Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

EFF Sues Barney Producers over Spoof Sites 154

Posted by Zonk
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.
PetManimal writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the company that produces 'Barney and Friends' for harassing the creator of a Barney parody Web site. Barney producers Lyons Partnership has threatened lawsuits over the past few years against Stuart Frankel and his parody site, actions which the EFF says violates freedom of speech and fair use laws. The parody site contains doctored images of Barney, and claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist. From the article: 'Lyons Partnership has sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to Frankel for a Web page that includes a depiction of the fuzzy purple dinosaur as Satan. In an October letter, Lyons demands that Frankel immediately take down copyrighted images of Barney. The company threatens to take legal action or contact Frankel's Internet service provider if he doesn't comply.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Sues Barney Producers over Spoof Sites

Comments Filter:
  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:31PM (#15980254) Journal
    I sue you
    They sue me
    We're all part of a
    Lawyer-enriching Copyright industry that contributes little to the public good.

    Does that rhyme?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tackhead (54550)
      > I sue you
      > They sue me
      > We're all part of a
      > Lawyer-enriching Copyright industry that contributes little to the public good.

      To the Lyons partners,
      Dewey Cheatem, Howe,
      Up yours, Barney.
      Pay Stu now.

    • by hal2814 (725639) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:40PM (#15980337)
      With a knick-knack paddy-whack...

      Oh wait, that's the wrong song.

      So Barney, who has spent his entire career putting new words to very old songs, is suing someone for parodying his work? That would be like Puff Daddy suing over someone parodying "I'll be Missing You." (And yes I realize that the big purple dinosaur is not really doing the suing but it's more amusing to think of it that way.)
      • An excellent riposte, sir.
      • by Goweropolis (997862) on Friday August 25, 2006 @04:16PM (#15981230)

        Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a big purple dinosaur. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like the defendant makes fun of big purple rhyming dinosaurs, then he is entitled to no less than two million years in jail. Thank you.

        R.I.P. Phil Hartman, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer [jt.org]

    • by Pharmboy (216950) on Friday August 25, 2006 @03:20PM (#15980691) Journal
      What pisses me off is /. didn't link to the site, and the article didn't link to it either. Either they are all afraid of getting sued, or they don't want me to SEE the actual site and make up my own mind whether the site is "parody" (fair use), "satire" (not fair use) or something else.

      I did finally find it at this address [dustyfeet.com] and did a whois to make sure the domain is owned by Stuart Frankel. Not much here except some dead links (other threatened sites?) and what appears to be Fair Use to me, but IANAL.
      • Parody's fair use, but satire isn't?

        What's the difference; wikipedia has lost me

        (Parody: "In contemporary usage, a parody is a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work, the author or fictional voice of the parody, or another subject.")

        (Satire: "Satire is a technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an int
        • by Pharmboy (216950) on Friday August 25, 2006 @05:11PM (#15981763) Journal
          An example in a nutshell: The Michael Jackson song "Bad". Weird Al makes a song called "Fat" that is similar to the song "Bad" to make fun of the song "Bad" itself. That is parody.

          Now pretend you and I use the same song "Bad" to make fun of George Bush, or IBM, or Microsoft or something EXCEPT the original song/artist/concept itself. That is satire. The song "Bad" is no longer the thing we are making fun of, we are just using it for another purpose. This is NOT fair use.

          The difference is the target, not the vehicle. And yes, sometimes it gets cloudy, and what it is your are making fun of may not always be clear. Whether Wikipedia sees it this way, in a court of law (from my limited experience) this is how it is defined.

          Or to make it shorter: It is Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun the of the same copyrighted item (parody), but not Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun of something else (satire).
          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            An example in a nutshell: The Michael Jackson song "Bad". Weird Al makes a song called "Fat" that is similar to the song "Bad" to make fun of the song "Bad" itself. That is parody.

            Except that Wierd Al gets permission from the original artist to do the parodies. Check it out some time - he couldn't get permission to do a song based on one of Eminem's songs (I believe Eminem even tried to sue Wierd Al over it), so he dropped the entire thing.

            With "You're Pitiful", Wierd Al got permission from the original art

            • by Pharmboy (216950)
              The fact that he gets permission is a courtasy, to stay in good graces. It is NOT a legal requirement. If he didn't, he would still be legally able to do so, then, they would likely sue him, and after a long legal battle, he would win. He has just decided to get permission ahead of time to make life easier, not because the law requires it.
            • no, Weird all gets permisson from the rights holder... ie. the RIAA to do his parodies. He usually asks permission.. because it's always funnier if you get the inside scoop, but his legal permission comes from the record company... that's why the record companies are so picky about getting all the artists rights signed over.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CODiNE (27417)
      No but this does.

      I love sue
      Sue happy
      Litigatious family

      With a great big team
      Of lawyers just for you
      Don't you say I'm Anti-foo!
    • DEAR SIR:

      It has recently come to our attention that you have recently published a rhyme to the website "slashdot.org" in a similar cadence to the protected IP of Barney. You are hereby notified that in our informed legal opinion this constitutes infringement of our copyright.

      Copyright infringement is a serious matter. If you are found liable in a civil suit you could be liable for damages up to $150,000 per willful infringement. Criminal sanctions are also possible. If you are found guilty of criminal c

  • by Hulkster (722642) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:32PM (#15980259) Homepage
    I've got a mish-mash of Hulk Stuff [komar.org] up on my site - will these type of people threaten a lawsuit against me ... or just SMASH?!?

    P.S. Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?
    • by twitter (104583) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:50PM (#15980415) Homepage Journal

      will these type of people threaten a lawsuit against me ... or just SMASH?!?

      You might think the whole affair is funny, but the ability to use popular culture icons to make a point is what's being defended.

      That depends on who you piss off and how many people notice. If both are true, you might get slapped [wikipedia.org], which makes this kind of harassment worse than it looks at first.

      The regulation of broadcast has given tremendous power to those who control it. They have had the ability to mold and use popular culture for a long time. Your inability to use their images and sounds as shortcuts to make a point put you at a disadvantage when you want to argue a point with the public. Cable and the internet has diminished broadcast influence, but there's plenty of concentrated power left as this Barney case illustrates. Ultimately, free culture will level the playing field. An EFF victory here will make others easier.

      At stake is your ability to use your culture for your own ends. That ability is only in doubt because copyright law is out of control.

      • by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday August 25, 2006 @03:15PM (#15980650) Homepage
        Cable and the internet has diminished broadcast influence, but there's plenty of concentrated power left as this Barney case illustrates. Ultimately, free culture will level the playing field.

        Not necessarily. If we reach a point [slashdot.org] where the Internet is not a level field [slashdot.org], then we will be right back where we were twenty years ago: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Given that the people in the US with the money and power are directly threatened by free competition, that the people who benefit most from it (We The People) are predominately ignorant of what is happening, and that even those who do know what is happening are too comfortable to make real sacrifices (eg: jail, bodily harm, death) to defend it, how long do you think the free Internet is going to last?
      • by pipingguy (566974) *
        Barney Must Die! (an appropriate death).

        Nah. More likely it's the professional "Barney Marketing People" raising a media kerfuffle desperately trying to generate some publicity. Kids' stuff doesn't last as long these days so they have to squeeze every last bit out of a concept.

        My son loved that purple thing when he was two, three, *maybe* four, but now "Barney" is seen by pre-teens as a euphemism for juvenile interests and this sort of notion filters down to the younger kids via memes.

        In my day, kids
    • by PRMan (959735)

      Marvel Comics doesn't go after fan sites unless they have created software/games including the characters or are selling something.

      Your Hulk site should be fine.

    • by VoxCombo (782935)
      Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?


      Yes, satire is protected, but the use of copyrighted images is not.

      In other words: It's ok for you to draw a picture of Barney for satirical use, but you can't copy their drawing of Barney.
    • by Mayhem178 (920970)
      P.S. Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?

      Actually, this is often not the case. Parody has been found to be protected in the majority of fair use cases, which deals primarily with poking fun directly at the copyrighted entity in question; whereas satire is rarely held as fair use, since it uses the copyrighted entity to poke fun at something else.

      The real challenge here for the Lyons Partnership will be proving that the Barney Antichrist was satirical in nature. I
  • I thought I killed that guy in HL2. Maybe I'll get him in HL3
    • by creimer (824291)
      That's the problem with NPC's... they just don't know when to stay dead. I been shooting Barney since the Doom days.
    • by sgt scrub (869860)
      Who scored this off topic? Is there really someone who hasn't killed Barney or Kenny?
  • by Steve B (42864) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:33PM (#15980268)
    The parody site contains doctored images of Barney, and claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist.


    I dunno about copyright infringement, but they should be safe from any defamation charge -- truth is an absolute defense.

  • I've got to know, what's the address of the anti-Barney site???
  • Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:37PM (#15980306) Homepage Journal

    What's the legal standing of taking someone else's photographs and modifying them, even for Satire or Parody?

    I'd suggest Frankel make up his own costume and photograph it.

    We're quick to take issue when, during a poltical campaign, some photograph of Kerry giving a speech years ago is doctored. I think there is some precedent there. Doesn't it apply equally to what Frankel is doing?

    • "during a poltical campaign, some photograph of Kerry giving a speech years ago is doctored. I think there is some precedent there"

      I doctored it, and then I undoctored it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by R2.0 (532027)
      I believe the concept of fair use specifically and clearly covers exactly the situation you describe - modifying a copywrited work for parody or satire. Check the "Wind Done Gone" case.

      The doctored photos of Kerry were different - they weren't satire or parody. And the furor over them wasn't about copyright violation - it was over the intent to deceive.
    • by Danse (1026)

      We're quick to take issue when, during a poltical campaign, some photograph of Kerry giving a speech years ago is doctored. I think there is some precedent there. Doesn't it apply equally to what Frankel is doing?

      There's a difference between doctoring something and asserting that it's a true image, and doctoring something as parody. As long as the site is using the images as parody, he should be in the clear. Hell, TV shows do it all the time for purposes of parody.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pharmboy (216950)
      Satire is NOT covered under Fair Use. Parody is covered. (ie: You can use Barney to make fun of Barney, but not to make fun of something else.) This is why many [company]sucks.org websites use parody as a means to protest against a company, as it is a well tested Fair Use exception.

      Using the images of the copyright holder is considered Fair Use if it does not reduce their ability to make a profit (ie: you are giving away an image they charge for) or cause confusion about the intent of what you are doing
    • by geekoid (135745)
      Parody is explicitly protected un the US.
      He is making a parody of Barney.

      No one will got o the site and think it is an actual Barney site, or confuse that site with an offiial site.

    • by Aladrin (926209)
      Every definition of parody uses the word 'imitate'... Not copy directly. Not doctor a photo of... imitate. That means it is NOT the real thing, or a direct image of the real thing.

      Calling something/someone the 'antichrist' is not a parody. It's a statement. Drawing a generic purple dinosaur with big red horns would be a parody.

      If you don't believe me, try this on for size: Linux is shit. Haha, I parodied. You can't get angry because it's just a parody.

      No? Yeah, doesn't work like that. Everyone with
    • Doctoring a photo of someone to make false claims about that person in order to disrepute them is not satire or parody, especially if it's a political campaign presenting itself as being factually based rather than being a creative work.

      The case of doctored photos of John Kerry being used in campaign commercials has nothing to do with copyright or trademark infringement.

