The Story of Dealing With 33 Attorneys General 172
microbee writes "Early this year, Topix, a popular community forum, faced investigation from 33 state Attorneys General for the practice of charging a fee for 'expedited review' of content that was flagged as inappropriate. The case was settled on August 9th, with Topix dropping the fees in question. Now TechCrunch is running an article by Topix CEO Chris Tolles, in which he talks about his experiences dealing with so many Attorneys General. Quoting: 'This is going to happen more — The States' Attorneys General are the place that complaints about your company will probably end up. This is especially true if you host a social or community based site where people can post things that others may dislike. And, there's no downside to attacking a company based in California for these guys (MySpace, Facebook, Craigslist have all been targets in the past couple of years). Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up.'"
This begs the question... To be answered! (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is already here. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The answer is already here. (Score:4, Informative)
Under current laws internet companies are treated the same as mail-order companies -
They are subject to the laws of whatever state they reside (say: Vermont) plus the central, general government if their goods (say teddy bears) cross state lines. (If they don't cross lines, then only Maine has authority.) In my example the business would not be subject to foreign government outside of Vermont, just the same way a Polish business is not subject to the governments of Germany or France or other EU states.
And there's a good reason for that: No seller or citizen (like me) should be subject to a government where he has no representation.
Re: (Score:2)
They are subject to the laws of whatever state they reside (say: Vermont) plus the central, general government if their goods cross state lines. In my example the business would not be subject to foreign government outside of Vermont, just the same way a Polish business is not subject to the governments of Germany or France or other EU states.
You've forgotten that goods crossing international borders have always been subject to export controls and export duties, import controls and import duties.
The wood
Re:The answer is already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>You've forgotten that goods
Good grief. You didn't understand a single word I wrote. I wasn't talking about the good. I was talking about the company. The man who owns Vermont Teddy Bears is subject to VT and US regulation, but not California or any of the other states. Those governments haze zero jurisdiction over non-citizens.
As for other brilliant ideas, like New York State wanting me to collect taxes from my ebay buyers and file a tax return, they can rot in hell. I owe zero allegiance to that government, nor do I have any voice speaking for me in its legislature.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you can choose not to have contacts with those states. New York isn't forcing you to sell your products to residents of New York.
If you have contacts with a forum state, you're subject to that state's jurisdiction in matters related to those contacts.
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, I don't know why you got modded "interesting".
The jurisdiction of a state ends at it's state lines- period. A law in New York does not apply to me unless I'm physically IN the state, regardless of what the state says on the matter. Civil stuff won't have you extradited to that state- and there's strict limits to what they can/can't do to you when you weren't in the state to begin with. They also have strict limits on what they can/can't do to you if you're not currently within the state w
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If you have contacts with a forum state, you're subject to that state's jurisdiction in matters related to those contacts.
Only to a certain extent. They can block my ebay advertisement from being viewed in New York, or block my shipment from entering New York, or arrest my buyer for making an illegal purchase, but they have as much authority over my body as the government of China (i.e. zero). They have no authority to arrest non-citizens.
And if NY doubts that, then they can send the NY militi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at this point it was just an investigation, but presumably the Attorneys General have the power to bring a case against Topix in federal court for some alleged violation of federal law.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, what about services? Since most non-retail websites are more like a service, assuming they even charge money rather than operating on ad revenue.
And then there's virtual goods, which you might manipulate entirely on a single server farm in, say, Vermont, even if you live in another state.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if your trading internationally.
In international trade its the clients state that has juristiction (under Gutnick et al). So for instance if your dealing with an Australian customer, Australian law is what applies. If your dealing with Brits, brit law applies. If you dont like, dont enter a contract with them.
That was established in the Gutnick decision where it was held that the place of publication in defamation is wherever the reader was. The principle was loosely portable outside of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just require users to swear they are all in one state.
Magic
Re: (Score:2)
Just tell users if they want your online services, they have to come to your server in (whatever state or country). Isn't it great that the internet allows people to go to so many places where so many companies are.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. At least if your company is actually "doing business" in those places. Everybody else has to do that... why should internet companies be different?
If you do business in Michigan, you obey Michigan's laws. Chill and deal or get out.
The only problem with that is the case where you have no physical business presence in that jurisdiction. Would you want to be subject to all China's laws, and simultaneously all Iran's, just because you happen to have someone use your service from those countries? No? Then physical location must matter.
