How to get the point across to you LM.....

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

We have two issues here;
Legal Ones (directnic should have done what they were supposed to)
Moral Ones (directnic should have left this the fuck alone)

I dont wish any ill will towards Mike AI or any of his companies really but in this case the owner of those sites should sue the fuck out of him and I would keep my fingers crossed that they would win.


spaz

From all accounts, several of these girls looked WAY below 18 - and not just "looked". DirectNic did exactly what they had the rights to do per thier TOS. Yes, they could have turned him directly over to the police and Slick would be coming up with bail and more than likely be a registered sex offender once everything came out in the wash. But instead they locked the domains (so if he WAS a CP trafficker, he couldn't move them and disappear) and contacted him and gave him time to clear his name.

SLICK took this to the boards, not DirectNic. Slick then gave 100's of webmasters the opportunity to point out that many of his thumbs/trades looked VERY, VERY underage. Now all that's going to be there, in writing, forever. Had he dealt with DirectNic directly, no one would have known anything.

From what I've read, Google has removed at least one of his sites. Now, are you going to boycott Google too? Did they overreach their bounds?

I've seen time and time again where it's state specific if you "own" the domain or not. Since DirectNic is loaded with lawyers and probably has more contact with legal jurisdictions that any of us will EVER have contact with, I'm going make a wild ass assumption that they were within their legal right to take down the sites in question.

If not, Slick can sue them - simple as that.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

From all accounts, several of these girls looked WAY below 18 - and not just "looked". DirectNic did exactly what they had the rights to do per thier TOS. Yes, they could have turned him directly over to the police and Slick would be coming up with bail and more than likely be a registered sex offender once everything came out in the wash. But instead they locked the domains (so if he WAS a CP trafficker, he couldn't move them and disappear) and contacted him and gave him time to clear his name.

SLICK took this to the boards, not DirectNic. Slick then gave 100's of webmasters the opportunity to point out that many of his thumbs/trades looked VERY, VERY underage. Now all that's going to be there, in writing, forever. Had he dealt with DirectNic directly, no one would have known anything.

From what I've read, Google has removed at least one of his sites. Now, are you going to boycott Google too? Did they overreach their bounds?

I've seen time and time again where it's state specific if you "own" the domain or not. Since DirectNic is loaded with lawyers and probably has more contact with legal jurisdictions that any of us will EVER have contact with, I'm going make a wild ass assumption that they were within their legal right to take down the sites in question.

If not, Slick can sue them - simple as that.

So you have difinitive proof that he had CP on his site? I don't think even DirectNIC has PROVEN that, if they ever do.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

So you have difinitive proof that he had CP on his site? I don't think even DirectNIC has PROVEN that, if they ever do.

Doesn't matter from my point of view. DN has every right to run their business as they see fit.

Same as you.

I am sure there are trades and gallery submissions that you reject just because. Not for a definitive reason necessarilly, or at least one you could not put into words.

I am sure you also sometimes approve some that later on you go kill because you feel like you were bs'd or whatever.

Not much difference in this whole thing except that you aren't taken to the boards in a completely one sided "let's beat up LM for doing this to me" tirade by the zoo.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Doesn't matter from my point of view. DN has every right to run their business as they see fit.

EXACTLY.

MY point was that him even having a public SUSPICION of CP on his site/trades was brought in by him - not DirectNic.

And now Google's removed at least one of his sites, so yeah, I'm betting there was SOMETHING on there that shouldn't have been. Of course, had the dude never come screaming to GFY and dealt with DirectNic and an attorney from day one, I'd never know this information.

[softball]

"Doesn't matter from my point of view. DN has every right to run their business as they see fit."

What, just like Denny's? You remember when they got their asses kicked for refusing to serve black people.? Hell you write that into your tos and see how far it gets.

As for suing, that is just a typical litagous American response. It is expensive, sometimes wasteful and mostly the one with the most bucks wins. And in this case, I am sure we can figure out which side has the most horsepower, so that is a non starter. That is unless the FSC picks it up and then the fireworks could light up.

I never thought I would see the day.....

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

What, just like Denny's? You remember when they got their asses kicked for refusing to serve black people.? Hell you write that into your tos and see how far it gets.

And until someone challenged it in court, they got away with it. Right or wrong.

It takes a court challenge to establish this shit. If Slick has had his civil rights trampled as much as everyone says, his lawyer would have had this in court, getting an injunction back last wednesday or thusday when all the shit went down originally.

So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

And until someone challenged it in court, they got away with it. Right or wrong.

It takes a court challenge to establish this shit. If Slick has had his civil rights trampled as much as everyone says, his lawyer would have had this in court, getting an injunction back last wednesday or thusday when all the shit went down originally.

So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.

Why does everything have to be challenged in court? Like I said, money seems to trump what is right in many instances. OJ for instance. (just my opinion btw)
Maybe he can't afford a lawyer, but if he can and he has a suck ass lawyer, why should what is right always have to be determined by lawyers?
You want your freedoms defended by someone's suck ass lawyer who might lose a precedent setting case that affects your rights?
edit: Getting away with it is not the issue.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.

OR Slick realizes that the cost of persuing this through the courts would probably cost more than it's worth. Win or lose, he still has to pay his lawyer.