      From a devil's-advocate perspective, I suppose the real-world equivalent of protest via domain names would be like buying a store, putting up the golden arches, and when someone comes in looking for cheeseburgers you give them anti-McDonalds pamphlets instead. That would be a clear-cut case of trademark infringment, causing customer confusion, and so on. This case is no different from other domain name complaints, except that the little guy won.

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Say you're a company called TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R. You sell blank CD-R's online.

      Say I am a competitor of yours. Using www.TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R.com is not legitimate (infringement).

      Say I am a competitor of yours. Using www.better-than-TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R.com is legitimate (non-infringing opinion).

      Say I am an unhappy customer. Using www.TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R-sucks.com is legitimate (non-infringing opinion).

      Say I hate you. Using any domain name at all to say that TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R is a child molestor is
      • Say I hate you. Using any domain name at all to say that TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R is a child molestor[sic] is not legitimate (libel).
        But what if he really is a child molester? Can it be libel if it's true? :)

        • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)

          by gordguide ( 307383 )
          Libel is false and malicious by definition.
          To answer your specific question ("can it be libel if it's true), yes it can.
          To ask the question you probably wanted to ask:
          "Can it be libel if it's fairly and accurately presented without prejudice, and it's true?"
          No, it can't.
          Be prepared to defend yourself and your facts; a supporting conviction would help. Careful how you phrase things.

          " ... (Duhaime's Law Dictionary) Georgia Code 51-5-1 G states: A libel is a false and malicious defamation of another, express

          • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)

            by red floyd ( 220712 )
            I thought that in the US, the truth was an absolute defense against libel?

            I believe that in the UK and other countries, that might not be the case.

            Disclaimers: IANAL (nor do I play on on TV). IAN British.
            • I thought that in the US, the truth was an absolute defense against libel?

              I believe that in the UK and other countries, that might not be the case.

              In the UK, truth is an absolute defense against libel. I think the major difference is that, in the UK, one does not have to prove that the libel was malicious, merely that it the statements were false and that you suffered because of the falsehood.

            • Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @06:38PM (#8487815)
              It is an "absolute defense" against libel. However, simply because it's true does not mean you can prove it, or that you didn't twist the truth to some extent to harm someone's reputation.

              I was thinking specifically about the post I replied to; he used the example "child molester", and It seemed to me that "the truth" might not indemnify him in that case.

              "Child molester" can mean many things; it doesn't have to refer specifically to sexual assault. Many people, however, see it and come to a single, unambiguous conclusion.

              "Annoy continually or chronically" is one definition of "molest", and it may well be true an individual did so but did not commit a sexual offense.

              You could claim that was the meaning of your statement, and that in that definition of "molest" it's perfectly true; but you will find the " tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule" come back to bite you, or the context of your statement means the courts reject your argument.

              Similarly, there are many cases where the absolute truth is superseded by the false; often by the courts themselves. If a lie, for whatever reason, is legitimized by the court or government in a ruling or verdict (and this is not rare in libel cases by any means) it won't be an effective defense.

              Libel cases are are some of the most sensational cases that come before a court and often hinge on definitions, intent, and consequences; "the truth" defense won't always save you.

              It's far more common to find libel accusations in the UK than in North America; if you're interested that would be the place to look for case examples.

              That's why I cautioned to choose your words carefully, avoid inflammatory language, and stick to things that can be easily proven. It will help defend you against the malicious/ridicule part necessary to convict, should they reject your "truth" defense.
    • I thought usuing the name of a company to criticize said company was perfectly legal

      Tell that to Ford [slashdot.org] or GM [2600.com]...

  • Precedent set? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PedanticSpellingTrol ( 746300 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:49PM (#8486799)
    Too bad it wasn't in time for these guys [fordreallysucks.com]

  • Free speech (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:49PM (#8486800)
    It seems to me that there are more than enough exceptions to free speech already. Glad to see this allowed, let's go a little farther.

