I don't have a lot to add to this story other than a hearty, Damn Fine Job!
Since this is Spocko's gig, I'm gonna pretty much use his words to explain what's gone down. Before the flip, to give you something to chew on as you click to the full story, I can tell you this much: you're gonna love what you read. Spocko has actually cost Disney money - he chased away advertisers and forced them to pay a law firm to intimidate his ISP. The story isn't all good though - Spocko's broke and can't afford to wage the legal battle, so he's shut down. That said, maybe we can use this space to buck up his spirits a little bit and see if there are any lawyers that want to file a Rule 11 motion against Disney's unscrupulous lawyers…
It's a damn fine read. And the guy is in trouble. He needs some help standing up to the corporate fat hats. Someone give him a hand.
What Would Matt Do: Well, if I could do it all in about 10 seconds, I'd go to law school, ace the exam, get hired by a good, creepy organization, realize they are scary and kill people, turn them in to the FBI while getting away myself. Then I'd help Spocko.
9 Comments
Let me get this right. An anonymous blogger stole protected material in violation of federal law. He was asked to stop distributing it into public domain and he refused, so his internet service closed his site down. You are upset his site was closed down because an anonymous person was violating federal laws, right?
He knew it was wrong, had an opportunity to remove the material and continue blogging, but didn’t do it…..instead, making a conscious choice to allow the ISP to close down his blog.
And, he did all this, fully knowing he had no money to fight the issue?
What’s wrong with this story? Its not about free speech, because nobody said he couldn’t blog. They said he couldn’t steal protected material. Clearly, that is what he wanted to do and his entire purpose, not express an opinion.
Lets look at it this way. You are a photographer and you sell your pictures. Someone stole your pictures form your marketing website and made a book about them, offering them to the public while trashing you and the content the pictures, encouraging others not to buy your pictures because of your political views. You ask them to stop but they refuse, feeling a sense of entitlement to your property. The website the person has put your pictures on acts and closes it down to comply with law and protect you. Who is wrong? You the photographer for having your own thoughts and exercising freedom of speech or the person who doesn’t like what you have to relate to others, so he steals your photographs and tells others not to buy them?
The queestion is, are you stating there should be no more personal property and any individual is entitled to steal personal property especially if their views are contrary to that of your own?
How does that play into free speech? Are you stating that others are not entitled to free speech unless that free speech is consistent with the views in which you believe?
The only free speech issue here is the attempts to stop the views of others by the anonymous blogger, who clearly doesn’t believe in free speech, if it differs from his own perception of what is being said and how it relates to his own belief standards. In fact, he’s basically stating if he can’t violate federal law, then he doesn’t want to do anything by not adhering to the request not to use protected material.
Is what the anonymous blogger did, an act of facism? It clearly was an act that is in violation of the laws of our country. And, in defending the theft and use of private property, as well as the thwarting of free speech, are you advocating his call for facism?
Under a ruse of “monitoring the media,” are you and him really trying to control the media and inhibit the flow of free speech and reciprocal discussion in our country? And doing so, through the use of acts which are ilegal?
These are some heavy questions and some real room for thought.
Spocko’s act was “clearly an act that is in violation of the laws of our country”? Nonsense. He was documenting his charge that KSFO talk show hosts are rudely and crudely espousing violent acts. He got the goods on them. Such documentation is arguably “fair use”. There’s room to argue the boundaries of fair use and when someone has gone too far in quoting or reproducing a second party’s copyrighted material, but fair use is a long established practice. It is not “clearly” a federal crime.
Furthermore, the KSFO talk show hosts can say anything they want — and their advertisers can decide whether they wish to be associated with that kind of speech. It is not a violation of anyone’s free speech rights if those advertisers decide they prefer to stay clear of talkers who find it amusing to talk about wiring up people’s testicles to car batteries or painting bull’s-eyes on national leaders. Good for Spocko.
Now, now Zeno….your argument is totally irrational. Before you write, you really need to get those little fingers tapping and research copyright laws as well as other laws which were violated by his actions.
It is quite clear his ISP gave him 7 days to remove the private property he stole from his site. Clearly, he wasn’t interested in merely expressing his views or he would have simply done as they asked. Clearly he wasn’t interested in simply blogging, but was more interested in the unlawful acquisition of copywritten material.
He had a choice and gave up his blogsite, because he wanted to maintain material he illegally obtained and used.
Reality Check, Zeno. We live in America, not Nazi Germany. Here, if we don’t like the content of television, radio, movies, etc., we can simply turn them off….(aren’t parental controls great?) Or we can debate and state what we don’t like… that is what ethical people do.
But the anonymous blogger was trying to squelch the free speech and put the folks out of business…which is not a nice or right thing to do, especially after stealing their product.
Think about it….what would NTodd do if someone stole the software he creates and put it out on the internet for public domain and free use? What would he do if someone wrote that people shouldn’t buy his services because they didn’t agree with his political views? What would he do if they called his boss and complained or the clients to whom he sells his software and complained? Nobody has the right to try to stop free enterprise because of the opinions one has…..we have a right to free speech and that needs to be respected as well as the right to personal property and that needs to be respected.
No respectable blogger would ever agree that free speech should only be accorded to one view. The framers of our Constitution framed free speech to protect us from the likes of the anonymous blogger.
Zeno, this isn’t a facist nation….no matter how much some people wish it were. We are a nation of people and of laws…which relies upon respect and consideration for the rights of others.
For anyone else who might be following this, BlogicalThought has been trolling about in the wake of this story, lone defender of the jack-boot tactics of ABC/Disney on behalf of its right-wing KSFO affiliate. Visit Online Blogintegrity for a lengthening list of BlogicalThought’s trollfest.
I listened to those clips. When I was a kid my mother would threaten to wash my mouth out with soap if I talked like that. I wonder what kind of upbringing those hate radio hosts had. What makes some people so ugly and malevolent?
I laud Spocko for doing this, and hope it turns into a successful grassroots movement to bring some decency to the airwaves.
I just noticed on Zeno’s site Spocko is back. That’s great news. I claim any and all credit! :P
http://www.spockosbrain.com/
Matt , Zeno et al,
Si, Spocko ees back up. I know he would be grateful that joo noticed.
After repeated requests, he placed a paypal link over there, too.(I guess I just figure that 5$ or !0$ ees a easy way for pipples to show their support.)
As far as taking credit, well eet was a group effort of many many pipples.
But joo can pat jourself on the back for being ahead of both the San Francisco Chronicle and San Fran local TV station CBS-5
¡Buen trabajo!
Oh and spread eet around, eh?
so.
Hah! The noble blogical has been here too?
He’s gonna be one busy PR hack fairly soon. My third post on this hadn’t been up ten minutes when he came stumbling by.
Is he this foolish? To think that great long spam comments have credibility?
Or perhaps it’s just that KFSO is.
Metro
Yeah, I’d say KFSO is… Or someone that owns them. Too much of a coincidence from all I’ve heard.