Tuberodent's site pulled



  • For those that care (probably not too many of you.)



    /. story.

    [The judge's] order was made in response to a libel lawsuit filed by IT services and consulting firm Apex Technology Group Inc., based in Edison, N.J. against the three Web sites opposing the H-1B visa program.


  • So the smelly lunches will prevail, huh?



  • Seems like a pretty gross overstepping of government power to me.



  • As much as that guy was a troll, I don't think this is right. Free speech and all, as said in the link in the first post.



  • [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]As much as that guy was a troll, I don't think this is right. Free speech and all, as said in the link in the first post.[/quote]You obviously don't understand what libel is.  Free speech is not absolute.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]As much as that guy was a troll, I don't think this is right. Free speech and all, as said in the link in the first post.

    You obviously don't understand what libel is.  Free speech is not absolute.

    [/quote] The article mentions libel in passing, but then focuses on some supposedly leaked documents.  I'm really not clear on where the libel fit into it all.  Did anyone else figure it out?



  • @bstorer said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]As much as that guy was a troll, I don't think this is right. Free speech and all, as said in the link in the first post.

    You obviously don't understand what libel is.  Free speech is not absolute.

    The article mentions libel in passing, but then focuses on some supposedly leaked documents.  I'm really not clear on where the libel fit into it all.  Did anyone else figure it out?
    [/quote]
    The libel was in reference to the company being hurt financially by the site saying bad things about it. However, I don't think that would hold up in court. The court ordered the site to shut down because it was damaging the company (Apex). I'm not even sure if libel is possible to be committed against an entire company. However, if it is possible, then it would most assuredly follow the same rules as libel against a politician.


    The means that the libel would have to be knowingly malicious. Meaning the person committed the libel acted maliciously and knew what they were saying was false. This is basically impossible to prove, since all the defendant has to say is that he truly believed what he said. In this case, I think it is a matter of opinion and thus cannot be libelous. If the act was to post a contract and then comment about the contract, then a charge of libel is ludicrous.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]As much as that guy was a troll, I don't think this is right. Free speech and all, as said in the link in the first post.

    You obviously don't understand what libel is.  Free speech is not absolute.

    [/quote]
    please read: linky



  • @tster said:

    please read: linky
    This is what I see:

    Requirements to be libel (or slander):

    1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
    2. a false statement of fact;
    3. that is understood as
      • a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
      • b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
    4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

    Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.

    Is that what I was supposed to see?

    It is easy to see how tunnelrat (or one of his followers) could have (and I think would have) performed all of these, but we really can't tell because we don't have the posts in question.  The most recent post in the wayback machine is from May 2008. Also, the supposed employment agreement has been taken down, and TR or the poster may have just made it up. 

    I know you love TR, and he may actually not be guilty, as the language implies that it was in a comment on an article, but TR may have devoted a post to it himself. 

    As an aside, I particularly like this.  TR defered comments to a chick who said this:

    I'm astonished that an American judge would force American web sites to
    rat on American workers who wouldn't snitch on an Indian H-1B.
    I think that pretty much says it all.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    please read: linky
    This is what I see:

    Requirements to be libel (or slander):

    1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
    2. a false statement of fact;
    3. that is understood as
      • a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
      • b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
    4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

    Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.

    Is that what I was supposed to see?

     

    @http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation said:


    Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact
    that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault,"
    meaning as a result of negligence or malice

    I have bolded the parts which exclude what most of the content tunnel rat posted.  That said, I never saw the actual material that the company is complaining about (specifically the contract agreement). 

    However, the only way that that would be libel is if he actually forged the contract to make it look worse, in which case, the copywrite has nothing to do with it.  Now if you added parts to the contract which make it look bad then told people not to work for the company because of those parts, that could be libel.  However, if would be stupid because a person who is offered imployement there could simply look at the contract the company gives them to see if those clauses are actually in the contract.

     Anyways let me give you a couple examples are things that are not libel:

    1.  I hate Indians

     This is no libel because it is opinion

    2. Indians are stupid

    Again opinion, stupid is a relative term. Also, this isn't against an identifiable person

    3. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon is stupid.

    Still opinion

    4. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon eats smelly food and writes shitty code.  He is a detriment to the office. (written to a hiring manager looking to hire Apu)

    repeat after me:  opinion

     

    Now here is an example of what actual libel would look like:

    1. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon has an IQ of 85 (written to a hiring manager looking to hire Apu)

     False statement of fact which is intended to cause harm to Apu

     2. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon wrote the following code: return isTrue ? true : false;  (written to a hiring manager looking to hire Apu)

    The same.

    However, if the person writing these things actually believed them to be true (for instance, he saw that line of code in a function which he thought Apu wrote, even though he didn't actually write it) then it would not be libel.  

     

     



  • @tster said:

    I never saw the actual material that the company is complaining about (specifically the contract agreement).
    Precisely.  Maybe TR pointed out some things about it that aren't illegal and said they're illegal and not to work for the company.  Maybe he made up the whole thing.

    A judge that saw all the material made a judgement (remember, that's his job) to remove that stuff from the internet.  I don't know all the details, but maybe I would make the same decision, or maybe I would say "stop whining."  However, I don't know any more than you do, and I'm willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt until (or unless) all the material is revealed.  You're just quick to say "Apex stop whining" when you don't have all the facts.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    A judge that saw all the material made a judgement (remember, that's his job) to remove that stuff from the internet. 
    Court documents[pdf] for the temporary restraint on endh1b, ironically showing some of the alleged libels. (Page 9 for starters.) I'm guessing it's the same, or very similar, stuff for itgrunt.



  • @PJH said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    A judge that saw all the material made a judgement (remember, that's his job) to remove that stuff from the internet. 
    Court documents[pdf] for the temporary restraint on endh1b, ironically showing some of the alleged libels. (Page 9 for starters.) I'm guessing it's the same, or very similar, stuff for itgrunt.
    Having seen this, it makes sense.  The court ruled in Apex's favor in regards to temporary restraint because the defendants are still John Does, and thus weren't able to argue against the motion.  This isn't uncommon.  If/when they enter the lawsuit, they can try to get that injunction lifted.



  • @bstorer said:

    @PJH said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    A judge that saw all the material made a judgement (remember, that's his job) to remove that stuff from the internet. 
    Court documents[pdf] for the temporary restraint on endh1b, ironically showing some of the alleged libels. (Page 9 for starters.) I'm guessing it's the same, or very similar, stuff for itgrunt.
    Having seen this, it makes sense.  The court ruled in Apex's favor in regards to temporary restraint because the defendants are still John Does, and thus weren't able to argue against the motion.  This isn't uncommon.  If/when they enter the lawsuit, they can try to get that injunction lifted.

     

    The amazing part here is that the court didn't order the defendant to remove the material from their site but instead went directly to the DNS and hosting providers and removed the entire site.  This would be like if there was a libelous page on a blog and the court ordered blogger.com to be completely shutdown.



  • IMO, this firm is clearly doing something wrong. Otherwise, instead of trying to silence those anti H1B sites, they would be trying to show somewhere else how they do things the right way.



  • @tster said:

    The amazing part here is that the court didn't order the defendant to remove the material from their site
    As if they would have.  You can see their record of non cooperation in the court documents.  For DMCA accusations, they go straight to the ISP.  Why wouldn't they for libel? @tster said:
    This would be like if there was a libelous page on a blog and the court ordered blogger.com to be completely shutdown.
    No it's not.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:
    This would be like if there was a libelous page on a blog and the court ordered blogger.com to be completely shutdown.
    No it's not.
    How can I argue with such sage wisdom?



  • @tster said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    @tster said:
    This would be like if there was a libelous page on a blog and the court ordered blogger.com to be completely shutdown.
    No it's not.
    How can I argue with such sage wisdom?
    How about you prove your side.

    What happened: Libel was found on a blog so they went to the ISP and had them take the blog down

    What you think that's like: Libel was found on a blog so they went to the ISP for the blog network and took the entire blog network down.

    Good show.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    @tster said:
    This would be like if there was a libelous page on a blog and the court ordered blogger.com to be completely shutdown.
    No it's not.
    How can I argue with such sage wisdom?
    How about you prove your side.

    What happened: Libel was found on a blog so they went to the ISP and had them take the blog down

    What you think that's like: Libel was found on a blog so they went to the ISP for the blog network and took the entire blog network down.

    Good show.

     

    The entire blog is not the problem.  It's a specific blog post, so the court should order the site to remove the offending content first.  You also assume the site had nothing other than a blog on it.  What if there was a libelous blog entry on a MSDN blog?  Should they take down all of MSDN?  How do they take down a single MSDN (or blogger) blog without that site's permission? 



  • @tster said:

    The entire blog is not the problem
    Yes, it is.  The owners have shown themselves to be subborn nitwits.  Maybe if they had been cooperative a single day in their miserable lives, they wouldn't have their toys taken away.@tster said:
    You also assume the site had nothing other than a blog on it.
    No I don't.  I've been to TR's site.  On endh1b.com (or whatever it was), do you really think there's anything worth keeping up?  If you allow the site to stay up, you're likely just going to get the more libelous shit going up.  In a way, they're doing TR and co a favor, because now they don't have his loudspeaker that can get him into more trouble.@tster said:
    What if there was a libelous blog entry on a MSDN blog?  Should they take down all of MSDN?
    MSDN would likely cooperate with the authorities and remove the offending post themselves before it goes before a judge.  Hell, they might have prevented it from being posted in the first place.@tster said:
    or blogger
    I'm still not sure what you're on about with blogger.  Taking down one blog by going to the ISP is nothing like taking down a whole network just to take down one blog by going to the blog network.@tster said:
    How do they take down a single MSDN (or blogger) blog without that site's permission? 
    In DMCA cases, the ISP has often been smart enough to take a single post down while leaving the rest of the site up, but in this case, the owner was obstinate and uncooperative so fuck them.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    <words>

     

    You do realize that your argument boils down to:  "I don't like what is on their site, and they don't cooperate with people, so it's OK to censor them."

    I could not find evidence that a cout ordered them to remove content (although, I didn't read the entire legal document referenced in this thread), just that Apex and a lawyer working for Apex asked them to remove it.  

    Also, I don't spend my time reading trash like endh1b.com (do you? really?), so I can't say for sure that the entire site was not libelous, but there is no evidence that more than just the couple postings was libelous. 

     Anyways, judging from what I read in the court papers, most of the things posted would not be libel because he claims to have received the information through a 3rd party source.  Unless you can prove that he did not, and that he doesn't actualy believe what he posted, he's probably safe.



  • @tster said:

    You do realize that your argument boils down to:  "I don't like what is on their site, and they don't cooperate with people, so it's OK to censor them."
    If you knew how to read, you would find that it doesn't.  I'll sit here while you figure it out.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    You do realize that your argument boils down to:  "I don't like what is on their site, and they don't cooperate with people, so it's OK to censor them."
    If you knew how to read, you would find that it doesn't.  I'll sit here while you figure it out.

     

    Once again, I find myself unworthy of such reasoned arguments.  

     Let me highlight for you the parts of your post which are causing my problem (illiteracy?)

    @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    The entire
    blog is not the problem
    Yes, it is.  The owners have shown
    themselves to be subborn nitwits
    Maybe if they had been cooperative a
    single day in their miserable lives
    , they wouldn't have their toys
    taken away
    .@tster said:
    You also assume the site had nothing
    other than a blog on it.
    No I don't.  I've been to TR's site. 
    On endh1b.com (or whatever it was), do you really think there's
    anything worth keeping up
    ?  If you allow the site to stay up, you're
    likely just going to get the more libelous shit going up
    .  In a way,
    they're doing TR and co a favor, because now they don't have his
    loudspeaker that can get him into more trouble
    .@tster said:
    What
    if there was a libelous blog entry on a MSDN blog?  Should they take
    down all of MSDN?
    MSDN would likely cooperate with the
    authorities and remove the offending post themselves before it goes
    before a judge.  Hell, they might have prevented it from being posted
    in the first place.@tster said:
    or blogger
    I'm still not
    sure what you're on about with blogger.  Taking down one blog by going
    to the ISP is nothing like taking down a whole network just to take
    down one blog by going to the blog network
    .@tster said:
    How do
    they take down a single MSDN (or blogger) blog without that site's
    permission? 
    In DMCA cases, the ISP has often been smart enough
    to take a single post down while leaving the rest of the site up, but
    in this case, the owner was obstinate and uncooperative so fuck them.


    1. Many of your sentences are strangely formed or have grammar errors.  One of them ("taking down a whole...") I think refers to the wrong noun at the end.  I wouldn't have mentioned this except you have accused me of being illiterate which means I must have misunderstood your poorly constructed sentences.

    2. Many of your arguments are personal attacks ("subborn (sic) nitwits", "miserable lives", "toys taken away", "anything worth keeping", "likely just going to get...", "doing TR and co a favor", etc.)