  • she could get back some legal costs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Neuropol ( 665537 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:55PM (#8486858) Homepage
    by selling the domain name back to the Nursery, or another Lucas Nursery, for that matter. :/

    hopefully, they'd give her a little more for the domain considering the hassle it has been for her to go up against the company and the legal system.

  • Mock Websites (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:55PM (#8486861)
    Now I can setup goatsesucks.cx without worry of recrimination!

    What photo should I put up?

  • Wayback machine (Score:5, Informative)

    by bobthemuse ( 574400 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:58PM (#8486881)
    A link [archive.org] courtesy of the archive.org.

  • What about ICANN (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrByte420 ( 554317 ) * on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:02PM (#8486908) Journal
    Ok, So the the federal courts have ruled in favor of these people, this is a Good Thing[TM] IMHO...However, who's to say they can't try to then persue this through ICANN which has its own rather nutty Domain Dispute Policy [icann.org] which has done things like uphold a claim by Molson (beer) to own canadian.biz (which was later overturned in canadian courts...) [theglobeandmail.com] Who exactly has the ultimate jurisdiction here?

  • This happened to Bally Total Fitness 6 years ago (Score:5, Informative)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:04PM (#8486916)
    A summary of that decision is here [linksandlaw.com]. The basics of the case are that the defendant used the company name in conjunction with the term "sucks" and Bally sued because the site could "confuse" consumers. Of course, Bally thankfully lost.

    Today, there are several [ballysucks.net] sites [aboutballyfitness.com] that warn about Bally Total Fitness' fraudulent and misrepresentative activities.
    • This case, however, goes one further. It doesn't require that "sucks" or any other negative word be part of the domain name of a complaining site. If Bally.com was unregistered, then somebody who wants to complain about them can grab that domain name first and use it for a complaint site about Bally... they can order that site down, and the offical site of the company would just have to pick another domain name.

      That's a blow to those who think trademarks trump the I-registered-it-first system of domains. I
  • Yes! Now I have freedom of spoof.. err speech SCUMGROUP [scumgroup.com] - Suing Businesses Worldwide

  • Copy of old page text (Score:5, Informative)

    by bobthemuse ( 574400 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:05PM (#8486925)
    According to archive.org, 7/20/2001, the page read as below. Seems like a very straightforward and factual complaint, unlike many of the xxxxsucks.com domains I see now. My Lucas Landscaping Experience I hired Lucas in Canton, MI to landscape my new home last year. I was very displeased with the results. Here is my story. Lucas didn't use slag sand for the base of any retaining walls. The results you can see above -- sinking walls. After less than a month and lots of rain, the walls sank in three places. Brick circles built around two identical trees between the sidewalk and curb were made two different sizes. Lucas refused to repair them. The ground was not prepped before sod was laid. Unfiltered topsoil and sod were laid on top of existing weeds. The grade in the backyard was altered to prevent proper drainage. Inspectors from Canton Township confirmed this. Most of the sod was laid hastily during a rain storm which resulted in numerous holes throughout the lawn. Sprinkler heads were covered up by sod -- (they did fix that the next day). Lucas does NOT warranty sod so they refused to repair the holes. What I didn't realize until it was too late was that Lucas would not take credit cards or a personal check, they wanted cash or money orders only. This provided me with no way to hold back payment until my concerns were addressed. I've learned a very expensive lesson about fine print in contracts. I wish I'd gotten those verbal promises in writing. The Better Business Bureau was usless. Lucas never once came out to look at the finished product. Instead they replied to the BBB with an absurd letter. Apparently that is all they need to do to stay in good standing. I paid $5400 to a second contractor to remove all of the sod and retaining walls, regrade, rebuild walls and lay all new sod. My landscaping is now beautiful! Many, many more photos are available if you are interested. Feel free to e-mail me today.

  • I find this rather suprising... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by supersat ( 639745 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:07PM (#8486935)
    If you read the article, you'll see that she didn't register something like lucasnurserysucks.com, but lucasnursery.com. I'm suprised that it wasn't decided that she was using their name to trick potential customers into going to her site, since many people assume companyname.com will work. It'd be similar to someone registering slashdot.com (if it wasn't already registered) to make an anti-Slashdot site.

