Sorry, I’m coming in late to this. How is it legal for the “Turn Hate into Love” website to have the Straight Dope all over it? Sure makes it look like it’s the Straight Dope’s campaign.
After all the hoo-haw in days past about how “the Chicago Reader sponsors this site and we have to be very very careful what we say or they might get sued”, what happens if Fred decides to come after Cecil?
Also, it’s not my thread. It’s Mishel’s. Were it mine, I would ask to have it closed. Though I would likely be ignored. There’s still an open thread in the Pit that I had requested to be closed.
Uh, not to presume to speak for DDG, but I believe the concern was that by putting “The Straight Dope” on there, certain wrong-headed, potentially litigious groups might get the impression the project was officially connected to The Straight Dope/The Chicago Reader.
Prolly taking their name off the page woulda been enough.
May I suggest changing the text to read “visit [code for thread] to see the discussion which led to the creation of this site”. Not that I’m a mod, lawyer or American. And lib, may I also suggest that whilst many people have great sympathy for your cause, you shouldn’t take their lack of enthusiasm relative to yours as criticism of your aims or priorities. That said, I’ll be looking to find a way to contribute.
[added in preview] Seriously, lib. Don’t look for enemies.
Manny, you need to ask John where to send your money. But I think the slogan here should be changed to “Timidly wishing ignorance would just go away.”
I’m fed up with this. All this infantile sniping and bickering while that monster gets away with posting daily updates on how long Matthew Shepard has been in hell. And he’s going to Washington with his gang to terrorize the family of “fag pilot” David Charlebois.
I’m not looking for enemies. I’m looking for help. And I can see that I’m in the wrong place.
You lie. That is a deliberate, horrible lie, and I will not stand by whilst you slander Duck Duck Goose like that.
Concerned for the well being of this site, she asks a question. A question. Here, I’ll type it again slowly so you understand: Q. U. E. S. T. I. O. N.
And it is you who overreacts and pulls the plug. Not the Reader. Not her. You are the guardian of ignorance today. And you are the ally of Fred Phelps.
You are, however, alienating people at the same time. I understand that you are not trying to do so, and that your heart is in the right place, but it is happening.
For example, in this thread, DDG asks the completely reasonable question of whether it’s right to give the impression that the Chicago Reader is officially involved with this cause, and whether you are incurring any legal liability upon them. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that using the name “Straight Dope” in a manner that gives the impression that the owner of that name has taken an official stance on the matter, especially when it could subject it to a lawsuit, is a mild form of coercion.
Also, you have to accept that even good people may prefer to do other things to fight evil, ignorance, homophobia, Fred Phelps, or whatever. Your cause is good and just, but by no means is joining it a moral imperative.
Please reread your posts on this issue and see if you can understand where you may have aggravated others along the way. Keep in mind that love would dictate taking it upon yourself to make it easier for others to do good. God go with you always, and you where He needs you.
Umm. Just so I know, are we doing anything officially wrong there? Do we need to back off the topic completely, take it outside of these MBs, just lay low for a bit, just watch that we don’t cross the line into slander, or what?
Speaking only for myself, I’d like some guidelines from our hosts.
Don’t say the Straight Dope or the Chicago Reader endorses something unless you get it straight from us. (No pun intended.)
This anti-Fred Phelps project is a fine topic for discussion if anything new or worthwhile can be brought to the table. This does not count hectoring people to join the cause or excoriating those that choose not to, I don’t want to see any more of that.
Ah, OK, thank you. I wasn’t aware he’d done that – makes sense. So basically, we don’t have to shut nuthin’ down, we just have to make it clear that we’re doing it, not the Reader or the Straight Dope. And I see Lib’s given himself a time-out for his histrionics, so hopefully part two of your explanation isn’t anything you’re going to have to worry about.
I hope you will come back to read this reply, as it may help you understand that no one was attempting to undermine your cause by inquiring as to legality of using The Straight Dope name on your website.
When I designed The People Pages, I had to get permission from The Chicago Reader’s legal department to use The Straight Dope name on my website. Permission was granted, so long as my site contained the following disclaimer:
My point is, that no one is singling you or your website out, merely because of the content. I don’t think there could be anything more innocuous than The People Pages, but I still had to get permission to use the name, first. Common sense should tell you that a simple request for permission is prudent before you link any website directly to a For Profit business.
If there is even the slightest chance that The Chicago Reader could be sued because it might be construed that they are in any way endorsing the content on your page, you have an obligation to contact them, and they have a right to deny you permission without the appropriate disclaimers on your site. And I should think that, as a caring member of this community, that you would want to protect them on this issue.
I should note that even though we’re linked on the SD front page, we needed to do the same thing with Teemings since it is an unofficial publication to guard the Reader from any resposnibility in case we go nuts (which these days is quite likely.)
Um, it truly wasn’t my intention to make Lib take down the entire website. I just thought that, knowing the way Fred’s “mind” works, such as it is, :rolleyes: it wasn’t entirely outside of the realms of possibility that he might decide that Cecil Adams (“whut kinda candy-ass pansy name is that–Cecil, huh?”) and the Chicago Reader (“oh, an alternative newspaper, huh? Probly got Singles ads for faggots in there, huh?”) might make a couple of nice, litigation-friendly targets, not to mention being featured prominently on his website, God help us.
