Comments on: Slate, Please Don’t Sue Me for Linking to Your Article about Getting Sued for Linking! Or to the One on Child Pornography!

By: Dawn

Dawn — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:57:43 +0000

But that does call to mind a rather creative solution to the dilemma of companies wanting to control how they’re linked: If they impose such restrictions, then search engines have the right to exclude them. So let them choose between wanting minute control of how they’re linked with the ability to be found when they want to be.

Not like it would happen, but I can dream!

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:58:52 +0000

This happens when these cases are decided by lawyers who’ve never even heard the word “Google” and have no idea how the internet works. I’ve no other explanation how these things can happen.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:30:34 +0000

It was (but so much has changed so I don’t know if it still is) in the LJ ToS that one could only link to another person’s LJ with their permission. I remember a lot of muttering about that when critique of LJ in general had reached a dull roar and I remember thinking then (as well as now) that that really possessed the power to stifle conversation. I mean, it’s often weeks before I get to comments on my LJ and, while I try to reply faster to those that require it, if I happen to actually be away and not simply swamped, it sucks to be pushed out of the loop by the rather misguided idea that someone needs my permission to point out something that I’ve done in public.

It seems, to me, one of those rules aimed at protecting people from their own stupidity. Rather like standing naked in the town square with a sign around my neck, “Don’t point out that I’m standing naked in the town square.” Imho, with the serious and long-lasting consequences that stupidity online can generate, people need not be sheltered from those consequences and should get used to thinking carefully about everything that they put up online.

By: Niki

Niki — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:18:04 +0000

I remember when I was taking yet another one of those “intro to how to do things you should really already know at your age” segments of some writing class that taught how to give credit where credit is due. One of the notes was, “As of right now, it is not necessary to get permission to link to a web site. But if you are unsure, it doesn’t hurt to ask.”

My first thought was, “Good gravy. If I had a web site people wanted to link to, I’d be ticked off if I kept getting e-mails asking me for linking permission, and why the hell would I want to waste space giving a disclaimer saying, “Link away!”?

Sheesh. As much as I tend to see red when some wank community links to someone’s personal (public) LJ to point and laugh, really now…

By: Dawn

Dawn — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:09:56 +0000

Yes! And (I know I’m telling you what you already know) that is so not how pedophilia–or any paraphilia–works. They don’t just arise from looking at cartoons. If only it was that simple!

My family was plagued by a pedophile. My sister and I were unharmed, but others of my cousins were not so lucky. So to see a complex problem so simplified and the actual suffering of real people equated with cartoon fantasy … yes, I personally find that deeply insulting, on behalf of people whom I love that matter more than cartoons.

I suspect a lot of it has to do, too, with public pressure to do something, anything. I’m a statistician for a law-enforcement agency, so I know firsthand the pressure put upon public safety officials to show progress, especially where it matters. (And, I’d dare say universally among Western nations, sex offenders are definitely one of the areas “where it matters.”) The question often seems to be, “What will we tell the media?” rather than an honest assessment of “Is what we’re doing really making any difference?”

(And, this is veering OT, but I totally agree with you on the marijuana issue too! Adding to that the fact that if we spent less time chasing dumb kids who got caught with weed in their pocket (or suffering people using it medicinally), then we’d have so many more resources to go after real criminals. Like, um, pedophiles?)

By: SurgicalSteel

SurgicalSteel — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:42:52 +0000

This seems almost like the ‘gateway drug’ theory for keeping marijuana illegal, which is that the DEA and law enforcement folks aren’t really worried that much about people using weed, but they’re worried that gosh darn it, those wacky kids might go on to use heroin or crystal meth or something even worse! Let’s ignore the fact that marijuana has legitimate medical uses – we’ll make a chemical derivative of it that doesn’t work as well and force physicians and patients to jump through a ton of hoops to get it – because it somehow feels better to certain lawmakers to do that than it does to just let folks smoke a joint.

The implication that folks looking at artwork involving the *Simpsons* are going to graduate to child molestation is just as ludicrous – and as you said, it really insults the victims, some of whom still have flashbacks and can’t get past that trauma enough to have necessary medical procedures done without *general anaesthesia* forty years later.

*shakes head* Morons.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:21:54 +0000

I’ve seen those notices (on your LJ! ) about links. I had no idea that there was the weight of actual law behind them. I’ve always included the first half (about not being responsible for linked content) on the SWG ToS simply because I know how people are: They click on a link to someone’s LJ in a profile and see content they deem “pornographic” and decide to make things rough for us for “allowing” such links. Writing a ToS, I’ve often thought, involves putting oneself into the heads of the stupidest and most ignorant people … but even I would not have thought to warn against claims of ownership to linked content!

In the end, I’d be much more comfortable with such a disclaimer than companies possessing the right to determine how links to their sites are formatted … :^S

The second thing is un-frickin-believable. If I’m understanding correctly: They want people to be able to subscribe to comments by sending an email and not checking a box? Erm … what exactly is the point of that? Making life easier for people whose computers can’t handle an HTML ticky-box? (Is that anyone these days??) Or am I missing something here?

Well, The Heretic Loremaster being what it is–a half-assed weble run by an overworked student/public servant–I don’t even have anything so nice as an option to get emailed comment updates at all.

By: Juno

Juno — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:11:59 +0000

Over here we’ve jumped through the legal hoops of the legal responsibility for the content of pages linked to and the legal meaning of linking years ago.

The result was that every website has to add a disclaimer that they claim no repsonsibility whatsover for the content of linked website and that links are no claim of ownership etc etc

Currently we’re fighting a new idiocy: you know the nice plugin that allows you to subscribe to comments via email with checking a box? Illegal in Germany. You MUST have a double opt in routine (activation via separate mail). And there are lawyers actually serving notices (costs you a few hundred Euro) to BLOGGERS for not having a double opt in procedure…

Eeet eees bizarre.