FYI NEWS ARTICLE: Recently in the news concerning 1st ammendment rights of USA Citizens (Community)

FYI NEWS ARTICLE: Recently in the news concerning 1st ammendment rights of USA Citizens // Community

1  |  

chucks party

May 14, 2001, 9:51pm
A Web site that provides sensitive information about police officers will
stay on the Internet, but without the extensive lists of Social Security
numbers, a King County Superior Court judge ruled yesterday.
The city of Kirkland had sued to remove Social Security numbers, home phone
numbers and addresses from the site, saying the information could enable
people to harass officers and possibly lead to identity theft.
The site connected those lists with names, ranks, salaries and birth dates
of officers in several police jurisdictions. Bill Sheehan and Aaron
Rosenstein, both Bothell network engineers, said they created the Web site
to hold police accountable.
Judge Robert Alsdorf grappled with the issues of emerging Internet
technologies and how they relate to personal privacy and free-speech rights.
"It is hard to conceive of a broader invasion of privacy than freely
disseminating the information to the entire world and rendering it
instantaneously accessible to all," Alsdorf wrote.
"That being said, the First Amendment is a powerful right, and it does
protect all speech, no matter how unpopular."
Alsdorf said the publication of home addresses and phone numbers falls under
the umbrella of political speech.
But Alsdorf said the dissemination of Social Security numbers is different
because they provide no public purpose. They are private identifiers, he
said.
Sheehan and Rosenstein said they would remove the Social Security numbers
immediately.
"I think it was a fair decision," Sheehan said.
"We have made our point. We will continue to update the database with what
we can."
Sheehan said home phone numbers and addresses of 15 other local
jurisdictions, including the Seattle Police Department, will go up on the
Web site in the next few months.
City attorneys remained concerned about what remains on the Web site. They
had argued that protecting the personal safety of police officers and their
families superseded any free-speech rights.
But Alsdorf noted there was an "absence of a credible specific threat of
harm" on the site.
"I wish we had been able to convince the judge that the other information
should be taken down," said Bill Evans, Kirkland assistant city attorney.
"But we're happy we got what we did. We're glad that the most private
information is being removed."


So I Just wanted to post this to show people that nothing on that SAW
website was illegal as some people here in the NGs tried to disseminate. You
can post people's real life names and phone numbers and even addresses and
there is nothing illegal about it. These police officers found this out
quick, if they hadn't made a big stink about it, like people even here enjoy
doing, it wouldn't have received any attention at all and most people
probably wouldn't have even known it was there, but they had to of course
now everyone knows it's there, DUH LOLOL :)

sw chris

May 14, 2001, 10:45pm

chucks party

May 14, 2001, 11:14pm
Chris, people can ignore me all they want but you can't ignore the law,
there is no protection for ignorance under the law, being ignorant of it
does not make it correct or illegal.


[View Quote]

wing

May 14, 2001, 11:43pm
Okay. What the fuck are you trying to prove? It's not legally long, but morally it is. And about the whole "LOLOL" at the end of
every message, you're starting to sound like an 11 year old girl.
[View Quote]

chucks party

May 15, 2001, 12:45am
I was going to reply with something intelligent, but it would only be
wasted, LOL


[View Quote]

agent1

May 15, 2001, 10:44am
Posting a list of addresses and phone numbers for police officers is moronic. Anyway, it's not like the site was saying anything that couldn't be proven to be a fact, as opposed to your posts.

-Agent1

[View Quote]

chucks party

May 15, 2001, 10:58am
Well when you get your own country like Fidel or Sadam or Elizabeth then you
can dictate the laws, but I live in America, land of the free, home of the
brave and fighters for freedom of speech RULE!


[View Quote]

kah

May 15, 2001, 1:06pm
let's just forget about this whole thing, nobody won :-))

KAH
[View Quote]

agent1 agent1

May 15, 2001, 2:55pm
I never said anything against free speech. I support it fully. However, slanderous speech is quite another thing.

-Agent1

[View Quote]

nornny

May 15, 2001, 10:27pm
I thought I'd be reading something intelligent when I saw this post, but it
would only be wasted. ;)

Nornny

[View Quote]

nornny

May 15, 2001, 10:32pm
With freedom comes responsibility, silly. You're responsible for ALL of your
actions here, and you're responsible for ALL the stuff that comes back to
you, as we're expressing it just as much as you do. How one-sided are you
anyways? You give men a bad name, really. Btw, how dare you waste and take
for granted your freedom like this by starting flame wars and long threads.
You give Americans bad names too... And you ARE bound under strict rules,
here in AW. As if you haven't noticed, we're NOT in Kansas. You follow the
same beaucratic headaches as we do, as you're a customer in a corporation,
not a human being. (well, kinda a human being, but not in the big picture).
You follow the rules, or else you'll just be disregarded or thrown out as
trash, as you have. ;)

Nornny

[View Quote]

wing

May 15, 2001, 10:54pm
Well said Nornny. Now if only we could get someone to empty the trash and GET HIM OUT OF THESE NEWSGROUPS.
[View Quote]

chucks party

May 16, 2001, 12:55am
Nornny Nornny Nornny, There are even laws that AW is bound by law in this
country to uphold. Just making a list of rules does not make it legal. As
you already know as well. According to the Email I was sent by ENZO himself,
I had done nothing wrong to deserve being banned, sure they reserve the
right to bend and twist their own rules I guess to suit their own needs but
it sure does not give any citizen a clear understanding of what the rules
are when you get sent an Email like this....

Hi guys,

Tom has brought this matter to my attention this afternoon.

After reviewing the issues you all have with each other, your work and who
can enter your worlds, I can see that this is very complex. It is also well
outside our responsibility or entitlement to step in and solve. The
disagreements you have with each other are impossible for us to mitigate. I
hope that you will be able to find a way to either work things out
individually or to ignore each other. If this comes to a point where a legal
decision is granted then we will certainly support such decision. In the
meantime there is really nothing we can do.

Please keep in mind that everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether we
think they are right or wrong. Opinions made in newsgroups, public
discussion or private discussion are not a form of harassment even if the
opinion is about you personally. All users are entitled to their opinions
and they have the right to voice them.

As you are aware you already have the ability to mute speech and whispers
from individuals by right clicking their avatar. If you would like we can
make a bot available to run in your worlds which can eject certain cit
numbers. Please let me know if this option is of interest.

I am sorry we cannot offer any solution aside from this. It is our hope that
you can resolve your differences amicably.

Regards,

Rick Noll

CEO
Activeworlds.com, Inc.
(978) 499 0222



Now what does this say to you? We were unable to resolve anything until we
got this....

Telegram from Just In, sent Wed May 2, 2001 9:55 PM:
Obviously we need to talk. The pressure brought to bare upon myself and
Summer by yourself and JFK leaves at least myself with next to no further
options other than to concede to whatever it is you want, or to leave Active
Worlds all together....

and this....

FriendPA - I'm sure you will read this... Here is the olive branch.... No
more threats from me, legal or otherwise. Keep the objects and buildings
etc. that I created - you can regard this posting as a permanent licence to
use them. I will arrange a link to NewYork and credit and thankyou to you
close to Broadway GZ..

Now because I took action I got some results. If AW would have taken some
action they could have had this thing resolved too but they chose to stay
out of it. Why they chose to do that, I don't know why. Why they chose to
ban me for putting signs to a website on BW, I don't know why they banned me
according to what the Email says, how am I suppose to know what the rules
are according to that? hmmm

agent1 agent1

May 16, 2001, 11:06am
It does if you agree to follow them.

-Agent1

[View Quote]

1  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn