no. (roses_rejoice) wrote,
no.
roses_rejoice

Stupidity to the Nth Degree.

Given that the tsunami took up most of the news between XMs and NYE, I just got around to reading about the Navy SEALS who are suing AP after one of their idiot wives posted on Smugmug.com a bunch of pictures of said SEALs apparently abusing POWs, and a reporter found the pix with a search engine, bought copies as the site permits you to do, and printed them. Apparently, Idiot Wifey thought the site was password-protected and therefore somehow private. I cannot believe her lawyer is trying to make some argument along the lines of Mister Evil Reporter "leaned on the electronic door and it opened," violating everybody's Right to Privacy.

Newsflash, buddy: 1) First Amendment. 2) Lawfully obtained. 3) There is NO privacy on the Internet. Tell Idiot Wifey-poo to get over it. Reporters don't read those fluffy little "Internet ethics" sites that tell you if some blog or photo album doesn't appear to be for your eyes, then you should be a Good Citizen and Not Peek. Which, especially when it's not password protected, makes about as much sense as imitating Lady Godiva on your front porch and expecting the neighbors not to look and the police not to show up. You don't want the world to know what's on your camera film? Don't put the pictures online! Whether you think it's password-protected or not! And, if it's not a digital cam, for goshsakes don't get them developed at the drugstore either. (Although you'd probably have more luck suing the drugstore, but that doesn't help much after the pictures of you abusing Iraqi prisoners, or for that matter, boffing the mailman, have been circulated, now does it?)

Even if we accept that Dumbo Wife thought that site was all private n' everything, the idea of someone uploading their hubby's prisoner-tending photos (as opposed to the occasional "cute" war photo like the time my roomie's spouse wrote her name on the side of a tank in shaving cream) to an I-net photo sharing site made me wonder just what sort of ghouls get their kicks sharing photos of prisoner abuse with friends and family. About on the same order of the fun guys who came back from WWII with photos of themselves holding up severed enemy heads.

Anyway, after reading that, I had to get out of my funk with some funk so I looked over the Fifth Circuit's recent opinion in Positive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., No. 03-30605 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004), concerning the suspenseful question of who really owns the rights to the song, "Back That Ass Up." Apparently, the D spelling his title "Back That Azz Up" with z's instead of s's was not sufficient to prevent a horde of lawyers from descending. I personally think they all deserve extra billables for keeping a straight face during the litigation.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments