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

[charles]

John,

Thanks for clarifying the facts of the case, with which I wasn't familiar. I still stand by my viewpoint that someone cannot be constitutionally restrained from engaging in any act of speech based on its content in advance of the speech occurring. To classify the use of a word, trademark or not, as "conduct" doesn't cut any ice with me.

You might as well tell someone, "You are ordered never to say the word "Coke" again, because every time you've done it in the past, you said "Coke has crap and puke in it," or "Coke has monkey-gonads ground up in it," or "Coke has Indonesian water snake slime in it," and that was all illegal, so what you say next time will probably be illegal too, so just don't say "Coke" ever again.

That's prior restraint.

As far as what got appealed or didn't, that doesn't make it right. The Dredd-Scott decision was valid law for many years, but it was never right for the Supremes to say that people remained property even in states where slavery was unlawful if they had been slaves in their state of origin. That was always unconstitutional, but it took a wiser Supreme Court to overrule it.

The potential for abuse of a judge's "equitable authority," which is the power to tell people to do this or not do that, is enormous. It is a power unchecked by the jury system, and subject to appellate review that is costly and slow.

Telling people not to speak is anathema to our system of justice. Registrations of domain names are speech. I may still be misunderstanding the ruling, but my principles are still clear.

 

[namedropper]

Charles,

The guy can put whatever he wants on his website. What he can't do is use a domain name with someone else's trademark. The law says that. You don't need domain names for free speech. Domain names are controlled and such uses are prohibited, both by the rules you agree to when you register them and by U.S. law.

Open and shut case.

 

[charles]

Originally posted by namedropper
Charles,

The guy can put whatever he wants on his website. What he can't do is use a domain name with someone else's trademark. The law says that. You don't need domain names for free speech. Domain names are controlled and such uses are prohibited, both by the rules you agree to when you register them and by U.S. law.

Open and shut case.

You appear to be deliberately ignoring my statements that:

• Domain names are speech
• Unregistered domain names are future expressions, i.e., words not yet spoken
• Judicial orders prohibiting the registration of domain names forbid future speech

For you to say "you don't need domain names for free speech" is preposterous, but not really my point. My point is that domain names ARE SPEECH.

The right to speak may be subject to private regulation without offending the First Amendment. If the people here at dnforum tire of our prattling, they can ban us and the Constitution has nothing to say about it. But that's as far as those "agreements" go. The Homeland Security Directorate of Information may not call up dnforum and say, "Ban that guy Carreon because he's pro-human-rights, and that undermines our relations with Saudi Arabia." Why? Because the First Amendment protects us from Government intereference with our speech. Which is why the Courts have to refrain from forbidding speech.

A judge cannot constitutionally tell someone not to speak, and certainly must not throw them in jail if they defy that order. The difference between allowing that judicial behavior, and forbidding it as does the First Amendment, is the difference between the USA and most every other nation.

Have you considered that slander and libel are not crimes? They were in England. Why not here? Because no one should stand in peril of imprisonment because of their speech. Now that's open and shut.

 

[jberryhill]

"The Dredd-Scott decision was valid law for many years, but it was never right for the Supremes to say that people remained property even in states where slavery was unlawful if they had been slaves in their state of origin. That was always unconstitutional, but it took a wiser Supreme Court to overrule it."

Umm... which court was that?

The Dred Scott decision has *never* been overruled, and is still perfectly valid law for its delineation of federal vs. state citizenship principles.

It was not unconstitutional, but the main holdings were rendered irrelevant by the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution. It could not have been unconstitutional, in any event, because it was a Supreme Court opinion. That's like calling god a sinner.

In fact, the Supreme Court as recently as 1995 has expressly stated that Dred Scott was never overruled:

Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/curiae/html/515-200/009.htm
"The Constitution has never been color–blind. Initially, African Americans were considered to be three–fifths of a person, and in the Dred Scott case, African Americans were deemed not to be citizens of this country and to have no rights. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 Howard) 393 (1857). This case was never overruled but instead was made moot by a Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. "

See, e.g.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/students/academicinfo/coursepages/s2001/337/study06.html
"Dred Scott was never overruled by the Supreme Court, although the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments can fairly be said to have taken care of that. Justice Frankfurter was once quoted as saying that the Supreme Court never mentioned Dred Scott, in the same way that family members never spoke of a kinsman who had been sent to the gallows for a heinous crime. "

"My point is that domain names ARE SPEECH."

That's an assertion of your opinion. So, what right, exactly, did Kremen have to make Cohen stop saying "sex", hmm? I mean, a court ordered Cohen to stop saying it, right?

