Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer
NFT Services wrote:
> Me thinks william is correct here, the only way there could be any involvement by the government (or anyone else)
> would be if the redirection is taking place without the consent of the first site. (and while occassionally this
> has been heard of.....) Otherwise I think it's a rather interesting form of redirection (promotion).
> george kougias
> > That is not a hijacking. It would be a hijacking only if it was done
> > without the consent of the owner of the carpetbaggingbitch.com domain
> > name.
I was reacting to the First Amendment issue [the Supreme Court has backed off its 1948? decision in Shelly v. Kramer
which prevented courts from assisting private parties' limit other people's rights (that case forbad courts from
enforcing racially restrictive deeds)] and to the inference that the "searcher" was allegedly "hijacked" from the
site she was seeking to one she was not and then to one with an opposing view (suggesting that one or more domain
names were somehow "misappropriated" in the process). The courts would probably reach a different result if that was
not the case.
<Personally, I favor extending the First Amendment protection of speech to the non-governmental context and would
extend Shelly to cases in which private parties seek court assistance in limiting speech. However, one must
recognize the Supreme Court's reluctance to do so.>
Merely "misrepresenting" what the searcher will find at a site presents subtle questions I did not address.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html