What does that mean for all those state AGs? I have no idea, TBH. However there must be precedents with things like mail order firms; they must have been facing the same sorts of problems (though slower) way
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to be subject to Chinese laws then don't do business with Chinese customers. Now on a related note if you happen to do business with China but have no physical presence there then China would be forced to extradite you OR attempt to sue you in your jurisdiction. (I believe this is true anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct me) UNLESS you happen to be stupid enough to travel to country that has a warrant for your arrest, theres been a few poor bastards that got nabbed by the FB
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If you don't want to be subject to Chinese laws then don't do business with Chinese customers.
No citizen should be held liable to a legislature where he/she has NO representation. If I sell ebay goods to a Chinese person, I am not liable to their law. If they don't like these goods for some reason, let them block the good at the border (and arrest the Chinese purchaser for breaking the law). But me? No jurisdiction without representation.
Re: (Score:2)
No citizen should be held liable to a legislature where he/she has NO representation. If I sell ebay goods to a Chinese person, I am not liable to their law. If they don't like these goods for some reason, let them block the good at the border (and arrest the Chinese purchaser for breaking the law). But me? No jurisdiction without representation.
By that logic Osama bin Laden can not be held liable to US law for the 9/11 attack because he wasn't in the US. Even though you are not in China they can consider you to be conspiring with someone in China to break Chinese law. Now China probably won't ask for and won't get you extradited, but I have no problem seeing how they could consider you an accomplice to the crime. Otherwise mail order companies could e.g. send you illegal prescription drugs with impunity, as long as they're not illegal where they c
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic Osama bin Laden can not be held liable to US law for the 9/11 attack because he wasn't in the US.
First, murder is illegal pretty much everywhere - he'd be liable under pretty much any law. Second, there's a huge difference in that the acts actually took place on US soil. He's guilty of conspiracy to commit murder because the actual crime happened on US soil and he knew that the actions he was conspiring to commit were illegal there. In the cases we're talking about, the companies are not knowingly acting unlawfully.
Otherwise mail order companies could e.g. send you illegal prescription drugs with impunity, as long as they're not illegal where they came from.
Why should they be responsible? They're not doing anything illegal where they are. So l
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>No citizen should be held liable to a legislature where he/she has NO representation. If I sell ebay goods to a Chinese person, I am not liable to their law. If they don't like these goods for some reason, let them block the good at the border (and arrest the Chinese purchaser for breaking the law). But me? No jurisdiction without representation.
>>>>
>>>By that logic Osama bin Laden can not be held liable to US law for the 9/11 attack because he wasn't in the US.
You'r
Re: (Score:2)
And if someone in China takes an extended vacation in the U.K. and visits your site from there, should you THEN be subject to U.K. laws, Chinese law, or the law where you are located. All of the above plus any other jurisdiction the packets may have gone through? If you are to be subject to U.K. law, will you also be permitted to vote in their elections? Will you also gain the protections of U.K. laws?
What if the Chinese person in China uses a proxy in some other country to complete the transaction (complet
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be too sure about this one. You may be sued or arrested almost anywhere for anything, regardless of the location it occurred.
There have been actions that would have been crimes in the US, but happened on foreign soil where it may or may not have been against the law. The individuals were arrested and tried in the US for those crimes.
The reverse could very easily happen. Since the US and China aren't exactly on the best of terms, it is doubtful that you w
Re: (Score:2)
Then physical location must matter.
I disagree, with the sole exception of taxation. The fact of the matter is that if you are doing business in Michigan -- or any other state -- and regardless of whether you are selling via internet or mail order, if you don't have a physical presence in that state, that state cannot tax you... BUT you still have to obey all other laws of commerce in that state that apply to your business. Those laws already apply. Saying that the internet should be immune would be to actually change existing law.
That is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody else has to do that... why should internet companies be different?
I hear the have internet in east bumfuckistan. Should all the world's internet sites obey east bumfuckistani law?
Try these on for size: The Middle East (no depictions of mohammed), Thailand (I hear they have a lot of respect for their king), France (got a thing against Nazi memorabilia), China (Tiananmen square is a touchy subject), [...].
What is the cost of making every website in 192 different versions? How do you vet user-supplied content for legality across 192 different jurisdictions?
So, to answer yo
Re: (Score:2)
And the same laws apply if you are selling via mail-order rather than online. I ask again: why should the internet be an exception to well-established laws? Everybody else has to obey them.
Re: (Score:2)
No laws were broken (Score:5, Insightful)
The AGs should not be able to do this until they can demonstrate laws were broken. Otherwise they are making up the rules as they go along. Rules that have not been approved by a law making body.
Topix should be able to petition a judge to shut down any talk of remediation until the AGs present formal charges.
Re:No laws were broken (Score:4, Insightful)
AGs shouldn't be able to do anything at all. The California attorney general has jurisdiction. The rest of the world (except the federal government) has no say whatsoever.
Re:No laws were broken (Score:4, Informative)
Well then I guess they only provide services to people in the state of california. In reality they don't, you know it, I know it, they knew it. It's the same reason why FB has drawn the ire of both the german and canadian governments. Because the internet removes borders, and as such they become subject to the laws of other places.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how dumb people can be (at least in regards to the law and jurisdiction).
Let's say an owner is located in UK but his website is visible all across the EU. That means he's subject to the laws of UK, the EU, and nothing else. It does not matter that his site is visible in France, Germany, Poland, and so on..... he is not subject to their laws. LIKEWISE: An owner located in CA but visible all across the US is subject to the laws of CA, the US, and nothing else. It does not matter that his s
Re: (Score:2)
Being visible to is one thing. What if he starts offering his site in French as well? What if - prior to the adoption of the Euro - he offered his services available by payment in French Francs? Can you still argue that It's just a site in the UK that is only subject to UK legislation?
I agree that a line should be drawn, otherwise pretty much every site is going to be breaking a law -somewhere- and being subject to that law by default would be insane; but I'm not so sure that the line should be drawn so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being visible to is one thing. What if he starts offering his site in French as well? What if - prior to the adoption of the Euro - he offered his services available by payment in French Francs? Can you still argue that It's just a site in the UK that is only subject to UK legislation?
Yes.
If the owner of the site decided to start accepting Chinese currency and offering his site in Chinese, he would still not be subject to Chinese laws. There's going to be an arbitrary line drawn either way, and we cannot have a chaotic mishmash where nobody is sure what jurisdiction applies to a website.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Can you still argue that It's just a site in the UK that is only subject to UK legislation?
No British citizen who lives on British soil should ever feel the cold steel of a French guillotine, especially if he's never left the British Isles. Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause?
"We the French assembly have determined that all web owners that displayed nudity, even prior to pass
Re: (Score:2)
It would cause no particular chaos. You would be answerable (presuming a law was broken) but that doesn't mean you don't have a voice there. You can get representation to show up in their courts (potentially arguing that the seat of the court be moved to your state).
This is exactly the situation that applied in the BREIN vs Sunde et al (The Pirate Bay
Re: (Score:2)
>>>It would cause no particular chaos. You would be answerable... ...to a Foreign Legislature and a Law where you had no voice in its crafting (i.e. to representation). That is not democracy. It is Tyranny.
It would be equivalent to the US starting to arrest Europeans for violating the Patriot Act..... and they have no voice in Congress to say, "I am against this law." That is the exact opposite of Democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, it is not logical for a Englishman to be answerable to a Fucking Legislature where he has no voice. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause?
We don't have to imagine it. It was called The American Revolution! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Exaggerated? You're off the board of reason ability!
It is rather unlikely that any French legislative body is going to be concerned with basic nudity. It is equally unlikely that anyone is going to be talking about an extradition treaty with Iran, over civil matters, any time soon.
But if you create a website hosted in the UK, who's intent is to sell Nazi memorabilia to France, there's at least an argument that France should be able to ask the UK to consider curtailing that activity.
As for "zero repres
Re: (Score:2)
The state department protects US citizens abroad and will rain hell on anyone who harms someone carrying a US passport.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what they do though. The users travel to California using their packets as an intermediary.
Re: (Score:2)
When the telephone was invented, the US Supreme Court already ruled that just because a person's voice carries into a foreign state does not mean he/she is subject to that other state's laws. The person is only subject when his body enters the other state.
First line from the CEO should have been (Score:2)
The first line from the CEO should have been "what can I do to make you guys go away."
The second line should have been "I'll put this lube on right now so it'll be easier."
Today's reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Today if you are a white male anyone can pretty much say whatever they want about you without it being considered actionable. There is libel and slander, but it is difficult to prove actual malice. Without that it is going to be a tough fight in court to get anywhere with libel or slander.
