Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Eric,

Monday, October 02, 2000, 1:40:50 PM, you wrote:
> I find such redirection (mildly) offensive, just as when I am redirected to porn sites.  Such redirection is
> not protected speech for several reasons, including the lack of governmental involvement.

Protected speech is not limited to issues of government involvement.

> On the other hand, there seems to be a hijacking in progress, taking people where they do not want to go in
> order to give them information which they do not want to receive, using facilities the offender does not own.
> I don't think that is protected speech.  Nor am I convinced it should be.

That is not a hijacking.  It would be a hijacking only if it was done
without the consent of the owner of the carpetbaggingbitch.com domain
name.

This is an issue of linking, since that is really all this is.  The
method of linking is slightly different, but to try and make it
appears criminal, Eric, is an error.

The owner of the carpetbaggingbitch.com domain name doesn't even use
"frames" to cloak the site, thus lessening any claim that might
"perceivably" be applied.   In no way does this domain owner try and
imply that the hillary2000.com website is his, or in anyway
responsible for the content of that website.

It's merely a creative way of linking.  Like all the other URL
redirection services that provide this same type of redirection for
millions of websites.


-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html