Do you have a right to b*tch about a company?? NO. by SignyM

Quote:
Would you basically describe yourself as an anarchist philosopher in the vein of the renouned Emma Goldman?

Umm, no - that's MY job, heh.

Excellent choice of tactics, Kirk - this is referred to as "pulling a midway" on them, and is in fact the exact same methodology I use to ferret out who's selling personal info to spammers and scumbags, one reason I find credit reporting agencies so despicable - cause they demand more and more information to "protect" you and "verify your identity" and then turn and sell it to any scumbag with a vendor number, making them the primary folks responsible for the plethora of identity/credit theft in the first place, which of course they use to "justify" even more invasion, neat scam, yes ?

For mine own, I feel no more regret lying to a corporation demanding info than I would to a would-be mugger asking me how much cash I have on me, cause their intent is imho, exactly the same.

We pre-empted the entire issue way back when, at least in regard to the hellcamps, by actively choosing to not play "by the rules" in the first damn place - cause, again, it's the same thing as playing a card sharper at his own game, on his table, with his marked deck, it's just friggin stupid.

The ONLY proper response to a rigged game is to cheat, the black side of Hoyles Law, as it were.

Either the "rules" apply to everyone, or they apply to NO ONE - anything else is tyranny by definition, and if naught else, Corporate Personhood certainly is that.

Of course, this'd not have been a problem were it not for the collective forces of Government AND Corporations destroying any non uncle-tom unions (oh don't even get me STARTED on the AFL-CIO and that rat-bastard Gompers) since 1905, especially a little while later given that they thought Fascism was the greatest thing since sliced bread and even when it's ills were exposed continued to support Franco, and privately they STILL think so, whatever they say publicly.

Speakin of which, since the powers that be utterly FAILED to crush May-Day protests via agents, plants, pre-emptive arrests and the usual shovel of shit - thanks in great part to folks finally realizing the value of vetting their people and using proper information security, they simply instructed their media "friends" to give it the clear-channel anti-war rally treatment.

Not that it matters at the moment, as this was more for themselves, proving they could win out against the "miami model" than anything else, but those same preventative tactics DO work against corporations as well - just ask Starbucks how annoying the IWW can be, if you like.

And oh the delicious irony of the right/libertarian types needing instruction in those same tactics against the MAIC and general law enforcement oh-so-fast to turn on their former allies when the winds of change shift and the enablers wound up under the jackboot, ehe ?

Again, Kirk - my reccommendation of Ringo's "The Road to Damascus" - you'd enjoy it, prolly learn something too, about politics and power, at least.

The day of the corporations is well past noon anyway, Siggy, cause there's some rare few things the Left and the Right tend to agree on, and when you trod on THOSE you start creating some really unhallowed alliances, which is all well and good in the long term, but one hell of a headache for the necessary cat-herders in the short term, argh.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 3:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Actually, SignyM, some cites so we can get the whole story instead of just your opinion would be nice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Two fired over private MySpace postings

www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/05/04/am.cho.myspace.cnn

A company sues a group of disgruntled customers for $15 MILLION dollars. "I've been an attorney for over 20 years, and I have rarely seen anything that's as frivolous as this is," says John Benn, a lawyer and aquarist in Sheffield, Ala., who collects monies for the legal defense of the defendants named in the case.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/prin
t.html

I cannot find the story of the grocery store expose which recorded (using a secret camera) the meat department washing soured meat with bleach and relabeling the meat with a new freshness date, but the television station which did this was successfully sued for invading the grocery store's privacy rights.

And I haven't even gotten to food disparagement laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

And of course, there's Microsoft's infamous BSA- Bullshit... re, I mean Business Software Alliance, which retroactively requried cusotmers to have saved not only the loadable disk but all of the PAPERWORK associated with it... or get sued at least $25,000. MS sued lots and lots and lots of school districts and city governments ... not because they thought there was a serious piracy issue going on, but to rake in a lot of money.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/07/10/microsoft_school/prin
t.html

Here's a list of some of the more egregious lawsuits brought by businesses
http://w2.eff.org/legal/victories/more.php
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Would you basically describe yourself as an anarchist philosopher in the vein of the renouned Emma Goldman?

I don't know. I'll have to look her up.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:12 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Would you basically describe yourself as an anarchist philosopher in the vein of the renouned Emma Goldman?

Umm, no - that's MY job, heh.

Frem, of you I had no doubt.
Have you ever listened to the radio show Free Talk Live? They broadcast out of New Hampshire and Ethan the main host is by far the most hardened Anarchist I've ever heard on the radio. While I would propose small government is needed he takes the extreme position that all governments do is "agress" on their people by their basic natures and therefore shouldn't even exist. He makes a thoughtful case, but I just cannot get behind it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Two fired over private MySpace postings

If you were a restaurant manager and overheard waitstaff making frequent disparaging remarks about both management and customers, would you fire them? If it were reported to you by another employee and you confirmed it? That's pretty much what happened here.

Quote:
A company sues a group of disgruntled customers for $15 MILLION dollars.

The "company" is one guy, who's representing himself in court, claiming libel and infringement of copyright, since the websites set up to raise money for the plaintiffs uses his company's logo.

The Food Libel Law appears to relate more to the media than individuals on-line.

The Microsoft case has nothing to do with 'bitching' about a company at all.

Not to say that stuff doesn't happen, but you should probably come up with better, more clear-cut, examples rather than just posting rants based on headlines.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:38 AM

BSCM - His name is Ian, actually, and yeah, he's a case allright, where he and I part ways is over my own personal belief that the plain and simple fact is people as a whole have to "grow up" in a mental, emotional, and social degree before Anarchism would even become viable, and this is WHY our society is designed completely around preventing that.
(something I work against by addressing stuff with kids before they wind up as screwed up as we are)

Their support of the RTBA is encouraging though, I'll say that much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act

Where I part ways with most Anarchists is over what to do - folks, especially younger ones, always have this must-take-action thing, without realizing that if you try to force Anarchism on people who don't want it, not only are you violating every one of it's essential principles, but you'll wind up with something like Somalia.

We don't have to DO anything, just grow up, stop takin their stupid orders, and defend ourselves against those who due to mental illness or nefarious purpose, continue to do so.

The verymost vital ESSENCE of Anarchism is...
"And I should listen to you, exactly, WHY?"

Most folk overcomplicate it, overthink it, and want great, grand gestures, the foolishness of the hero myth - but when you strip away all the protective coloration, the Government/Governed relationship is naught more than an Abusive Parent/Abused Child relationship writ on a national, rather than personal, scale.

With that in mind, the solutions become simple.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you were a restaurant manager and overheard waitstaff making frequent disparaging remarks about both management and customers, would you fire them? If it were reported to you by another employee and you confirmed it? That's pretty much what happened here.

In a word: NO, I would not. A company has no right to fire you for what you do or say offsite and off-hours. Period. And IF I heard a bitchfest about management, I would listen VERY CLOSELY... to see if the complaints had merit, and fix the problem(s) if I could.

Quote:
The "company" is one guy, who's representing himself in court, claiming libel and infringement of copyright, since the websites set up to raise money for the plaintiffs uses his company's logo.

Bull, bull, and more bull.