However, if you are in what is considered to be a protected group, such as women, African-Americans or other groups like this, it can easily be considered a violation of federal law to post comments which are derogatory
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes. It is terrible to be a white man in the US. Let me give you a clue: you have no idea what it is like to be a woman, a black person, or a Muslim. Stop comparing your plight to theirs, it makes you look ridiculous. Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a side effect of "hate speech" laws that have come about.
In the US, there is no hate speech laws, the 1st amendment of the US constitution broadly prohibits regulation of the content of speech.
It's called "hate crime" not "hate speech". And yes something you say can be counted as a "hate crime".
"The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Being a minority is not a requirement to be a victim of a civil rights violation, violent crime, or hate crime. A black man being attacked by the KKK because he is black is just as much a victim as a white man being attacked by the Black Panthers because he's white. It doesn't matter if the victim is in a majority or minority, it's based on if the crime is based on race, religion, gende
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today's reality (Score:4, Insightful)
White Entertainment Television
We had it. It was called PAX.
Re: (Score:2)
References please. How long have they been in existence. Are they specifically for the advancement of their own race? And if so, do they exist on high school/college campuses?
We already have White Entertainment Television. It's called "the vast majority of TV shows ever made".
Ahh, so if I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US, there is no hate speech laws, the 1st amendment of the US constitution broadly prohibits regulation of the content of speech.
It's called "hate crime" not "hate speech". And yes something you say can be counted as a "hate crime". (...) So if you combine all these, you end up with intimidation being a severely punishable offence if the person is a minority. Since 'intimidation' is extremely vague the law can punish you for libel or slander if it is 'intimidating' in nature. Bye freedom of speech.
Hypothetical mob: "This place ain't for the likes of you, get the fuck out of here before we beat the crap out of you. If you or any of your n*gger friends ever show their ugly face here again you're dead meat. I'll give you to the count of ten. One. Two. Three..."
Not all speech is protected, death threats are not. Combine that with hate directed at a minority you've got a pretty clear case of hate crime if you ask me. "Intimidation" is not a general insult, it's a threat of harm and I can't really imagine
In defense of Topix... (Score:5, Informative)
Oddly enough, it did work. I was able to flag the post over the course of a couple of days, and it was eventually removed. So don't say that they *never* removed posts based on the free system. They did at least once.
Attourneys General? (Score:2)
Seriously, can we stop with the French throwbacks, and say things the English way? What's wrong with General Attourneys?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, can we stop with the French throwbacks, and say things the English way? What's wrong with General Attourneys?
Yes, that would make the singular and plural possessive cases easier.
For example, an AG and her staff are having lunch and the waiter arrives with sandwiches.
Should you tell him "that's the attorney's general ham and cheese"? Or should you say "that's the attorney general's sandwich"?
In TFA, should it be "the 33 attorneys' general lying venality"? Or "the 33 attorneys general's mendacity?"
Who gives a rip? (Score:2)
Topix is a horrible, searcn-engine spamming, pop-up and advert-ridden site whose very existence depends entirely upon leeching other sites' content.
Not worth the mention here or anywhere.
Pay to Play? (Score:2)
I'm as suspicious of politicians as the next guy BUT Taking complaints from your citizenry and acting on them is kind of in the job description.
Besides, it might of occurred to the company in question, that taking payola to take down what might be considered liabelous posts exposed them to even more liability since they could no longer claim a lack of resources
Subject (Score:2, Insightful)
"Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up."
On the other hand, a company doing shitty things that piss off consumers is a good way to get attention from attorneys general.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
This ain't about free speech, this is a method of extortion they took down.
"Oh, somebody posted something nasty about you. Pay $20 to take it down." Like that isn't ripe for abuse by the site admins. "Hmm, BillG1020 lives in a wealthy neighbourhood. Clickety-clickety. Let's see how long he takes."
It's a real pity the AG's didn't go further and block removal of comments at all. That's why Slashdot works so well, nasty crud gets modded down most times, but it's still there for the dirty minded buggers to read if they want. You're free to say it and I'm free to ignore it.
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
And how would that be remotely legal at all?
Re:Irony (Score:4, Informative)
Dunno about the legality of it, but not being able to remove comments would prevent a slippery slope of editing the public record.
All forums but one I belong to don't allow originators or commentators to remove posts because they would break the flow of the conversation. Admittedly that's about seventeen of however many millions there are.