    • Re:I find this rather suprising... (Score:5, Informative)

      by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:20PM (#8487005)
      Good point, but the distinction is that she did it in Good Faith. Her sole purpose in registering the domain as she did was to express her displeasure with the company, with what appeared to be a valid complaint about the way they did business. Which means her Free Speech rights trump their trademark.

      Conversely, had she been selling "Lucas Nursery Sucks!" T-Shirts, or had provably falsified the complaint, then she would've been acting in bad faith (out to either profit through bashing them, or engaging in slander) and therefore would have lost the case.

    • I'm suprised that it wasn't decided that she was using their name to trick potential customers into going to her site, since many people assume companyname.com will work. It'd be similar to someone registering slashdot.com (if it wasn't already registered) to make an anti-Slashdot site.

      No, it would be different in an important way. They weren't using the web to do business. They didn't accuse her of cybersquatting (i.e. they didn't go out and try to get the domain so that they *could* use it for busines

  • I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcx101 ( 724235 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:07PM (#8486937)
    I think it would have been acceptable if she had something like http://www.lucasnurserysucks.com but she didn't have the right to take the domain name that was the name of the company. Where are they supposed to have their website then? Not everyone necessarily agrees that Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc. sucks.

    • Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 )
      A company doesn't have some inherent right to own a domain name. I don't think this is any different than picketing a store.

    • Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ironica ( 124657 ) <pixelNO@SPAMboondock.org> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:43PM (#8487117) Journal
      I think it would have been acceptable if she had something like http://www.lucasnurserysucks.com but she didn't have the right to take the domain name that was the name of the company.

      Interesting. How many "Lucas Nursery" businesses do you suppose there are out there? Besides landscaping and plants, there might be nursery schools under that name as well. How do you decide who has the "right" to take the domain name?

      Domain names are generally first-come, first-serve for exactly that reason. It's pointless to say whether she had the "right" to the domain name; they weren't trying to do business online and they didn't have a website, so she beat them to the punch.

  • Public Citizen website (Score:3, Informative)

    by clenhart ( 452716 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:08PM (#8486943) Homepage
    For those interested to learn more about Public Citizen, here is their website [citizen.org].

  • Full text of the opinion (Score:4, Informative)

    by CaptainStormfield ( 444795 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:31PM (#8487050)
    The full text of the opinion here [uscourts.gov] if you're interested.
  • The little picture of a guy with his mouth blocked out is not really appropriate for this article. It suggests a limit to speech, whereas this is quite the opposite. OTOH, someone was trying to limit speech but failed. I'd just like to see an icon that suggests a victory for the public in this case.

  • Crap Companies (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Un0r1g1nal ( 711750 )
    Isn't it always the case though, crap companies have to do a lot to 'protect' their image, they shove out so much crap and then when someone takes the time and effort to stand up and tell other people about it, they use their ill gotten gains to attempt to shut said person down. What they don't seem to understand is that the publicity this causes through media attention then lets everyone know just how crap that company really is.

  • Ideas, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:35PM (#8487070) Journal
    So perhaps the owner of the Simon's Comic Online Source [scosource.com] website can do more with it now?

    Got any ideas for content? If so, email them to the domain owner.

  • Backwards compatibility (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alexandr19 ( 668427 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:36PM (#8487074)
    Do you think they'll notice? http://www.tsewq.com [tsewq.com]

    Are we perfect? Of course not. Do we (as you say in your website) "suck"? Far from it.

    Now to get to the legal stuff. Your false and defamatory statements and your use of the Qwest name and trademark are illegal. You should cease and desist from using the Qwest trademark and publishing false, defamatory and disparaging statements. We would like to resolve this matter without legal action, but will pursue a lawsuit if necessary.

    I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience before we both start spending money on lawyers.     -- Legal Dept Letter [tsewq.com]

    Money, when isn't it about money.

  • A great day for wronged customers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @04:53PM (#8487176) Homepage Journal
    I wish this ruling had been around about five years ago, when I was fighting with American Express.