Quote:
But Robert Novak, the owner of the Pets Warehouse trademark, which is used both by an actual pet store in Long Island, N.Y., and by the e-commerce site PetsWarehouse.com, did not appreciate the public criticism.... In his court filing, Novak attests that ... "APD maliciously blocked the e-mails sent to the mail list by the plaintiff thus not afford [sic] him an opportunity to defend himself." (Mark Rosenstein, the owner and founder of Active Windows Productions, the company that hosts the list and its archives, says that Novak's responses bounced only because they contained files with attachments.)...
But Novak was not satisfied by technical explanations. On May 30, 2001, he filed a suit disputing the complaints about bad customer service on the APD list, alleging libel and defamation and seeking $1 million in damages. He also claimed that he had suffered "$5 million, plus interest" in damages to his "good name and reputation and to his business interests." And for the emotional distress caused by all the hullabaloo, the suit sought additional damages of $15,000,001. Among the defendants named: Rosenstein, Resler, Carney and several other APD list members who had posted remarks about the company. A number of defendants in the original suit have since settled, but the May complaint was just the beginning of the fishbowl fracas. The aquarists on the APD mailing list reacted to news of the suit with all the righteous ire of an online community under attack.... The list members set up a defense fund to help pay for legal counsel... Novak saw the efforts to spread the word about the suit on the Web as a further infringement of his company's trademark, as well as the propagation of defamatory and libelous comments. On September 15, 2001, Novak filed an amendment to the first complaint, naming new defendants and adding a litany of charges, including an allegation of computer hacking against Resler, the computer scientist whose original post about Pets Warehouse started it all. Among the newly named defendants was JoAnn VanDersarl of Pueblo, Colo., the webmaster of a site called PlantedTank.com, where she'd posted information about the case. Now, Novak was suing supporters of the APD Defense Fund, like VanDersarl, who'd put up a banner on her site soliciting contributions and posted in online forums about the case. The new complaint accused the defendants of forming a "conspiracy" against Novak's business. Among the additional evidence of trademark infringement: the phrase "Pets Warehouse" appeared in the metatags on some of the sites that linked to the APD Defense Fund site. (Metatags are keywords that help search engines index Web sites but are not normally visible to Web surfers.) On March 25, 2002, Novak filed a second amended complaint, raising new accusations, including "threats of violence and even death threats against Robert Novak and staff."

While none of the defendants named in the case compete with Pets Warehouse for customers, casting some doubt on the trademark infringement argument, Novak maintains that the existence of the defense fund itself amounts to an infringement.

Beyond the lawsuit itself, other supporters of the case say they have received cease-and-desist letters for using the words "Pets Warehouse" on their sites. Olson, president of the Aquatic Gardeners Association, who is also the webmaster of TheKrib.com, an aquarium site, says he received a cease-and-desist letter from Novak in March 2002, accusing him of illegally using the Pets Warehouse trademark.

Olson's site features a banner advertisement that mentions the case with this headline: "Pets Warehouse Sues Hobbyists" and links to the aquarists' site about the case. "I'm just literally reporting that the case exists and linking to another site," he says. "I think that Novak's trying to shut up anybody who is putting any negative comments about his business online."

Resler, the computer scientist who started the thread on the APD list about Pets Warehouse, says that he believes the whole mess could have been avoided if only Pets Warehouse had responded differently when his plants were late and he complained. "If Pets Warehouse had sent me e-mail saying: 'We're sorry you're upset. What can we do to make it better?' I would have vented to them, they would have sent me a $20 gift certificate. I would have posted to APD: 'Yeah, we had a bad deal, but let's give them another chance, and it would have been over.' But instead, he [Novak] sued. It is his act of suing us that has caused all the bad feeling. He has brought this upon himself."

So... trademark infringement (itself a questionable allegation), libel, damages, emotional distress, conspiracy, death threats, computer hacking... all brought against people who griped about his company, or people who set up a legal defense fund, or even people who simply reported that such a case existed???? Really, geezer, maybe you should READ the article. And what happened was... people were FORCED to settle... to run banners for the company they (by then) hated, give up their websites or ante up. The point is that compnaies not only have the money to drag people through court for years, they also have the law on their side.

And you say I should come up with better examples but you fail to address any of the cases on the EFF site? Sheesh Geezer, as an apologist for the grossly unfair you're less than pond scum in my eyes.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:40 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And IF I heard a bitchfest about management, I would listen VERY CLOSELY... to see if the complaints had merit, and fix the problem(s) if I could.

Signy, can you be MY boss?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm a damn good boss. My section is more productive than anyone else's.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:07 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
BSCM - His name is Ian

Gr Arg. Yea I knew that. A fellow was in my office talking about tomorrow nights episode of Lost and there is a character in the show named Ethan. It slipped into my text in a rather freudian fashion.

I will say however that Ian's dream of the free-state project for NH makes my mind move into interesting places. Imagine one of the 50 states where a citizen could travel to experience extreme economic and personal freedoms. It'd be like ancient greece come again. What a concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:20 AM

I figure if someone does pull the secession lever in the near future it's gonna be NH or VT, NH in particular has a secondary backup infrastructure they've built over the years (I dunno how complete it is) in the case should it happen and the powers that be cut em off from the internet, power and water distribution systems - and in the meantime it's a nice thing to have in case of natural disaster or another massive blackout, come to think of it.