Consider a meat-space equivalent. Some white guy shouts something nasty at a crowd of blacks in Detroit. The news crews have filmed the incident from the start to the riot where the hospital is burned to the ground. Now the white guy goes and asks the film crews to cut his words out so that it looks like he was just standing there when the crowd went wild by itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sense I got from the news articles was of without payment, there was no service at all. Whether that was reality or perception by the users, I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Land of the fee and home of the brave indeed..
Fixed that for ya.
This isn't a free speech issue as much as it is a free market issue. On one hand I'd like to support the company in charging for whatever they want to, it's their company so they can make whatever rules they want. On the other hand removing inappropriate content is not so much a service that the company provides to the community, but a service the community provides to the company. So the practice is in poor taste, but what is the problem? If you think posting on someone else's website is
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly urge people to read the background information in the links before knee jerking. Here are some pertinent lines:
“In fact, a large percentage of the posts in some Kentucky forums contain explicit, vulgar, obscene and defamatory posts about citizens, including children.”
According to a press release from Conway’s office, the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay a $19.99 fee.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it. That said, freedom and anarchy are not the same. People also have the right to protect themselves and their children from being defamed or slandered. Charging someone who might not otherwise access your site if they were not being slandered seems quite ridiculous to me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"...no one has the right to not be offended..."
Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
"...no one has the right to not be offended..."
Fuck you.
lol... exactly
Re: (Score:2)
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this
There is a time and a place for everything.
The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
Re: (Score:2)
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
It's worth noting here that the First Amendment is as absolute as any change to the Constitution can be and it was the first such change made. I think that makes such talk as yours above, rather unenlightened. Sure, if you were warning us about an absolute interpretation of some obscure clause, I might agree. But instead, you're speaking of one of the core parts of the Constitution.
Second, the original poster already showed, via their discussion of slander and libel, that they do not think in absolutes w
Re: (Score:2)
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this
There is a time and a place for everything.
The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
Interesting how you left out the caveat I included that was clearly part of the sentence...
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it.
That said, I guess to me it goes back to the basic tenet that you have the freedom to exercise your rights as long as the exercise of those rights do not infringe
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What interests me is the bias of the TechCrunch article, which is along the lines of "powerful attorneys general bully a beleaguered business because it makes them look good." WTF? Why is it assumed that Topix is unfairly under attack from the government, and the attorneys general are only doing what they're doing in order to bolster their careers?
The articles didn't give me a lot to go on, and I've never heard of Topix before, so I have to generalize. Lots of forums are moderated in one way or another, but
Re:Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores.
When the AG's issue press releases instead of talking to the company about their concerns, you should assume the AG's are doing it for the media attention. According to the article, the AG's did this with both press releases. The first time, the release lied by claiming they had sent a letter to to company when the letter wasn't postmarked until five days later. The second time, the AG's never expressed to the company the changes they'd like to see made before villifying them in the press.
Maybe the article is wrong and the company is lying about the AG's behavior. The article doesn't say whether the reporter tried to get the AG's side of the story, which probably means the reporter didn't. However, if the accusations in the article are true, then then, yes, the AG's were acting like "attention whores".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the Topix small town boards are complete cesspools. It's like the old fashioned small-town gossip phone tree, except 1) it's completely anonymous and 2) millions of people can access it easily.
A lot of these small towns are trying to increase tourism and bring new industries into their communities. Having a public forum where their citizens are anonymously posting vitriolic comments about other citizens is not going to attract tourism or industry.
Re: (Score:2)
By all means lets take them all down based on the views of a few.
In fact, while we are taking down these derogatory forums and fields of hate monger glory we should make a few more changes. We need a group of individuals to monitor television and newspapers. As well as a separate and special group to burn disconcerting books. In fact, all major media should have some over sight bodies to ensure the material for consumption meets with the guidelines of a chosen few.
Once this is complete we need to be able to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, post removes Attorney General!
Wait ... didn't that also happen to some AG named Elliott something-or-other in New York when details of his "hooker dates" leaked?
So move your servers to Kanuckistan. Welcome to the Great White North - soon to be the Great Green North, thanks to global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
Unless you were there, I don't see how you can make that claim:
" the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]
And it's interesting how you left out all the good things he did in his career, not the least of which was taking on the Gambino crime family.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/jun/jun04a_02.html [ny.gov]
Does anyone REALLY care that he got
We care about hypocrisy and conflicts of interest (Score:4, Interesting)
You honestly don't see a problem with the Attorney General of a state being involved with a madam? Because it was going on while he was the Attorney General - the person in charge of prosecutions across the state. The conflict of interest posed by a state's top prosecutor being involved in an organized criminal enterprise is simply unacceptable, even if you think that the particular crime in question ought not be a crime at all. Was Spitzer protecting his call girls from prosecution while prosecuting others? What would have happened if the criminal enterprise in question started to blackmail Spitzer? Things can go seriously south in all kinds of unpleasant ways from here. Supposing the outfit he got the call girls from hired thugs to shake people down. How is Spitzer supposed to put a stop to that?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple fallacies of Ad Hominem, Hypocrisy, and What if.