  • Again with the not reading. 

    I'll quote pesto.@bstorer said:

    The court ruled in Apex's favor in regards to temporary restraint
    because the defendants are still John Does, and thus weren't able to
    argue against the motion.  This isn't uncommon.  If/when they enter the
    lawsuit, they can try to get that injunction lifted.

    The court decided that Apex had enough of a case to warrant a temporary restraint.  Rather than ask the owners nicely, as they knew what their response would be, they went to the ISP and had them take the site down.  This is not without precedent.  They could have deleted just the few posts, but for whatever reason, they had them take the whole site down.  I figure it's because TR and co acted like a bunch of assholes, so the hammer got swung harder.

    @tster said:

    2. Many of your arguments are personal attacks ("subborn (sic) nitwits", "miserable lives", "toys taken away", "anything worth keeping", "likely just going to get...", "doing TR and co a favor", etc.)
    Newsflash: If you treat people and the judge with respect, he's more likely to take it easy on you.  If you act like a total prat, he can fuck you.  TR and co chose the second route.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    2. Many of your arguments are personal attacks ("subborn (sic) nitwits", "miserable lives", "toys taken away", "anything worth keeping", "likely just going to get...", "doing TR and co a favor", etc.)
    Newsflash: If you treat people and the judge with respect, he's more likely to take it easy on you.  If you act like a total prat, he can fuck you.  TR and co chose the second route.

     

    Are you sure that TR treated the judge badly?  Based on the court documents it looks like they treated Apex and Apex's lawyers badly.   I would probably treat a lawyer badly to if they came and told me to remove content from my site which I thought was true.



  • Hi,

    TR here.

    It's been awhile. You folks gave me my first traffic spike back in the day. 

    Just want to remind you folks that this all started when the Desi bodyshop demanded that I help them track down the renegade visa worker that was posting their illegal contract all over the internet:

    "I further request you to provide us the contact details of the individual who posted this legal agreement without permission since we are the copyright owner of the legal document."

    Of course I responded like the typical American racist:

    "We are not in the business of helping exploitative Desi bodyshops target their H-1B victims for harassment, retribution, or violence. "

    Now go do some reading:

    http://community.icontact.com/.../5416768764092678355

    email me and I can give you all the court documents, the server logs showing the IPs of the people that posted death threats on my blogs, the text of the threats themselves, and whatever else you may find of interest.

    ALL BECAUSE I REFUSED TO TURN OVER INFO ABOUT AN INDIAN H-1B WHO WAS FORCED TO SIGN AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

    Now, what would you rather have, a "racist" blogger that helps Apex Technology Group harass a guest worker, or a "racist" blogger who stands up to the high-tech slave trade?

    tunnelrat at itgrunt.com

    WELCOME TO THE INSURGENCY

     

    "Now I've got blood on my hands...Me, I finish things...That's why I'm going it alone..."



  • @tster said:

    Are you sure that TR treated the judge badly?
    No, I'm pretty sure he never actually stood before the judge or even emailed with the judge, but the judge probaby read any post on his site and decided the world would be better if his website was down for at least the duration of the case.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    Are you sure that TR treated the judge badly?
    No, I'm pretty sure he never actually stood before the judge or even emailed with the judge, but the judge probaby read any post on his site and decided the world would be better if his website was down for at least the duration of the case.


    Which would be gross misuse of government power which is my whole fucking point.



  • The EFF have decided to pitch in, for anyone still bothered: Order to Shut Down Websites Critical of Apex Technology Group is Dangerous and Wrong


    Found this bit amusing:

    [...]Curiously, Apex simultaneously claimed that the document defamed them and that they were its copyright owners. This is unusual, since people rarely defame themselves with their own copyrighted works.


  • @tster said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    @tster said:
    Are you sure that TR treated the judge badly?
    No, I'm pretty sure he never actually stood before the judge or even emailed with the judge, but the judge probaby read any post on his site and decided the world would be better if his website was down for at least the duration of the case.
    Which would be gross misuse of government power which is my whole fucking point.
    No, it's his job.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    @tster said:
    Are you sure that TR treated the judge badly?
    No, I'm pretty sure he never actually stood before the judge or even emailed with the judge, but the judge probaby read any post on his site and decided the world would be better if his website was down for at least the duration of the case.
    Which would be gross misuse of government power which is my whole fucking point.
    No, it's his job.

    So your theory here is that the job of a jurist is to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.