MI has certain advantages I am very keenly aware of should it come to cases in a TEOTWAWKI situation, not the least of which is promixity to a friendly non US territory and a single land border to defend, along with a food production setup not wholly dominated by Monsanto.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A company has no right to fire you for what you do or say offsite and off-hours. Period.

Well, actually they do; especially if it might reflect on the company's name and clientele. A company can fire you for just about anything that's not related to discrimination of some sort. Or can you quote some law that prevents a company from firing employees pretty much at will?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The "company" is one guy, who's representing himself in court, claiming libel and infringement of copyright, since the websites set up to raise money for the plaintiffs uses his company's logo.[/quote
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bull, bull, and more bull.

I notice you omitted this line from your quote of the Salon.com article.

"(Novak is representing himself "pro se" in the case.)"

So that's not bull.

Also from the Salon.com article, and you even quoted this.

"Among the additional evidence of trademark infringement: the phrase "Pets Warehouse" appeared in the metatags on some of the sites that linked to the APD Defense Fund site. (Metatags are keywords that help search engines index Web sites but are not normally visible to Web surfers.)"

Okay, metatags linking to the defense fund site rather than use of logo. Similar.

So you got a small businessman, admittedly somewhat litigious, going after folks who slagged his company on-line and used his trademarked name. He's representing himself on his own time. Do you really think a business that's one brick & mortar store and an online presence has the 'deep pockets' to hire a bunch of lawyers? Do you even know if the folks libeling his company were correct in their criticisms, or does the fact he's a "businessman" automatically make him the villian?

Quote:
And you say I should come up with better examples but you fail to address any of the cases on the EFF site?

Perhaps you should have lead with those, rather than the ambiguious stories you chose.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, actually they do; especially if it might reflect on the company's name and clientele. A company can fire you for just about anything that's not related to discrimination of some sort. Or can you quote some law that prevents a company from firing employees pretty much at will?

Companies "can" fire anyone for anything, relevant or not. But should they be able to? You argue yes, I argue no. My point is that the right to privacy and free speech is like the right to non-discrimination: these rights SHOULD trump business rights. So ... how do you like being on the ogre-ish side of the argument?

Quote:
Okay, metatags linking to the defense fund site rather than use of logo

The whole concept of metatags versus logos is a technical one which the article addresses.

Quote:
So you got a small businessman

NOT

Quote:
admittedly somewhat litigious, going after folks who slagged his company on-line

And even those who didn't

Quote:
and used his trademarked name.

No.

You protraying the owner as some simple guy who's just burned about a bad review is falsehood. Robert Novak is not a "small businessman". And he went after everyone even remotely involved- quite obviously with the intent to stifle online opinion of his company- claiming all kinds of silly things (hacking, conspiracy etc). The one GOOD thing that came out of it is that he went after somebody much bigger (Google) with the same litigious attitude and got his *ss handed to him on a platter.
www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Business/Allegedly_Unethical_Firms/Pets_Wa
rehouse/

And yes, altho in this case the business owner is representing himself that doesn't take away from the points that (1) MANY businesses have resources far and away much greater than the average individual. (2) "Free" speech is limited to how much you can pay to promote and defend. "They" can run commercials promoting their products (baseless or not), YOU can't even express a simple opinion and (3) Businesses have certain laws they can use to their advantage which are not accessible to the average person.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:19 PM

Actually Geezer seems to be right. Your evil business is one zealous guy representing himself against trademark infringement.

But I do agree with your general point. Something tells me that whether you agree with it depends a lot on what ideological flags you’re waiving. For instance, a better example of powerful moneyed institutions bullying people out of their freedom of expression would be the ACLU, with its many high paid lawyers, suing small town schools for putting on Christmas shows. My guess is you'll defend the high paid lawyers.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Is the school a business ? Is it a private person ? Is the ACLU a business ? Is it a private person ?

Does the school receive Federal money ? If yes, is it obligated to follow the constitutional requirement about not establishing a religion ?

How does your example have anything to do with ---- anything at all ?