    They stuck me with $12K of bogus balance transfers on a brand new "Blue" card, and refused to believe they weren't mine despite my attempts to rectify the situation over a period of almost a year.

    They were amazingly quick to sic the lawyers on me, though, when bought amexblew.com and created a site detailing their indifference to my problem.

    It's about time some company got smacked down for trying to silence an online critic with a legitimate beef.

    ~Philly
    • Isn't Amex's "Blue" card supposed to have all that fancy-schmancy "fraud protection"? So much for marketing hype.
    • What was the final resolution of your case?
      • What was the final resolution of your case?

        Well, I was more or less preparing to sue them over it.

        Then, I was contacted by a woman who worked for AmEx who saw my posts on a now-defunct anti-AmEx site, amexsucks.org. She looked into my problem and very quickly got the balance transfers reversed. This left an unexplained balance of $138.19 on the card. I paid for all of my purchases on the card, so the balance should have been zero. I fought with them and got a $100 "goodwill credit," but they insisted I p

  • Sad comment on the legal system. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by praksys ( 246544 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:09PM (#8487275)
    'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'

    Notice that Levy felt obliged to point out that this ruling came from a mainstream circuit court, rather than from one of the fringe circuit courts whose opinions regularly get trashed by courts further up the food chain. It is a sad statement about the legal system in the US that the opinions comming from some courts are so wrong, so often, that their rulings don't count until they are confirmed by a higher court.

    • You know what's sad? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mike A. ( 19999 )
      What's sad is the fact that the media's reporting of legal issues is so shoddy and rife with partisanship that people seem to think some circuits are overturned more often than others, when this is not the case. [fact-index.com]
      • The 9th circuit is overturned more than any other, and the frequency is way out of proportion with either the number of judges serving, or the number of cases handled. In 2002 the 9th circuit handled 17% of federal appeals, but accounted for 45% of overturned judgments from federal appellate courts, and 57% of the unanimously overturned judgements.

  • How dumb is Lucas? (Score:5, Funny)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:15PM (#8487319) Homepage
    Instead of working it out with the woman as in:

    Lucas: We'll fix yard, you give us domain
    Disgruntled Customer: OK.

    They spent all that lawyer money to sue the woman. And all over a job they'd done allegedly done poorly. So now they still haven't made the woman happy, AND the entire world knows about it AND they don't have their domain.

    Talk about complete lack of common sense.

  • This stuff works big time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @06:55PM (#8487920)
    I hired a contracting firm to level my house. They screwed it all up and cracked the slab. This was a well-known national company. They said it wasn't their fault and they weren't going to pay to fix it. I had pictures before and after and gave them 48 hours to agree to help fix the situation. They blew me off.

    So I acquired the domain (companyname)sucks.com and put up a before-and-after set of pictures along with my side of the story.

    24 hours later, they agreed to settle with me. I paid them $6000 for their work. They gave me over $14,000 as part of the settlement and maintained the guarantee on their work.

    I know these days people think that "nobody cares" and for the most part, I agree. But part of this has to do with many companies who have factored customer laziness and unwillingness to protest into their business model. I refuse to let crappy contractors or other businesses get the better of me, and if more people did this, these companies wouldn't get away with the stuff they do.

    So if someone screws you over, give them every chance to fix the situation. If they still don't, feel free to tell everyone that you think they suck. Which reminds me, I got screwed over by this company in Arkansas: Big Impressions [big-impressions.biz] - and I will never do business with them again. And until they resolve my situation, I'll make it public I think they're sleazebags until the end of time.

  • zing! (Score:3, Funny)

    by buddha42 ( 539539 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @07:32PM (#8488156)
    'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'

    hahaha, "We're not those 9th circuit wackos!"

  • I wouldn't want to use a .com domain anyway, as that would imply that my use was commercial in nature. I'd prefer a more appropriate TLD, like .org or .info, or would use a subdomain of one of my existing domains -- for instance, I own haters.info [haters.info] specifically for the purpose of creating protest sites with subdomains of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Close