Per William Purdy ed Il Palo di Washington, Trubune di Stella, Cola di Cocaina, Pepsi

[pergiustizia]

Se ci è qualunque riparato nel nostro costituzionale, esso è che nessuno ufficiale, alto o insignificante, può prescrivere ciò che sarà ortodosso in politica, nazionalismo, religione, o altro di opinione o di confessare da parola o agisce il loro fede dentro. Esso è un fondamentale principio di Primo Emendamento che pubblico ufficiali mentre loro può regolare tempo, luogo e modo nell'esercizio di Primo senza Emendamento discorso, il regolamento deve essere contento neutrale. Questo evita pubblico ufficiali, includere Federale Distretto Tribunale, da imporre il loro proprio ortodosso vedute, o ciò che loro potrebbe giudicare essere opportunamente corregge o opportunamente vedute su cittadini.

Il primo Reclamo di Emendamento di William Purdy da Thomas di Avvocato W. Straham

http://washingtonpast.com

cocacolalovesbaby.com
cocacolalovesbabies.com
cocacolalovesjesus.com
cocacolaspeakstojesus.com
cokelovesjesus.com
cokespeakstojesus.com
washingtonpostlovesbaby.com
washingtonpostbabies.com
washingtonpostlovesbabies.com
washingtonpostlovesjesus.com
washingtonpostspeakstojesus.com
thewashingtonpostlovesbaby.com
thewashingtonpostlovesjesus.com
thewashingtonpostbabies.com
thewashingtonpostlovesbabies.com
thewashingtonpostspeakstojesus.com
pepsicolaspeakstojesus.com
pepsilovesbabies.com
pepsilovesbaby.com
pepsilovesjesus.com
pepsispeakstojesus.com
mcdonaldslovesbabies.com
mcdonaldslovesbaby.com
mcdonaldslovesjesus.com
mcdonaldsspeakstojesus.com
washingtonpostjesus.com
washingtonpostchristian.com
startribunespeakstojesus.com
startribunesaysjesus.com
startribuneturnstojesus.com
startribunetalkstojesus.com
startribunelovesbaby.com
startribunelovesbabies.com
startribunelovesjesus.com
startribunejesus.com
startribunebaby.com
startribunebabies.com
cocacolababies.com
cocacolababy.com
mcdonaldsbaby.com
mcdonaldsbabies.com
pepsibabies.com
pepsibaby.com
pepsicolababies.com
pepsicolababy.com
pepsicolalovesjesus.com
pepsibabies.com
pepsibaby.com
pepsicolababies.com
pepsicolababy.com
pepsicolalovesjesus.com

 

[pljones]

Purdy's registration of these domain names is a violation of the Judge Montgomery's order in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota. He continues to show disregard for the legal system. Please translate your comments so that we can properly understand them.

 

[jberryhill]

"He continues to show disregard for the legal system."

I don't know that much about the Bill Purdy situation, so maybe you can correct my impression. My understanding is that he has some kind of political/religious motivation which inspires him to register all sorts of domain names incorporating trademarks, and to set up websites opposing abortion, or something to that effect.

I don't necessarily agree with his politics or his methods, but my guess would be that he sees what he is doing as a form of civil disobedience intended to draw attention to his cause. It is one thing to say that someone is acting in "disregard" of the law, and it is quite another to say that someone is acting in "disobedience of the law" yet still ready and willing to accept the consequences of that disobedience. That is the main distinction between a hooligan and someone who is acting in a principled, yet disobedient, way.

To make sure that I'm getting the distinction across clearly, let's say that I oppose logging a particular forest. If I sneak around at night sabotaging the equipment, I am a vandal. If I openly chain myself to that equipment, refuse to leave, and am forcibly removed, arrested, and go willingly to jail for trespassing etc., that is more along the lines of the time-honored American tradition of principled disobedience to the law.

Again, someone can be wrong, stupid, boneheaded, distasteful... whatever. And acting according to one's conscience does not, an should not, relieve one from participating in the legal system - even if that participation means that you will have to accept the legal consequences of one's actions.

As I understand it, Mr. Purdy is not hiding out in some tropical paradise on pop-up ad revenue from these names, but that he is pretty straightforward about the fact that he is using these names, and the legal theater itself, as a means of propagating a message which his conscience compels him to spread.

Absolutely, if he remains in contempt he should go to jail. But from what I understand, and even in view of my personal distaste for what the guy is doing, I wouldn't fault him morally for following his conscience.

Political activists, even the kooky ones, are the "canary in the coal mine" for the state of the rights we profess as Americans. Fortunately, we've never been short on folks willing to push the outside of the envelope, or go beyond it, so that a comfortable space remains inside that envelope for more traditional forms of political expression.

 

[PARTEI SCHULES]

Ich glaube nicht, daß wir annehmen können, daß diese Domänen von William Purdy registriert werden. Er weiß die erste Person die ich ist, wer mit Gefängnis zum Registrieren von Domäne Namen bedroht wird.