***************************************************************

I'm betting myself you're going to try to use my post as an example of me 'supporting' the ACLU

Select to view spoiler:

when all I'm asking is for you to make a logical connection.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:33 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How does your example have anything to do with ---- anything at all ?

If it's logic you want you might have been better off leaving your little snipe out of it, IMHO.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Speaking of snark --- snicker.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is the school a business ? Is it a private person ? Is the ACLU a business ? Is it a private person ?

Does the school receive Federal money ? If yes, is it obligated to follow the constitutional requirement about not establishing a religion ?

How does your example have anything to do with ---- anything at all ?

It has everything to do with powerful moneyed institutions using high paid lawyers to bully people out of their freedom of expression. And I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that you know that, because otherwise you wouldn’t try so desperately to confuse that issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

I hope you understand I am actually wondering what your point was, since it seemed unrelated in any way to the topic at hand.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn

I hope you understand I am actually wondering what your point was, since it seemed unrelated in any way to the topic at hand.

The point is that powerful moneyed institutions (e.g. Signym’s “company”, even though in reality that particular company was a very poor example) can use litigation to silence people or change the manner in which people conduct themselves (e.g. Signym’s “company” suing someone for views it felts is inappropriate, once again may not be the best example since there did seem to be trademark infringement.) Now that understood, a better example is the ACLU, which is not one guy representing himself, but a powerful institution, that uses litigation to silence religious views it feels are inappropriate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Actually Geezer seems to be right. Your evil business is one zealous guy representing himself against trademark infringement.

Except that his tradmark wasn't infringed, his lawsuits included a lot of other allegations besides that (all of them baseless), and he was extorting HUGE sums of money. Other than that... you may have a point!

Quote:
But I do agree with your general point. Something tells me that whether you agree with it depends a lot on what ideological flags you’re waiving. For instance, a better example of powerful moneyed institutions bullying people out of their freedom of expression would be the ACLU, with its many high paid lawyers, suing small town schools for putting on Christmas shows. My guess is you'll defend the high paid lawyers.

I'd defend the idea of not using tax money to advance a particular religion. But maybe that's just me.

If you want to put up Christmas decorations on your front lawn... have at it!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Do you have a right to b*tch about a company?? NO.

That's the topic. You still aren't making relevant points.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:02 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Companies "can" fire anyone for anything, relevant or not. But should they be able to? You argue yes, I argue no. My point is that the right to privacy and free speech is like the right to non-discrimination: these rights SHOULD trump business rights.

This is where your understanding of "rights" goes off the rails Signy. The rights established by the constitution are protections from government interference, nothing else. The right to free speech is a guarantee that we won't pass any laws that allow the government to silence citizens merely because we don't like what's being said. But it doesn't demand that a newspaper or website provide all comers with a vehicle to express their views.

Likewise, such rights don't require someone to do business with you regardless of what you say in public. By your logic, I wouldn't be allowed to boycott businesses that do or say things I don't like. We all should have the freedom to do business with who we choose, regardless of the reason.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Except that his tradmark wasn't infringed, his lawsuits included a lot of other allegations besides that (all of them baseless), and he was extorting HUGE sums of money. Other than that... you may have a point!

I have yet to see that his trademark was not infringed. Other then that, the rest of it seems pretty baseless.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'd defend the idea of not using tax money to advance a particular religion. Maybe that's just me.

That’s the excuse that is often cited, but in the end, it is still powerful institutions bullying people out of their freedom of expression.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That’s the excuse that is often cited, but in the end, it is still powerful institutions bullying people out of their freedom of expression

No, what it means is that powerful institutions (the city, the State, the Federal government) cannot force their religion on you.

Let's turn it around. Say the town council was taken over by a bunch of Mormons and they decided the town should go dry and everybody had to attend their church. Or hizzoner was a Muslim and decided in deference to all of the Muslims in the community the city's clock tower should be used to call everyone to prayer...

Quote:
I have yet to see that his trademark was not infringed

First of all NONE OF THE WEBSITES USED HIS TRADEMARK. Right there, I would say that's a pretty good indication that his tradmark wasn't infringed. Specific examples- A website operator cannot be sued for copyright or tradmark infringement by linking a posting of someone else... which Mr Novak attempted to do. In addition, metatags are generally considered to be infringement only when you are a competing business attempting to steer a competitor's business towards you (by using their metatag).

