You just made the case for removing any protections on freedom of speech. There is always a legitimate way to defend people like Zane.
Did you read the rest of the post? I am defending his right to speak. I'm not defending the content of his speech.
Sure I find Zane's comment's misogynist, but freedom of speech also means defending that right even by people I think may not deserve them. So yea, there is a legitimate defense of his trashy comments.
Congrats. You basically said the same thing I said in my post, but claim you're disagreeing with me.
Instead, this is explicitly correct use. The entire point of a trademark is to dispositive lay identify the mark owner, so there can be no ambiguities in what entity you're referring to. The bot company's use of the Twitch mark does just that - it explicitly tells users that their services work on Twitch, which is the entire point of trademarks.
That's the point of *nominative fair use*. The point of trademarks is to avoid consumer confusion and thinking that one product is something that it's not.
First, Tim Cushing gets this decision wrong and now Mike Masnick has fallen into that same hole?
What did we get wrong?
both of them would have realized that the crap they wrote doesn't come anywhere to helping copyright trolls.
I read the actual decision. And I didn't say anything at all about copyright trolls. So not sure what you're getting at other than a desire to attack me with ad homs.
I forgot, Mike Masnick would rather we live in a world where someone's intellectual property can be stolen without any compensation paid out to the person who created it in the first place.
What you believe as a strawman for me is kind of pointless, don't you think?
Maybe I should print up a bunch of T-Shirts and Sweaters with the "Techdirt" logo and make a lot of money selling them on my website. I bet they would have a real problem with that particular idea.
Nope. Go for it.
Of course, that's a trademark issue, rather than copyright. And we've often talked about the key differences there, including the fact that trademark is about consumer protection, so they don't buy one product thinking it's something else. But, honestly, go ahead and try to sell some Techdirt gear. You wouldn't be the first. I doubt anyone would actually buy it, because the people who do buy it tend to want to support *us* which is why they buy from *us*. But go ahead. We would not have a problem with you trying. In fact, if your site were big enough, it might even help get us some attention.
.... and looks like I'm not the only one concerned about this. Here's the group United for Patent Reform's statement:
“The court has made it much easier for plaintiffs, including patent trolls, to receive far larger damage awards,” said United for Patent Reform co-chair Beth Provenzano, vice president for federal government relations at the National Retail Federation. “This will incentivize patent trolls to file more lawsuits and only worsen the already critical problem of patent litigation forum shopping. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has encouraged plaintiffs to seek out the forums that are most likely to award enhanced damages. We already live in a world where nearly half of all patent cases are filed in the Eastern District of Texas. This situation will only get worse.
Court rulings like this make it much more urgent for Congress to pass patent litigation reform legislation this year.”
Just because the Supreme Court says that it won't help patent trolls doesn't mean it won't. Patent trolls take advantage of structural imbalances and high costs in the patent litigation system
to obtain unjustifiable settlements. By making enhanced damages easier to obtain, the Supreme
Court has provided additional financial incentives for patent trolls, which will inexorably lead to
By the way, it's always interesting to see claims (like Blumberg's) that the costs outweigh the benefits, yet nobody ever seems to quantify the benefits. Strange that you don't point out this obvious flaw.
There are tons of studies highlighting the massive costs to the patent system. As well as the very tiny benefits. That you apparently can't find them perhaps says more about what you're paid to say rather than reality.
I would be trying to find ways to silence the discussion completely.
You're encouraging silencing a publication because you dislike them. That's very much a politically correct position.
I find it bizarre that you can't see this. You are literally cheering on the closure of a website because you think they're bad. And your examples of why that's okay is because those you believe are "politically correct" are doing it to people you like.
Have you not seen the problems with what PC Culture has done to colleges and universities across the country? How people are literally saying "I'm not going to perform at Universities because they shut us down thanks to PC."?
Yes. I've seen that. And yet you're doing the same things. Saying that a website has no right to free speech because you don't like their speech.