 

[charles]

Hey John, ya wanna defend Dredd Scott, that's up to you. My point is simply that when judges are wrong ya gotta say, "the law is an ass, an idiot," just like Mr. Bumble. And I stand behind dedicated citizens who defy bad law. Every time. Win sometimes, too.

 

[jberryhill]

"Hey John, ya wanna defend Dredd Scott, that's up to you. "

Tsk, tsk, Charles. It is an odious decision. It simply was not overruled by a "wiser" court. And when a lawyer is wrong, the judge thinks he's an ass too.

"And I stand behind dedicated citizens who defy bad law. "

So should any lawyer. Unless that citizen keeps his wallet in his *front* pocket.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by charles


You appear to be deliberately ignoring my statements that:

• Domain names are speech
• Unregistered domain names are future expressions, i.e., words not yet spoken
• Judicial orders prohibiting the registration of domain names forbid future speech

I'm not *ignoring* those statements, I am *disagreeing* with them.

Domain names are not speech, they are addresses. Your other statements fall apart because your base assumption is wrong.

Haven't we seen enough cases ruling against PETA.com (or .org or whatever it was) and KmartSucks.com and so forth to have this pretty well straight yet?

Besides, when you register a name, you agree not to infringe upon the trademarks of others. If you don't agree, you aren't allowed to register any names. That's pretty clear.

Have you considered that slander and libel are not crimes?

Ah, but cybersquatting on the trademarks of others *is* a crime. The U.S. AntiCybersquatting Act of 1999 made this extremely clear.

But if we get back to the whole address concept, we can see that there is no guaranteed speech involved.

Say you are a company selling computer software and develop a new business park. You then are allowed to name the streets there. If you tried to name the address of your main building "1 Microsoft Way" in hopes of confusing people into thinking your products were endorsed or created by Microsoft, that wouldn't fly either. And if you made a habit of it, a court most certainly would tell you to never try it again. That wouldn't be a restriction of free speech either.

 

[jberryhill]

"Ah, but cybersquatting on the trademarks of others *is* a crime. "

No, Dan, the ACPA provides a civil cause of action. It is not a criminal statute.

But Dan raises a great point here. Registering a domain name requires entry into a contract with a registrar. There is the "dirty words" case where NSI's then-current policy of not allowing registration of domain names was challenged with the "domain names are speech" argument, and which didn't gain much traction.

There are a couple of interesting aspects of this decision:

http://www.srovnavacipravo.cz/texty/domainnames.htm
"In fact, the First Amendment guarantees private actors the right not to be associated with speech with which they disagree. See, e.g. , Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston , 515 U.S. 557 (1995)."

Hence, what Purdy is doing is indeed associating the names of various others with his speech, and they do not wish to be perceived as speaking on that topic.

"It appears that very few courts have given focused consideration to whether second-level domain names constitute or are capable of communicating protected speech. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently concluded that the existing generic top -level domain names (e.g., .com, .gov, .edu), all of which are limited to three letters, do not constitute protected speech. Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. , 202 F.3d at 585. "

"A few federal courts have considered whether specific second-level domain names (as distinguished from second-level domain names in general) constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. For example, in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci , 1997 WL 133313, 42 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 1997), aff'd , 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir.) (unpublished table decision), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 834 (1998), the court concluded that the defendant's use of the domain name "plannedparenthood.com" was not communicative and, instead, served only as a "source identifier," by which the defendant directed users to his anti-abortion website. Id. , at *10. Consequently, the court held that "because defendant's use of the term `planned parenthood' is not part of a communicative message, his infringement on plaintiff's mark is not protected by the First Amendment." Id. See also OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight Magazine, Inc. , 86 F. Supp. 2d 176 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that the defendant's use of the domain name "the buffalonews.com" was not protected speech); Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky , 993 F. Supp. 282, 286-87 n.1 (D.N.J. 1998) (concluding that defendant's use of the domain names "JewsForJesus.org" and "Jews-for-Jesus.com" did not implicate rights guaranteed by the First Amendment), aff'd , 159 F.3d 1351 (3rd Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision). "


In any event, anyone is of course free to argue their opinion, and free to challenge the prevailing weight of judicial decisions against them. But in order to do so, it requires one to explain *why* each of those decisions should be disregarded by a present court, and not merely to assert the contrary.

Finally, in the Planned Parenthood case, the defendant was doing pretty much what Purdy is doing, albeit with a more sensible target than Coca-Cola or the Washington Post. That "cert. denied" thing means the Supreme Court didn't find the case interesting enough to bother with (they have discretion to hear or not to hear cases).