The funny part is I was not even arguing whether he should have lost his job if he had been caught when he was AG (he didn't.) My argument is that you cannot judge all of a man by one deed, after the fact. I fully acknowledge what he did was wrong, and COULD HAVE had wider ramifications. But the main point of my post was to correct the misinformation being spread, and point out that he did some good things, and that in actuality the good he did for the
Are we really still so prudish? YES! (Score:2)
Are we really still so prude?
You're talking about the US, and the answer is yes. As well as petty and trite, and above all, ready to enjoy the spectacle of destroying a high public figure by any means possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times
It wasn't a correction. You went by the accusations, not by what was proven. There's a big difference.
Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.
Do you know about anything you say, or do you just say whatever nonsense comes to mind?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-5,00.html [time.com]
(starts at paragraph 2)
He headed the three year investigation, and masterminded the operation that brought him down. He was a modern day Eliot Ness.
As far as whether anything he did affected you, I recommend you read the whole Time article. It's titled: Eli
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Eliot Ness didn't lose his job for blowing 80000 dollars on hookers a thousand dollars an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
If he had, would it have detracted from his accomplishments? I think not. You had your facts wrong, and when confronted, you fell back into the fallacies of Ad Hominem and Hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also in Washington, I was driving around with an expired card, but the policy was still valid. Sent in proof of insurance and got stuck with a $60 "administrative fee" is what they called it if I remember correctly.
There wasn't even a hint of my car getting impounded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cops are just doing what they're told, it's not like that kind of focused effort comes from rank-and-file officers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They taught me not to follow "unlawful orders" when I was in the military.
Following orders is a very bad excuse for doing something you know is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get fired for not racking up enough speeding tickets in the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The day they try to steal my car for lack of a piece of paper is the day I become a cop killer.
I don't care what the criminal gang that calls themselves the government claims "the law" is, stealing is stealing and I will kill to defend myself.
(Memo to self: Replying to ACs is a bad idea.)
Anyway, I will assume you are not a troll and that you need to try out for this show:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_Wars [wikipedia.org]
I got one of those suits. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says they weren't violating any laws, they just got on the wrong side of powerful people and had to deal with 35 attorneys general holding slanderous press releases.
TFA was written by the guy under investigation, so you give the FA credence at your peril. I found it disingenuous.
State AGs have a huge backload of complaints of many stripes. The fact that the author of TFA managed to piss off 35 of them enough to devote time to an investigation should be a clue that his business plan was flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
The political system in the U.S. is extremely corrupt.
Very true, but not nearly as corrupt as many other countries around the world (Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc...).
We cannot accept the corruption that we have, but I wouldn't trade it for theirs.
(Just asking for perspective)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
Anyway, should it read "33 Attorney Generals"? Plural is in the wrong word.
OP there is no 'u' in attorney too. ;)
Re:first post (Score:5, Informative)
"Attorneys General" is correct. This is because English is f'd up.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm [commnet.edu]
Re:first post (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's because we're referring to 33 attorneys, not 33 generals. You modify the basic noun, not the modifiers. English would be more f'd up if you didn't.
Imagine if this was correct english:
"I'm a rebel without a cause. You're a rebel without a cause too. We're rebel without a causes!"
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is odd, though I'd take a bet that there are languages where modification of the adjective and not the noun is appropriate.
In many or most languages, there would need to be accordance between both the substantive noun, and the adjectives, including in general: Des Avocats Rouges et Bleus, for example.
The major confusion here seems to stem from what you say, that they are 'general attorneys,' where general is the adjectival modifier, but the older form where the adjective follows the n
Re: (Score:2)
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Some sigs just aren't the same without a picture to refer to.
Re: (Score:2)
you americans were fucking my head with this, when talking about all the recent political developments.
enjoy your federalism now. with this kind of 'freedom', people in one state will or will not be able to do things that are legal and free in their state, because it isnt in another. so, people in that state will live by other states' laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause [wikipedia.org]