How was Hogan supposed to get any sort of arbitration when it came to his grievances with Gawker and Denton?
That question assumes that Hogan had a legitimate beef. Part of the argument people are making is that he did not.
What about Mitt Romney? A secret recording of his that was revealed (47%!) destroyed his career. Did he have a right to go after whoever published that video?
What about Robert McNamara? The Pentagon Papers were published by the NY Times and were undoubtedly damaging to his career.
In both cases, they could not do anything because of the right to publish. The fact that someone is embarrassed or offended or sad because of a press report isn't a reason to take down the publication. In fact, that argument is an EXTREMELY "Politically Correct" argument, saying that certain sites that publish stuff you don't like don't deserve to exist.
I'm honestly wondering if you're just doing parody here, because what you're advocating for is your own form of political correctness, and to silence those who are too politically correct for your taste.
Like I said in the previous article, Mike, and you and the rest of everyone here is ignoring this.
The government doesn't need to censor free speech.
Companies do it for them via Political Correctness.
I'm not ignoring that. It's (1) wrong (2) stupid and (3) besides the point.
If a company is saying stuff you don't like, go to a different company. Let the power of the market decide. A company will never have more power than the government because the government had the military and the police and the ability to lock you up.
But either way take your logic to its clear end: anyone who speaks in a way that YOU deem politically incorrect deserves to be silenced. THAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. You are arguing FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in trying to silence those you feel that do not toe the line.
Exactly! I don't even know why we employ police. An eye for an eye.
You are misrepresenting what I am saying. I did not say there's no need for police. I said -- and the Constitution supports -- that there is no allowance for *government interference in speech.* That has nothing to do with the things police do.
What do you recommend to do if physically assaulted? Is it ok to use gov. for these consequences?
Of course. That's not speech.
Do physical wounds heal faster/easier than emotional wounds?
I'm not sure what your point is, but I do know what the Constitution says.
Do people commit suicide because they were physically beat up the way they commit suicide when they are emotionally beat up?
I think people commit suicide for a variety of reasons that they only know. I see little point is theorizing based on that. But as I've said before (see comments on the Lori Drew case), I would have SERIOUS problems (as would the Constitution) in any law that allowed the courts to go after someone for "bullying" because someone committed suicide. Think about that for a second. You'd be creating a legal consequence for person A because of an action taken by person B. You'd actually be ENCOURAGING suicides by letting people know that a great way to get back at some asshole is to kill yourself.
Anyway, no one denies that speech has consequences and that people can be emotionally scarred. But we don't allow the courts to get involved in those situations -- and for good reason. Personally, I find your comment so ridiculous that it makes me sick. Would you be okay if I could sue you for the nausea you produced in me for being so stupid?
We run into serious problems when we create laws based on feelz.
Is Hogan's right to privacy and freedom of speech, both the sex video and what he said on the tape, and by proxy everyone's right to privacy and freedom of speech, less important than the media reporting on it or dragging it through the mud?
Both the 1st and 4th Amendments are incredibly important -- but they also both apply solely to gov't actions.
Gawker posting stuff about Hogan has no bearing on the 4th Amendment at all. The press has an unalienable right to publish whatever they want. That doesn't mean that they're not free from consequences -- but those consequences cannot be from the government, but rather from private actors. Thus, everyone is free to find Gawker despicable for its actions -- and maybe advertisers and traffic can go away from the site for those reasons.
But the 4th Amendment is NOT a "everyone gets to hide stuff they want hidden."
I find it surprising, above, that you think there's some harm in publishing Hogan's racist comments, because he lost his job over it. Do you think the press shouldn't be allowed to post someone's comments? What about the press publishing the secretly recorded comments from Mitt Romney about "the 47%"?
Because, what's to stop the next Gawker from getting private recordings in a person's private home, putting that information out there and ruining a person's life?
As I said above, I still think that there's a legitimate tort in whoever filmed the stuff violating the person's privacy. But NOT to the publication that publishes a story with it. So your hypothetical doesn't apply here.