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, what it means is that powerful institutions (the city, the State, the Federal government) cannot force their religion on you.

Of course, signym. As long as some other powerful institution that you don’t define as a “State” or a “Company” forces their ideology on you, then it’s okay.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's turn it around. Say the town council was taken over by a bunch of Mormons and they decided the town should go dry and everybody had to attend their church. Or hizzoner was a Muslim and decided in deference to all of the Muslims in the community the city's clock tower should be used to call everyone to prayer...

Good. You obviously understand the concept, now you just need to remove the blinders, and realize that just because you happen to agree with the ideology of an institution doesn’t mean they are righteous.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all NONE OF THE WEBSITES USED HIS TRADEMARK.

Well, you kind of just need to read your own cites, because that statement appears to be categorically false based on what you’ve posted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
That’s the excuse that is often cited, but in the end, it is still powerful institutions bullying people out of their freedom of expression.

Not to hijack the thread, but if I practice Santeria - a recognized religion - or if I'm a Satanist, can I have my public school throw a pageant for my holidays? If not, isn't that because powerful institutions (public schools and churches) are bullying people like me out of my freedom of expression?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Companies "can" fire anyone for anything, relevant or not. But should they be able to? You argue yes, I argue no.

Wrong.
I argue only that they can. If the managers in this case had any smarts, they would have done as you suggested and responded proactively to complaints, rather than firing the employees. The waitstaff mocking customers should have been cautioned that their supposedly private chat group was really about as private as shouting from a rooftop, and that they might be more circumspect. However, Management did have a perfectly legal right to fire them. This makes it an ethical, rather than a legal, issue.

Quote:
My point is that the right to privacy and free speech is like the right to non-discrimination: these rights SHOULD trump business rights.

The right to privacy on the internet is gonna be a slippery thing for quite some time. For example, consider 'sexting', where teens send explicit cellphone photos to each other and some recipients post them on the web for all to see. Is the senders right to privacy violated?

Quote:
You protraying the owner as some simple guy who's just burned about a bad review is falsehood. Robert Novak is not a "small businessman".

Proof?

Quote:
And yes, altho in this case the business owner is representing himself that doesn't take away from the points that (1) MANY businesses have resources far and away much greater than the average individual.

Then maybe you should have chosen one of those big businesses rather than some guy with one store and a web site.

Quote:
"Free" speech is limited to how much you can pay to promote and defend.

Free speech still doesn't allow you to libel folk. And if folk believe they have been libeled, they still have recourse in the courts. Would you rather have it where anyone could libel you - in print, on-line, or word of mouth - and you have no way to stop them?

To reiterate, the internet - and the ease with which folks can casually put up photos, links, text, and video that can seriously damage themselves and others - is going to be a legal and ethical dilemma for years to come. What people should do and what people legally can do will be debated in both public forums and the courts for some time to come.

If you're gonna take sides in this debate, you need to provide hard facts and data, not soundbites and one-sided stories that look like political campaign ads.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:54 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
That’s the excuse that is often cited, but in the end, it is still powerful institutions bullying people out of their freedom of expression.

Not to hijack the thread, but if I practice Santeria - a recognized religion - or if I'm a Satanist, can I have my public school throw a pageant for my holidays? If not, isn't that because powerful institutions (public schools and churches) are bullying people like me out of my freedom of expression?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Hello,

It would seem to me that you can't force anyone to do anything to honor you or your religious holidays.

That would be as bad as not having the right to celebrate those holidays yourself.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not to hijack the thread, but if I practice Santeria - a recognized religion - or if I'm a Satanist, can I have my public school throw a pageant for my holidays? If not, isn't that because powerful institutions (public schools and churches) are bullying people like me out of my freedom of expression?

If you have enough people at your school to support such an activity then you should be all good. The problem with those kinds of things isn’t that anyone is bully anyone necessary, but just that there isn’t enough support for it. That’s different from something like Christmas where 95 -100% of the school in just about every part of the country practices it for reasons that are everything from religious to secular.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, the problem is that they are using public monies... tax dollars... to promote a religion. It doesn't matter which religion or how many practitioners or whether 5% agree... or 99.999% agree. The FF had seen enough of religious warfare and didn't want to reproduce the same problems here.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, the problem is that they are using public monies... tax dollars... to promote a religion. It doesn't matter which religion or how many practitioners or whether 5% agree... or 99.999% agree. The FF had seen enough of religious warfare and didn't want to reproduce the same problems here.