Dies könnte es wahrscheinlich machen, daß andere zu machen ein kleines boom boom wollen würden, nur für den Spaß davon.

Das boom boom, und die private Partei könnte Strategie zum Auffordern des Gerichtshöfe sein.

Wenn Sie glauben, daß ein Gesetz ein übles Gesetz ist, das Sie auffordern müssen.

Ist ein das heilige Privileg.

 

[pergiustizia]

Sì Sì, ma che è la boom di boom?

Significare lei quando la boom di boom succede nel tribunale di stranezza.

 

[PARTEI SCHULES]

Ich bedeute, wenn das boom boom nicht im jurisdcition des Gerichtshofs ist.

Bedeuten Sie dieses boom boom oder das eine von außerhalb des Landes?

Ich mag den!

 

[CoolHost.com]

... this is fun! Good read.
Good Luck.

 

[pergiustizia]

Sì, Sì piaccio molto le vacanze via dalla riva con le grandi ragazze della cima!

 

[pljones]

Please try to write in English, Google Translations is only so helpful in explaining what you are posting- and some of it comes out all wrong.

 

[namedropper]

McPurdy also has a lot more names than the ones listed in the first post, many of which are a lot more likely to be confusing to the public, like washingtonposthealth.com and so forth.

For an English language version of this news story, see:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3610745.html

And, yes, this guy is nuts and deserves whatever legal spanking he gets.

"Purdy's attorney, Douglas Altman, said Purdy's names are not confusingly similar to those of the corporations, so he isn't violating Montgomery's order."

And Purdy's lawyer should go to jail too

I know he's only doing his job, but that statement is so outrageously ridiculous that he should be held in contempt.

 

[PARTEI SCHULES]

HA HA!!.......Eines Tages ist das große große Mädchen auf mich gefallen und ich mußte Leben meine Herrn Mann Rückseite bringen!

Das ist so sehr wunderbar!

 

[pergiustizia]

HE HE.......!! molto buffo! Il grande grande ragazza è caduto giustamente sul mio gra!nde Sig. Macchina troppo!

Muovo molto velocemente!!

 

[jberryhill]

"I know he's only doing his job, but that statement is so outrageously ridiculous that he should be held in contempt."

First of all, you have not quoted anything which the lawyer actually said.

Secondly, the trademark concept of "confusing similarity" has always referred to consumer confusion arising from the use of marks on or in connection with the specified goods or services in such a manner that a relevant consumer of those goods or services would be confused as to the source or origin of those goods or services.

Now, there are quite a few factors that courts have identified in making a determination of "confusing similarity", which I don't feel like going through right now.

Only in the weird world of the UDRP does "confusingly similar" boil down to an alphanumeric string comparison test.

 

[timechange.com]

molto buffo, that much I know

 

[pergiustizia]

2003, il grande grande ragazza è caduto sul suo Sig. Macchina troppo?

 

[charles]

Originally posted by pljones
Purdy's registration of these domain names is a violation of the Judge Montgomery's order in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota. He continues to show disregard for the legal system. Please translate your comments so that we can properly understand them.

How can a judicial order to "not register domain names" pass First Amendment muster? It is obviously a "prior restraint on publication," long forbidden under established First Amendment precedents. Domain names are what I've called a techno-linguistic hybrid, but they are often unquestionably words and phrases. To prevent someone from recording them in any medium offends freedom of speech by restraining what is spoken before it is spoken. This is not permitted under the Constitution of the forefathers of this country.

The law permits a person to say any damn thing they want, short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, to the point of allowing cartoonists to publish pictures of Nixon raping "Vietnam," depicted as a nubile Vietnamese girl (I saw that one when I was a kid).

If one is troubled by the speech of another person, then the remedy is to sue for damages and (under the ACPA) injunctive relief to remedy the wrongful registration. While that burdens trademark owners, there is no reason to add to the panoply of remedies already granted by Congress to trademark owners yet another -- prior restraints on registration.

And PLJ, can you please post the opinion to which you refer?

 

[charles]

It is one thing to say that someone is acting in "disregard" of the law, and it is quite another to say that someone is acting in "disobedience of the law" yet still ready and willing to accept the consequences of that disobedience.

Well we all know what Dickens said about the law in Oliver Twist:
"`If the law supposes that,' said Mr Bumble, . . . `the law is an ass - an idiot.'"

When the Judge acts in contravention of the First Amendment, his rulings are not lawful, and his disregard of the law can only be rectified by challenging the ruling. And one who challenges an unlawful contempt, while technically in violation, is definitely morally correct. A judge might order a person to do any idiotic thing, and in fact they do it every day. What is rare is people having the courage to fight back.

Good words, JB

 

[namedropper]

Charles-

With all due respect to your lawyerliness, registering a domain name with someone else's trademark isn't protected by free speech guarantees, any more than printing someone else's logos on your products to try to sell more of them.

The judge is completely within her rights to order this person to quit his longstanding fraudulent use of the domain name system.

Nobody is stopping his free speech. He can yammer on all he wants on any site at a domain name that doesn't infringe. So there's no prior restraint involved.

You have a novel defense speech prepared for this kind of activity if you ever need it, but judging from earlier decisions regarding domain names, it wouldn't prevail. And shouldn't, in my not so humble opinion.

After all, if someone went around falsely calling themselves "Charles Carreon, Attorney at Law" and using your name on the top of press releases and letterhead for some politico-religious argument, you'd probably try to stop them... right?

 

[charles]

Originally posted by namedropper
Charles-

With all due respect to your lawyerliness, registering a domain name with someone else's trademark isn't protected by free speech guarantees, any more than printing someone else's logos on your products to try to sell more of them.

Strongly disagree. If I post a sign on my front lawn that says "Reward for the capture of Ronald McDonald, Cow-Killer: $1 Million," nobody's gonna think I'm actually selling hamburgers. Hence, no TM violation. If I post a sign in front of my burger joint that says "No Candy-Ass Ronald McDonald Happy Meals Available at this Traditional Burger Joint," we've got a tougher situation. Maybe that's just too cute. Suppose the burger joint operator dot-commed that whole phrase as the name of his website? Tough call, maybe. But Disney-chairman-Eisner-would-sell-his-mom-for-fifty-cents.com is probably not a trademark infringement.

If you disagree with me on these things, that doesn't mean you're not lawyerly. We just disagree. Steve Schiffrin, who now teaches at Cornell, once asked our 1-L Torts class at UCLA, "If the law of libel and the First Amendment are both all about speech, why was it not until the 1940's that the Supreme Court ruled that the law of common law libel is subject to being struck down as an unconstitutional restraint on Freedom of Speech?" We all sat there giving him 75 free dumb looks. He got an amused smile and said, "Because most lawyers don't have a free-speech bone in their body." And right then I decided that would never be something you could say about me.

The judge is completely within her rights to order this person to quit his longstanding fraudulent use of the domain name system.

The judge has no rights in this context. She has authority, not to be exceeded. But judges make errors all the time. Just like in baseball.

Nobody is stopping his free speech. He can yammer on all he wants on any site at a domain name that doesn't infringe. So there's no prior restraint involved.

I quite disagree. The very existence of a domain name is a form of speech. It's like having a name. If I want to call myself "Free Man Who Walks the Mountaintops," that's speech. If I want to call my website "NSI-was-born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-its-mouth.com," that's speech too.

The mere fact that "some avenues for speech remain" (which is your argument -- he can still get his message out) is not a valid response to a content-based regulation.

You have a novel defense speech prepared for this kind of activity if you ever need it, but judging from earlier decisions regarding domain names, it wouldn't prevail.

Only here does my BP rise slightly. Predicting outcomes is not my style. I try to make things happen.

"We are men of action. Lies do not become us."
Wesley, in The Princess Bride.

After all, if someone went around falsely calling themselves "Charles Carreon, Attorney at Law" and using your name on the top of press releases and letterhead for some politico-religious argument, you'd probably try to stop them... right?

Absolutely your strongest point. But if someone wanted to print up a handbill that said "Charles Carreon Must Be Stopped Because His Plan For a Free and Open Marketplace of Ideas Undermines Homeland Security," I think I'd be stuck without relief. Which is as it should be.

Thanks for the workout!

 

[jberryhill]

Charles,

A "prior restraint" on speech would be a proscriptive injunction made before the content of the speech is known. This is not that. He is to transfer certain domain names and to refrain from registering domain names that contain certain trademarks, as I understand the case thus far.

Purdy *had* a trial. He lost in July and was ordered to transfer the domain names. In connection with such a ruling, an injunction may properly proscribe future conduct of a similar nature.

He certainly had a right to appeal that order. He did not appeal the order. Instead, he has decided to act in apparent contempt of the order. Hence, he and his attorneys are now challenging the injunction based on vagueness (which is pretty much all one can do in this situation). By now, he may have waived a lot of his appealable issues.


"The mere fact that "some avenues for speech remain" (which is your argument -- he can still get his message out) is not a valid response to a content-based regulation."

The judgment is not content-based. It is conduct based. The conduct orginally was determined to be cybersquatting by a federal court. That would have been appealable, but was not. The Fourth Circuit, at least, would have affirmed on the basis of the PETA case, but he is in another circuit.

The conduct at this point is contempt of court. If the injunction is found to be vague, then so be it. But while you are challenging a contempt citation on vagueness, then, yes you might very well be doing so from a jail cell because a court does not have to stay incarceration for contempt while you are challenging it.

"If one is troubled by the speech of another person, then the remedy is to sue for damages and (under the ACPA) injunctive relief to remedy the wrongful registration. "

That's what they DID. In response, Purdy, it is alleged, has violated the injunction.

There's nothing stopping him from challenging the injunction, but I don't see a problem with him going to jail in the meantime if the court deems him in contempt. He will get his day in court.