Barack Obama's political campaign confronted a website dedicated to "celebrating little girls in all their splendor" (work safe) for hosting images of the politician's two young daughters.
A copy of the letter from Obama's attorney in pdf here. I first posted on this Feb 11. h/t LILO
An attorney for Perkins Cole wrote to inform the site owner he was hosting images without copyright and suggesting a relationship to the Obama campaign, when none exists. It also preserved Obama's civil remedies, more likely as a threat, as there may be no legal remedy given the site seems to be located in Panama.
The website, Puellula, responded here.
As per your request, the images of Senator Obama's children no longer appear on the website.
I have, however, chosen to retain a link to the senator's website. I would remind you that the terms of service on the senator's website expressly permit me to do so. The page http://origin.barackobama.com/terms/ contains the following text: "We encourage you to link to our Website, but you acknowledge that such linking does not constitute an endorsement by us of you, your website, or any information or content therein." I have never intimated that the senator supports me or my website in any way.
I have no intention of removing references to Senator Obama and his family from my website. Whatever anybody thinks of my opinions, they are not defamatory. If anything, my comments are laudatory. Furthermore, my right to express my opinion is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Finally, I would point out to you the fact that pedophilia is not a crime. Pedophilia, according to the definition of the American Psychiatric Association is a sexual attraction to children. It does not imply any action whatsoever upon that attraction. This fact is confirmed by many specialists in sexuality, including Drs. Fred Berlin and Peter Fagan, both of Johns Hopkins University. Whilst I agree that under the laws of many nations, sexual contact with children is illegal, my website does not encourage anybody to break the law. In fact, it clearly discourages illegal activity. It does support using democratic means to encourage dialogue and reconsider such statutes.
I certainly hope that Senator Obama would agree that debate and public discourse are important facets of any democratic society, irrespective of how distasteful some may find particular issues.
Now that's creepy.
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 05:38 PM
And he's might be wrong about the allegedly defamatory nature of the pictures. "Pedophelia" (I think) is considered a "loathesome disease" or "condition," and in most states, importing such a condition, even upon a public figure, as Obama undoubtedly is, should result in a per se finding of defamation. Such a finding requires no showing of actual malice or damages, because both are presumed from the nature of the communication. In sum, Obama is certainly not without legal remedies here.
Not sure about the intellectual property issues.
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Very creepy and sick. Call the ACLU!
Oh.
Posted by: Stormy70 | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 06:06 PM
I'd like to introduce the owner of the site to my AK-47, but alas it wouldn't be rational "public discourse". (excuse me while I puke)
Posted by: Hard Right | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Sick.
BTW, the lawfirm is Perkins Coie not Cole.
Posted by: TheSpartan | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 07:56 PM
There's some of that eliminationist rhetoric I was looking for. Thank you, Hard Right.
♪♪ When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it ♪♪
Posted by: Zifnab | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 09:23 PM
You simply cannot quit, can you, Ziff? No matter what the topic.
It is pathalogical, I tell ya...
Durand
Posted by: durand | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 09:46 PM
"You simply cannot quit, can you, Ziff? No matter what the topic."
As opposed to the highly original "ACLU sux! Lock 'n load!" from the other commenters...
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 09:53 PM
Excluding altruism, which should never be used in context with politics, why would anyone want to be president of this country?
Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Ah yes, how dare I suggest (even tongue in cheek) a child molester supporter meet an untimely end. There's that leftist protection of scumbags/moral equivalency. Ziff, you'll be an honorary member of the ACLU yet.
Let me guess, Zif will claim I wasn't joking. Yet he says the HuffPo trash was. Ziff, your mental illness is showing.
Posted by: Hard Right | Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Quick, someone do a backround check on Zif. NAMBLA maybe?
Posted by: Cindi | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 01:28 AM
Very few posts from the "moral majority" in this thread. That surprises me.
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 08:50 AM
Legalize, I'm sure a lot of things surprise you since you aren't too bright.
So in another thread you think you shouldn't have to condemn people from your side wishing Cheney (an innocent public servant) dead, but expect Conservatives to condemn the sleazy website owner?
Me? I applaud Obama's stance.
Posted by: Hard Right | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 09:58 AM
"Legalize, I'm sure a lot of things surprise you since you aren't too bright."
Hilarious. How's the Googling of "perjury" coming along, genius.
"So in another thread you think you shouldn't have to condemn people from your side wishing Cheney (an innocent public servant) dead ..."
"Innocent"? That's subjective. As is "public servant." No, I don't have any responsibilty to condemn anyone with whom I am not associated. I don't even know any of those posters; nor do I frequent the HuffPo. Why should I condemn their views? I haven't advocated anything they've said.
