Wordpress Saga Continued...
6:54 PM Wednesday, September 16, 2009Here is the latest word I have from them:
The person who made the comments is legally responsible for them.
As they have been brought to your attention and you have the power to
remove them you also share that responsibility.
If someone on another blog was saying this about you then you would
expect us to do something about it.
Freedom of speech does not come into this. The law does. We have to
obey the law and so does everyone else. The person being attacked has
every right to engage a solicitor and start proceedings.
If this is a random reader and they are making serious allegations
then why not delete them?
The comments must be deleted or edited as I said. They have to be removed.
-
Mark
Freedom of speech does not come into this. The law does. We have to
obey the law and so does everyone else.
___________________
I wonder what law he is talking about, since "everyone else" includes Blogspot, and they do not censor posts just because a reader objects to content.
Oh well, now you are here instead :)
Rain Likely September 16, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Ohhhh.... duh...I just read the 2nd post so I get it now. Ignore me! I'm just glad you are still here!
Laura September 16, 2009 at 8:40 PM
wait a minute - I thought Freedom of Speech WAS the law in the US - specifically, the codified 1st amendment to the US Constitution...?
WTF
anonanon September 16, 2009 at 8:49 PM
let me clear up the first amendment, before people continue to quote it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
since wordpress, google, any company is NOT the government, they can do what ever they want, and censor anything that is said and hosted on there server. This is why wal-mart can sensor music sold in the stores they own, but the government can not.
The first amendment is NOT a license to say anything, anywhere, The classic example is running into a theater and yelling “fire!”, that is not covered by the 1st amendment.
most likely word-press wanted to absolve themselves of any liability that might arise from slander/libel, see the “owner” of a blog is legally a “publisher” much like Larry Flint. That means the “publisher”: is 100 percent responsible for the content of the site, this includes comments by other people (I don't have my law books on me but there is case law to support this) so if someone is lining up to sue a blog owner for any reason, they will most likely also sue the company that hosts it, since a blog owner probably won't have money but the company will, and may be legally liable if they allow someone to use there product as a platform to commit a crime.
Anonymous September 16, 2009 at 9:48 PM
I am familiar with a few cases of blogs and libel. Even if you can hire a lawyer, it can take years to get action taken. And, it's not libel if it's true, especially if you are speculating that two designs look alike. It's probably D'oh boy complaining again. Shade, I am not happy with you, but at least you have the courage to publicly discuss things with people, unlike some smarmy cheaters who run and hide behind complaints to wordpress. cough*cough d'oh boy cough cough.
forum rubbernecker September 16, 2009 at 10:06 PM
@rubbernecker
your 100 percent right e law taking about the law taking years and all that, But a company like word-press is more likely to just delete the blog, than to spend a single day in court.
It's way cheaper for them, right or wrong.
Anonymous September 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I see some holes in Wordpress' argument. Mark cited the words "ripped" and "stolen" and in every case where these words were used, the accusations were IMMEDIATELY followed by links to show comparison. Did they go so far as to provide legal documentation or intellectual ownership, etc? No. Do they need to? Maybe Wordpress should clarify that in their friendly "We support Freedom of Speech" bit. But the commenters gave evidence. It'd be nice if he clarified why this evidence isn't enough to substantiate the heat in these claims.
@Shade, I'm confused where you find all the spare time to comment. So frequently. In so many places.
Sarah September 16, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Shade, p'raps you could utilize your time much more efficiently by maybe catching up on some overdue book keeping.
catch my drift?
marcelly September 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM
@marcally
I'll get my accountant right on that
Anonymous September 17, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Well you are safe as houses on Blogspot, they won't even take down the Wacko from Waco's libelous blog.
The wacko had a similar blog on wordpress and they removed it in 48 hours.
Lesson: If you want to defame someone, blogspot is your place!
(not that the post about the birdhouses was defamatory, sounds like it was true, unlike the Uzilla blog)
Anonymous September 17, 2009 at 4:50 AM
Thanks for posting that, Shade, about freedom of speech. I am so sick of everyone in the blogs and forums siting they have it but they don't really know what it actually means! It comes down to I can say something "against" my government without fear of them coming to my home in the middle of the night and dragging me out of my home and getting thrown in jail. Though, I don't know how safe you are from that anymore since 9/11.
MadebyM**** September 17, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I still don't know what post they are referring to? Was it the one with the designer logo back ground? I don't get it.
-Christine
Anonymous September 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM
here is one for you, lots of sales but somewhat fishy
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5662368
Anonymous September 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous- charm on a chain, glue something to an earpost/cufflink is allowed by Etsy.
Imwithya September 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM
You could screen......
screened September 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Jesus Christ Shade, you can even interpret a fricking Paypal transaction, let alone the U.S. Constitution.
PussDaddy
PussDaddy September 17, 2009 at 9:31 PM
well puss-daddy, where my interpretation of either incorrect?
I do believe I nailed the first amendment.
and I do believe there turned out to be a pay-pal refund also, so yeah.
Anonymous September 18, 2009 at 12:15 AM
"and I do believe there turned out to be a pay-pal refund also, so yeah"
Keywords: "turned out"
Save your tuition, Shade. Stop listening to your mommy.
You're too bloody stupid to be an attorney.
Bedazzled Condom September 18, 2009 at 1:20 AM
@Shade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Ctrl C, Ctrl P
Sorry Shade, but you deserve the heat you get in blogs and forums. I don't get why you don't "stay down" and rework your business (if that's what you intend by creating a website modeled after your Etsy shop). You have a lot of trust to earn back.
Sarah September 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM
The first amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech. It doesn't guarantee anyone the right not to be deleted or banned by a blog hosting company for violation of their terms of service. Free speech principles are different than free speech rights.
But Wordpress isn't very smart on the law either, if they think "ripped off" is a legal term.
Christen September 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM