Background on the Bill Purdy case: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=purdy If I understand Bill's rambling missive below and the judge's order he posted, the judge yesterday formally found Bill in contempt of court and gave him until a Feb. 4 hearing to turn over the domains or face "severe sanctions upon continued non-compliance." See: http://www.billpurdy.com/order2.htm -Declan --- From: "William S. Purdy" <wpurdyat_private> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> Subject: The Washington Post HARDASS - the Purging Order has come out! Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:11:56 -0600 January 29, 2003 Dear Declan, Ok, the Purdy PURGING Order has arrived. You can view it in it's entirety at www.billpurdy.com/order2.htm. Today I wrote a declaration to the Court and appealed on religious grounds that the Court NOT take away just ONE domain name on the Post's list, www.TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com. The Court was unimpressed and promptly Ordered it transferred to The Washington Post. I absolutely WILL NOT take ANY affirmative action to transfer that domain name to the Washington Post and so if they ask for my assistance and I don't give it which I won't, then I'll be going to Jail on February 4th when the Court finds out. The Washington Post DID NOT ask to have www.TheWashingtonPostJesus.com transferred to the Post, and thus the Court DID NOT require the transfer of that domain name, and that is my one victory and the victory that is MOST important to me. Now for the funny parts of the order. The court is taking www.TheWashingtonPostHARDASS.com away from me, and I think this one deserves to be fought for too. The Post said it was "confusingly similar" to their trademark The Washington Post, and the Court agreed! Don't you think that's a riot? The Post said that it wasn't critical or protest, and the Court agreed. Can you believe it? It's so stupid it's funny. I wonder if anybody else on the whole earth besides the Post and the Court thinks that it isn't "negative" enough???? - or is confusingly similar???? I wonder if I registered "TheWashingtonPostISaBIGandFatandUglyHARDASS.com" if they would think that is confusingly similar too, or critical enough? Could someone explain to me why my domain name www.TheWashingtonPostSUCKS.com is not confusingly similar but www.TheWashingtonPostHARDASS.com is confusingly similar???? Could someone explain to me why my domain name www.TheWashingtonPostSUCKS.com is critical enough but www.TheWashingtonPostHARDASS.com is not critical enough???? If the Eighth Circuit doesn't overturn this absolute craziness, this absolute nonsense, then we as American Internet users are in BIG, BIG TROUBLE. (I wonder if this particular Court hates me so much that it doesn't care if it's overturned or not. Do you think?) Here's something interesting. Yesterday I registered, but did not attach to any website www.iLoveTheWashingtonPost.com and www.iHateTheWashingtonPost.com and I promptly notified the Court and asked the Court for a ruling. Well, the Court ruled today in the order and the court is letting me keep www.iHATEtheWashingtonPost.com but I is taking away from me www.iLOVEtheWashingtonPost.com. Attorney Paul Levy talked about "content". Well, nobody can dispute that both of these domain names have "content statements" by me. Yes, one is positive and one is negative, but they are BOTH content statements just the same. The Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot regulate content statements. And it makes sense because who is this Court, or any court, to tell me that I can't say "I Love the Washington Post", even if I am saying it in a satirical manner? Hey, they let me keep the Jesus domain name, and if they had also let me keep the Christian domain name, I could honestly say that "I love the Washington Post" - at least for on that count. But even if I was lying in saying "I love the Washington Post", who is this court to tell me that I can't lie or I can't say that? Because I am misleading poor unwary internet users you say? NOPE, I didn't use or point either domain name, I simply registered them. Again I say, if the Eighth Circuit doesn't overturn this craziness, this nonsense, then all of we American Internet users, the pro-lifers, the pro-choicers, the anti-war crowd, the tree-huggers, everybody - we're in BIG, BIG, BIG trouble! Declan, it appears that the Court took your advice and ordered the registrars to transfer the domain names themselves. It appears that I am left powerless to stop them from taking the www.TheWashingtonPostChristian.com, but I absolutely will take NO AFFIRMATIVE action myself to transfer that domain name, that I vow as I live and breath. The Court will find out too because I have to file a report to the court in five days telling the court how I have complied with the Order. I will be reporting that I took NO AFFIRMATIVE action to have www.TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com to the Post. And then away I will go to Jail. And I will sue The Washington Post for the BIGGEST lawsuit they ever saw for Deprivation of my civil rights and deprivation of my LIBERTY in violation of (42 USC 1983 - Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law) . I don't want to sue the Washington Post or anybody, I just want to say what I want to say about the Washington Post and their relationship to abortion. And I WON'T shut up, I won't, I won't, I won't - not about The Washington