I certainly admire your convictions, and am inclined to agree with them. But anyone planning behavior based on a lawyer's assertion that "domain names are speech" had best be informed that the prevailing weight of the law on the subject says otherwise.

 

[mastmnds]

que?

 

[pljones]

Charles,

You should read Judge Montgomery's decisions at 2002 US Dist. LEXIS 17117, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 13443 (or on PACER at 02-CV-1782, D. Minn) and Coca-Cola, et al. v. Purdy, et al., 02-CV-2894 (8th Cir. July 30, 2002) (where the 8th Circuit denied Purdy's appeal of the preliminary injunction).

 

[jberryhill]

"Now why didn't you provide insight into Dred Scott when I specifially asked you-when it really mattered? "

I did:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12156

..and you still owe me dnbucks for that. I'm not working for free, you know - that's no longer legal.

 

[YOYOYO]

Today is the day, someone for the first time may go to jail for registering a domain name.

I'm ready for a freakin war.......... **** the washington post, **** coca cola, and **** the star tribune

 

[jberryhill]

He is not going to jail for registering a domain name. He is going to jail for violating a court order. There is some question about the enforceability of the order, and he'll have an opportunity to argue that.

Judges have broad discretion to put people in jail for contempt of court. If you are party to a mundane civil suit, then yes, you can certainly end up going to jail for all sorts of mundane behavior if you violate a court order relating to the outcome of that suit.

 

[charles]

JB:

I do believe I've made my point here, and will trust in the insightful readers who frequent this board to make their choice between the alternatives. Certainly I've puffed enough wind into my sails ... :laugh:

Ciao for now,
Chas

 

[YOYOYO]

I believe he is going to jail for registering domain names.

The contempt things are just the courts and plaintiffs attempt to make it look like something other than what it really is.

There it is.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by YOYOYO
Sorry, he is going to jail for registering domain names.

And you say that like it's a bad thing. LOL.

 

[YOYOYO]

I don't follow you

Do I think going to jail is a bad thing.

Of course it is, especially when he has done nothing more than register domain names and use them.

I've read your messages on the topic. We disagree about the issue in a number of important ways.

Or maybe you're referring to something else.

 

[edisaacson]

What he has done is register domain names which contain registered trademarks of other parties. That is something you just don't do, especially when the court has already told you not to do it

 

[wildshades]

I agree he is going to jail for registering domain names and the contempt charge is just a legal formality to accomplish it.

It's matter of civility, you go to jail in a nice orderly manner.

You're given plenty of chance not to go, you just have to stop doing what you believe you have a right to do.

"We really didn't want William Purdy to go to jail, we only want him to give up the domain names."

This is definitely not a mundane civil suit. It is for me, the best domain name case before the courts.

A cause someone believes in, domain names registered to speak of the cause and no profit to made.

Even the acpa act recognizes a defense of free speech in it's "saving clause."

Most likely the reason this case was not brought under the act.

An act that was defeated on it's on merits before congress, but was a last minute attachment to the budget bill of 1999.

So I have absolutely no respect for this piece of trash, voted down by congress, acpa act.

The acpa act is law now only because it was passed by what you would call "the old fashioned way of doing things." Backroom politics that leave the people out of decision making.

Passed only because special interests groups were able to have the amendment tacked onto the budget bill, which needed to passed after much stalling.

There was not a chance the budget bill would be stopped to get the acpa act taken out.

Is that what it means to live in a democracy.

When our elected officials vote against a proposed law, they have determined, through examination and debate is unfair and unwarranted. Yet in spite of that, the statute becomes law.

So what do you do when the government starts pushing you.

You push back.

The special interests groups have their interests and I have mine.

Mine are to make the statute as functionally ineffective as possible and I believe for all intent and purposes it has reached that point at this time.

There may be some I missed, but I don't know of any recent actions brought under the acpa act.

Why would anyone, you end up spending $60,000 in court as embassy suites did to get a name taken away from John Zuccarini and you don't even get the domain name.

Oh yes, they won the case, but someone in pakistan now owns the name, not embassy suites.

That was a beauty, you can only hope for more like the them.

Everyone has their own way of reacting to what they perceive as a danger to their life.

 

[ctn]

Well Said wildshades,It makes me mad as hell to,just like this here,this come from someone a couple of years ago,i don't even know who it come from now,but i saved it,just so i can remember
how stupid these people are

Can you imagine working for a company that
has a little more than 500 employees and has
the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
*7 have been arrested for fraud
*19 have been accused of writing bad checks
*117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at leased
2 businesses
*3 have done time for assault
*71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
*14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
*8 have been arrested for shoplifting
*21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
*84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last
year

Can you guess which organization this is?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws
each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.