"...but expect Conservatives to condemn the sleazy website owner?"
Well, yeah. Riehl (to his credit) has been following and posting on this story. And considering that you righties purport to hold ownership over "moral values," one would expect you to be all over this, condemning the very behavior you rail against so vocally, and accuse your detractors of supporting. Is that too difficult for you to understand, detective?
"Me? I applaud Obama's stance."
Congratulations. I suppose you deserve a medal.
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 11:45 AM
I see you're still mad over being out debated. Here's a tip, this sin't a courtroom and there is no legal hair splitting for you to get away with.
So one minute you want me to use guilty according to the legal definition, then you want to say Cheney being "innocent" is subjective. So a legal definition does not apply-unless you want it to? I see-you're a hypocrite.
As for condemning politically hateful comments, that is hardly a function of political POV. It's a matter of decency- a foreign concept to those like yourself. I'm not an Ann Colter fan because I don't like how she expresses herself.
You think you shouldn't have to apologize for people like those on HuffPo, well maybe you should stop defending them. You threw your lot in with theirs by doing so. You actually claimed that criticizing their hate speech was an attempt at surpressing the 1st Amendment! Remember? "Just another example of the right trying to stifel free speech". You wanted to say that Rush made horrible remarks (which he didn't) as did Ann and no one on the right condemned her. Also wrong. Many Conservatives jumped on Ann for what she said about the Jersey wives. Same thing over the judges. But you want to justify not doing the right thing because you feel the opposition did not. That doesn't make it right. For the above reasons you should be condemning what they said.
Posted by: Hard Right | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 12:35 PM
"I see you're still mad over being out debated. Here's a tip, this sin't a courtroom and there is no legal hair splitting for you to get away with."
I don't get mad about slapping around childish nit-wits such as yourself. You couldn't "debate" yourself out of a paper sack, which I suppose is why you left that thread with your tail between your legs.
"So one minute you want me to use guilty according to the legal definition ..."
No. The "legal definition" of "guilt" is the canard YOU are trying to use to justify the innacurate statements you and Riehl made in the aforediscussed thread. When you and he were caught proffering factually incorrect statements, you do what you cowards always do - backpeddal, move the goal posts, and then slink out of the thread when the light of day is shined on your bullshit. I asked you what Clinton was "guilty" of, and then you and Riehl engaged in your little dance about "perjury." Do you really want to publicize your incompetence in ANOTHER thread? I'm happy to keep embarassing you publicly.
"...then you want to say Cheney being "innocent" is subjective. So a legal definition does not apply-unless you want it to?"
Uh, there is no express "legal" definition of "innocence," as far as criminal behavior is concerned - you know like the crime of "perjury" you don't understand. "Innocence" refers to one's relative experience / morality. But again, this semantic dance you think you are so clever in perpetrating is your game not mine. I'm not tying to backpeddal from anything I've said, coward.
"I see-you're a hypocrite."
I see that you are a petty, incompetent child utterly lacking in anything remotely resembling "debate" skills. I know in your world, attempting to obscure issues you do not understand is considered sound debate, but in the real world, you're transparent cowardice leaves you with little to stand on - which again, would be why you slinked away from a thread in which you got your ass repeatedly handed to you.
Of course, NONE of this has anything to do with the fact that righties who purport to be the "moral majority" vis a vis issues addressed in this thread, i.e. pedophiles with pictures of Obama's children, have been utterly silent for the most part in this thread.
It's strange that a big boy like you isn't addressing that point. I can't imagine why that would be.
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 02:12 PM
dang, that's messed up. panama? i say we invade and kill the sob.
Posted by: tally | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 05:12 PM
As usual you can't challenge what I said. I said guilty-as in he had lied. YOU tried to apply a legal definition to it because you knew I was right. Clinton lied and got caught and you couldn't refute that. Sooooo, you tried to be cute and got embarrassed. Stings, eh?
The one doing a semantics dance is you. For the second time you tried to apply a different definition of a word to fit your argument-innocent (it means not guilty you moron) and it has come back to bite you. You tried to do so in order to justify the hate speech posted at the HuffPo. Like I said, you're all for hate speech as long as a Dem is the one saying it. Again this isn't a courtroom and the games you play there don't fly here. That must be what upsets you so much. Well, that and losing to someone who isn't a lawyer.
Posted by: Hard Right | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 05:26 PM
BTW, I don't care other Conservatives aren't posting on this issue.
Posted by: Hard Right | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 05:27 PM