Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Eric,
IMHO you go too far. This is only a short-cut.

Let suppose the carpet--.com owner added a few HTML lines to
his HTML page, so the rerouting link to Hillary's site would be
after the display of an offensive page, you would say freedom of
speech.

Also, would any random access be hijacking from your point of
view?
Jefsey



At 22:40 02/10/00, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> > I was recently forwarded to
> > > the domain, carpetbaggingbitch.com, which is then redirected to another
> > > site.
> >
> > http://www.hillary2000.org/
> >
> > > The two domains are not owned by the same person.  In fact, the
> > > redirected domain is actually a expressing a negative opinion of the
> > > operator of the redirected to domain.  Anyone know of any laws that would
> > > permit the entry of any United States governing authority?
> >
> > Methinks the First Amendement would prevent any gov't intervention. At any
> > rate, I'd certainly hope so.
> >
> > Of course, there are slander laws, but I'm inclined to doubt a suit under
> > them would succeed.
>
>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.
>
>"Slander" law might apply if there is a  "knowing" falsehood.  But, it 
>could only be raised by the target of
>the slander.
>
>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.
>
>There is a qualified right to use "public" facilities which are otherwise 
>open for speech (streets, courthouse
>steps and, in some jurisdictions, parts of privately owned malls
><http://www.fplc.edu/civilrights/Spchpriv.htm>), but this is not such a 
>case, imho.
>
>While no one is likely to suffer enough damage to have standing to sue, 
>civilly, such redirection may be a
>form of theft of service or other computer crime which would qualify for 
>governmental intervention.  A list of
>potentially applicable laws may be found at 
><http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html>.   The FBI is jumping all
>over complaints of high-tech abuse like a kid playing with a new 
>toy.  This might get someone's attention.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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

--
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