Post or about any other company or entity that contributes to the Killing of Unborn Children. Once upon a time John Brown was considered a NUT because he came to the defense of the African-American slave, and dared to openly and publicly REFUTE the common notion that the African-American were not really persons, not really humans. John Brown believed he was called defended the slave, and secure his freedom with a rifle and through violence. I believe I am called to defend the unborn humans non-violently with words, and to hopefully secure their lives by displaying pictures of their dead and dismembered bodies on the Internet. I have copied below the portion from my declaration that I filed with the Court today appealing to the Court NOT TO TAKE AWAY www.TheWashingtonPostChristian.com on religious grounds. Below that is my appeal attorney's memo on the Supreme Court rulings regarding the regulation of "content" speech. Thanks Declan, and a GREAT BIG thanks to all the Declan readers who have offered their advice and support to me - especially those Declan readers who totally DISAGREE with what I am saying, those that find the pictures of aborted fetuses disgusting, and those who not only don't approve of my speech, but hate it - and yet still DEFEND my right to say it. You are all real INTELLECTUAL HEROES to me, and I am so grateful, and so very PROUD have had the opportunity to have received your advice, counsel, and support. Thank you. Yours, Bill Purdy ----------------------------------------------------- 8. That one particular domain name however that is listed in Plaintiff’s Revised Proposed Contempt Order, TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com, is an obvious and deliberate expression of my personal religious beliefs within the domain name. That I have the TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com attaching to or pointing to the my own website http://www.billpurdy.com/washingtonpostsatan.htm and that the title at the top of that webpage is, “The Washington Post JESUS - Witnessing For Christ Against The Washington Post's Editorial and Financial Support for ABORTION - by William S. Purdy”. That it was and is my intention in registering and using the domain name TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com to express my religious beliefs, and to express my religious beliefs and Christian witness about the writings and the actions that The Washington Post is taking regarding the killing of unborn children. That I am a Christian, and as such I believe that any secular authority that is in accordance with God’s will must be obeyed, and conversely, any authority that is not in accordance with God’s will must NOT be obeyed. As St. Peter directs, we must obey God over man when man’s authority is NOT in accord with God’s will, regardless of the penalty to self. I believe that it is God’s will that I continue to witness Christ’s teachings about the Washington Post’s contributions to the killing of unborn children, and I believe that registering and using TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com best facilitates the following of His will. I further believe that by acquiescing to the Washington Post’s request for me to stop using TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com it would be a personal DENIAL of Christ, and a personal denial of my Christian faith. That even as a young child Sister Jude inspired me through the example of what I should do and say even if a Communist put a gun to my head and said, “Deny Jesus.” That I therefore ask the Court not to direct me to personally take any action that will not be in accordance with His will, and that will direct me to personally deny Jesus. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing statements are true and correct. Executed on this ______ of _______________, 2003 _____________________________________ William S. Purdy, Sr. --------------------------------------------------------------- First Amendment Claim of William Purdy based on West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette bt Thomas W. Straham, Attorney for William S. Purdy in The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us… the action (compulsory flag salute and recitation of pledge) … invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(holding compulsory flag salute and pledge as unconstitutional as applied against Jehovah Witnesses) Background: It is a fundamental principle of First Amendment law that public officials while they can regulate time, place and manner in the exercise of First Amendment free speech rights, the regulation must be content neutral. This prevents public officials, including Federal District Court judges, from imposing their own orthodox views, or what they might deem to be “politically correct” or “politically incorrect” views on citizens. William Purdy sought to convince his intended audience that unborn children should not be destroyed and sought to do so by purchasing Internet domain names which would direct his target audience to pictures of aborted and dismembered unborn children in order to disclose the nature and effects of abortion. Mr. Purdy sought to inform his target audience that The Washington Post, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and McDonalds were supporting abortion through their large financial contributions to the largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Mr. Purdy, by displaying graphic pictures of aborted fetuses, sought to inform his intended audience of the horror of abortion, a horror to which The Washington Post, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and McDonalds were largely contributing. A suit was brought in the U.S. District Court, Minnesota by The Coca-Cola Company, McDonald’s Corporation, Pepsico, Inc., The Washington Post Company and Washington Post .Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC against William Purdy ( Civil No. 02-1782). A temporary restraining order was sought by the plaintiffs and granted by the court. As part of the restraining order, William Purdy was prohibited from purchasing or using any domain name that is not protest or critical in nature and also alerts the unwary Internet user to the protest or political commentary nature of the attached website within the language of the domain name itself. Subsequently, the restriction was expanded to include a similar restriction on domain names which contained religious language. Thus, according to the court, TheWashingtonPostSUCKS.com or TheWashingtonPostSATAN.com is acceptable because, in the court’s mind, the names are enough of a protest or critical enough in themselves, to alert the unwary user. However, if Mr. Purdy used TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com or TheWashingtonPostJESUS.com, the court deemed these to be unacceptable because the words Christian or Jesus are not enough of a protest or critical enough to be permitted. Legal Analysis: By restricting the category of permissible domain names to what the court believes contain sufficiently critical, negative or derogatory words, the court is engaging in content-based discrimination which is a violation of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. If William Purdy is to communicate his message, he must utilize this restriction whether he believes it or not. If he attempts to utilize neutral or positive words in his domain name, he risks going to jail. (Indeed, the court has already found Mr. Purdy in contempt of court and is threatening to send him to jail if he does not purge himself of speaking the restricted words.) The restriction thus is very coercive in its application. The restriction is also very broad. It goes well beyond determining what domain names might be deceptively similar or confusing. Further, the scope of the restriction is very broad, covering the subject of both politics and also religion. This aspect of the restraining order thus is an attempt by a public official to determine what is orthodox or unorthodox in matters of politics and religion, characterizes communications of images of aborted babies as inherently not politically or religiously correct, and invades the spirit and intellect of William Purdy in violation of the First Amendment. Thomas W. Straham 1/26/2003 Attorney for William S. Purdy in his Appeal to The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals --- From: "William S. Purdy" <wpurdyat_private> To: <declanat_private> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030129091407.01a2a6d8at_private> Subject: reply to Jamie on TheWasingtonPostSHAREHOLDER.com Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:12:03 -0600 Dear Jamie, Thank you for you message. I own ONE share of common stock of The Washington Post Company. The Washington Post Company is a publicly traded corporation on the NY Stock Exchange. I am an owner of the corporation. I AM a Washington Post shareholder. I am also running for the Board of Directors of The Washington Post Company, and if the corporation acts on the order and takes TheWashingtonPostSHAREHOLDER away from me, and deprives me of the ability to campaign and communicate with fellow shareholders, I will blame them if I am not elected, and as such, I will now be filing a Shareholder's Derivative Suit against the corporation for interference in the election, and for deprivation of my civil rights. I hope this explains why I have www.TheWashingtonPostSHAREHOLDER.com Thank you, Bill Purdy --- From: "G.Waleed Kavalec" <Gregat_private> To: "Declanat_private \(E-mail\)" <declanat_private> Cc: "'Nick Bretagna'" <onemugat_private> Subject: RE: Bill Purdy owns one in three of ALL washingtonpost domain names Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:44:28 -0600 Declan The list Jamie Rishaw sent does shed some light, doesn't it? But lets take a small excerpt: 27-jan-2003 IHATETHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM 27-jan-2003 ILOVETHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM 27-jan-2003 JESUSLOVESTHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM 27-jan-2003 SATANLOVESTHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM Two of these would have been recognized by most courts as protected under the same guidelines that shield parodies. Two of these SOUND like sites the Washington Post would approve of. And there's the problem. We have truth-in-advertising laws, but nobody has extended that idea to domain names. I am not saying that nobody but you has a right to ILOVEPOLITECHBOT.COM, for example, what I am saying is that if someone else's *USE* of ILOVEPOLITECHBOT.COM has a clear negative impact/reflection on you, you have a right to go to court and cry FOUL! The Washington Post did. And won. As they should have. Peace G. Waleed Kavalec ------------------------------- Nietzsche is dead. -- God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q\clan -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 08:19:34 PST