The Founding Fathers intended to form a nation where everyone could practice their religious belief. They did NOT intend for religious beliefs to be eliminated from the public forum. They did not intend for the Establishment Clause to be used as a bludgeon to restrict the People’s cultural and religious practices. If they had, they wouldn’t have included the Free-Exercise Clause.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
They did not intend for the Establishment Clause to be used as a bludgeon to restrict the People’s cultural and religious practices

And, they do not restrict cultural and religious practices, do they? Do you want to set up a Nativity scene on your front lawn or light up your house so that it can be seen from space, or both? FINE! Does your Church, temple, mosque, or shrine want to set up a Nativity scene, Menorah, minaret, Buddha, or what-have you? NO PROBLEM! (Just conform to noise ordinances and provide enough parking) Can your group set up bell-ringers in malls and at grocery stores? GREAT! You, and your personal or group religious expressions are unmolested as long as you conform to various laws and ordinances.... no human sacrifice, no loud noise after 10 PM.

What they expressly FORBID (and maybe you missed this part when you read the Constitution) was...

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

That is the FIRST thing they say, before they even get to

Quote:
... , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And state constitutions and city charters mostly follow suit, unless you happen to live in Utah.

But that means NO TAXES can be used to support any religion. I repeat: ANY religion. Doesn't matter if the city Council decides to support the most popular one, be very open-minded and support ALL religions, or be contrarian and support only the really really unpopular ones. This issue has been decided many time over already. Got it, chief?

ETA: While many of the FF were deist, quite a few were non-Christian. Jefferson, Adams, and others waxed long over the evils of established religion, the corruption of the clergy etc. Jefferson was dead set against establishing Thanksgiving as a national holiday. It is a lie to say that the FF envisioned a Christian nation- They did not. "In God We Trust" was not added to currency until the Civil War. "One nation under God" was not added until the 1950s. The religious trappings which we take for granted in our government are relative latecomers and certainly not the intention of the FF. They should be removed. Just sayin'.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And state constitutions and city charters mostly follow suit, unless you happen to live in Utah. But that means NO TAXES can be used to support any religion. I repeat: ANY religion. Doesn't matter if the city Council decides to support the most popular one, be very open-minded and support ALL religions, or be contrarian and support only the really really unpopular ones. This issue has been decided many time over already. Got it, chief?

The Founding Fathers made sure that, along with forbidding the establishment of a state religion, they also asserted free expression. That means that the people have every right to practice Christmas, and the ACLU has no right to tell school children that they can’t, simply because those schools are funded by the state. The establishment clause was never intended, nor is it stated to be intended, to be used as a bludgeon to take freedom of expression from the people. Forbidding the establishment of a state religion was intended to ensure the expression of religion, not the other way around. The Founding Fathers did not want the state to dictate the people's beliefs. Using the establishment clause to claim that people can’t express religious views is an abuse of the clause. Got that, chief?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is where your understanding of "rights" goes off the rails Signy. The rights established by the constitution are protections from government interference, nothing else. The right to free speech is a guarantee that we won't pass any laws that allow the government to silence citizens merely because we don't like what's being said. But it doesn't demand that a newspaper or website provide all comers with a vehicle to express their views.

I understand what the Constitution says quite well. But when the Constitution was written I don't think the FF ever envisioned that corporations would have such far-reaching power. And that is where I think the Constitution fails. What I've been saying all along is that when power centers start to coalesce: government with corporations, corporations with media, media with religion, religion with government .... it turns into one giant cluster f*ck. And the only people who get screwed are those not in power, which is most of us.

So we SHOULD re-look at this issue of free speech, right to privacy etc. and make sure that it is not abridged by businesses either via their vast sums of money and favorable legal standing.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN; Yes, you have very right to practice your religion. Just don't use tax dollars to do it.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN; Yes, you have very right to practice your religion. Just don't use tax dollars to do it.

Suddenly when it comes to Christmas people are so worried about where their tax dollars go. You have every right to read fictional literature; just don’t use tax dollars to do it.

And by the way, the ACLU lost that case. After years in court, the Wilson School was granted by the judge the right that the Founding Fathers assured them of. The ACLU tried to bully kindergarteners out of Christmas, but thankfully the state sided with the Constitution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:45 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So we SHOULD re-look at this issue of free speech, right to privacy etc. and make sure that it is not abridged by businesses either via their vast sums of money and favorable legal standing.

So you're just conceding to business the same power as government? If you really can't tell the difference between government power and corporate power then there's something seriously wrong. THAT's what needs to be addressed. You seem to have accepted the corporate state as a given.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Any specifics on your claims ?

Google didn't come up with anything even remotely close to what you posted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So you're just conceding to business the same power as government? If you really can't tell the difference between government power and corporate power then there's something seriously wrong."

I don't know about SignyM, but it seems to me it doesn't take a genius to figure out that corporations have power VASTLY greater than individuals. And they don't need be a 'government' to have it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:50 AM

Quote:
That would be as bad as not having the right to celebrate those holidays yourself.

Oh, you mean, like that ain't true now ?

Firstly, there's the privacy issue, and secondly, while certain religions get "official" holidays, others get none, mind you.

Most folk are ok with that, given that a lot of traditional holidays are a mishmash of cultural and religious elements from many sources, thanksgiving, halloween, easter, xmas - celebrated in a fashion that I personally think salutes our mixed heritage if folks could just get over themselves enough to see it.

I do work the holidays though, for the one site that requires coverage during them, and I do so personally to give my folks a break and cause I get to keep the holiday pay - but also so that the folks celebrating can do so while feeling safe and sound in their own protection - site three is an apartment complex, and near enough to my own residence that my own territorial instinct kicks in and makes me quite protective of their community.

Xmas night in particular was prolly the toughest shift I ever worked so far - both of the complexes snowblowers had broken down, resulting in the walks being covered with about three inches of very slick refrozen slush being pelted the whole shift by hard wind driven freezing rain/sleet besides.

And there was me, out there with my prosthetic leg and it's retractable spikes as an anchor, step-drag-slide, step-drag-slide, soaked and freezing, muttering impreciations the whole time, but wearing a santa hat all the same.

One cool thing about being UU is that I can by choice accept and celebrate anyone's traditions with em - which strikes me as a far better policy than arguing about it, dunnit ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 6:48 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...it seems to me it doesn't take a genius to figure out that corporations have power VASTLY greater than individuals. And they don't need be a 'government' to have it.

But what would it take for you to recognize the distinct difference between government power an corporate power? Namely, one has a monopoly on force, the other, merely money.

Now, I grant you that something is seriously wrong with the underpinnings of corporate law in the US. The current structure allows them to exist in perpetuity, free from any meaningful liability and protects investors from any real risk. This imbalance is multiplied with the bailouts.

All that needs to be addressed, but even with their unfair advantage, they don't wield the force of law (except when we allow them to through foolish government policy). They don't maintain armies or police forces and you can't be arrested for defying them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you're just conceding to business the same power as government? If you really can't tell the difference between government power and corporate power then there's something seriously wrong. THAT's what needs to be addressed. You seem to have accepted the corporate state as a given.

HUH??? How can you possibly get that out of what I posted?

Maybe I need to take several steps back and explain my reasoning. One of government's functions is the codification of right and wrong- in other words law-making. Prohibitions against murder, theft, and fraud; contracts enforcement; business forms, duties, rights and limitations etc. The corporate business model is established by law, along with its duties (fiduciary), rights and limitations. All we have to do is go back to the laws which enshrine these entities and... change them. I'll give you an example: Free speech. My perosnal opinion is that free speech is protected speech, but once you pay to have our message disseminated it's advertising and no longer protected.

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41469
Limited ruling by RI judge. The city allowed citizens to "use" its property for religious displays. (1) Use of tax dollars is minimized (but not eliminated) since the displays are erected by citizens using private funds (2) City is required to come up with a written policy on what displays are allowed and under what circumstances. (3) It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would say about this.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:13 AM