  • by tinkertim (918832) * on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:37PM (#15980307) Homepage
    If these guys even glanced at the DMCA laws they would kick themselves in the legal checkbook. Anyone who operates a hosting company , even one on the side knows when the formal DMCA notice arrives, you must yank the site unless the owner can furnish a court ruling allowing it to exist. Depending on your upstream provider, some will go to bat if you can show your client is at least in litigation with the complaining party .. and wait for the outcome, but that's rare. Anyone hosted in infomart (or on level3, cogent, willtell , etc bandwidth) or any other 'cafeteria style' DC is under a yank-first-and-ask-questions-later policy.

    That being said, such a court ruling would almost be automatic. Parody sites are protected, I helped one of my clients stand up against the big bad e-bay and they won. I'd post a link, but .. well I don't feel like going to the DC with a fire extinguisher to put out the nic :)

    I've never, ever seen someone threaten to go to the isp *last* .. how did this feeble gray matter manage to cook up something that took over children's television for years?

    At this point their lawyers saying anything other than "Duh!" would be almost as comical as the parody itself.

    What a world.
    • by jafiwam (310805) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:49PM (#15980414) Homepage Journal
      I was under the impression it was a "take it down till the site operator tells the host they are taking care of it".

      Basically, forcing the host to be a pass through of information or just to take it down. Effectively removing the host as a protector of the site. (I.e. "we just host it, you need to contact the webmaster" while the webmaster has no available contacts and is trying to remain anonymous.)

      The operator does NOT need to show proof of anything other than that they are aware of the notice the host recieved and that they are contesting it. So "no, it's not a violation, put it back." is good enough.

      At that point, the host is out of it and it's between the operator and the person or company that is complaining. Otherwise, you are asking the host to act as an agent of the court, or to BE the court.
      • by tinkertim (918832) *
        The host is never out of it. You're using their IP and bandwidth, for which the pay their upstream provider or data center. I get a half dozen ofthese a week folks, trust me on this one :

        We have to yank until there has been a court ruling in favor of the site in question, 99.9% of the time.

        Sometimes, upstream providers if they feel the DMCA complaint is foundless will allow it to stay on-line, but if the ruling goes the other way said upstream provider is then in the can to get sued for damages too, which h
    • National Assoication of Media Lawyers of America or NAMBLA [slashdot.org] posted several articles what they deem the correct procedure for executing DMCA enforcement under a wide range of circumstances including unresponsive ISPs.
    • by wfberg (24378)
      If they DIDN'T send a DMCA notice to the host. That pretty much tells you they KNOW they have no case.

      (Apparently they don't want to sign a DMCA "under penalty of perjury" notification, even though they'd only be certifying that they represent a client and that the client claims something or other - that's a pretty low standard there. But if they won't even sign that..)
  • Ean St Eane (Score:3, Funny)

    by pottymouth (61296) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:38PM (#15980324)


    I thought people would learn not to mess with Barney when he had Ean St Eane kneecapped.... Geez, I wouldn't want to get on his bad side.
  • by StressGuy (472374) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:42PM (#15980354)
    We are mobilizing armies of lawyers for a legal battle between a show about a stuffed purple dinosaur and a website that makes fun of the stuffed purple dinosaur.

    seriously, isn't life a little too short for this?
    • by baomike (143457)
      >

      It is, until it's your speach than someone wants to stop.

      Nothing wrong with a little censorship as long as I am the censor.
    • [Carlin] No wonder nobody in this world takes our country seriously... [/Carlin] :-)

        I have nothing to say, really, except that your comment is absolutely on target. Kudos.

      SB
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WWWWolf (2428)

      We are mobilizing armies of lawyers for a legal battle between a show about a stuffed purple dinosaur and a website that makes fun of the stuffed purple dinosaur.

      That should be "between copyright owners of a show, and a website that makes fun of the show."

      People should be allowed to make fun of anything they please. The target should have every right to be enraged, of course, but they should have no right to lawsuit the said fun-makers out of existence, or even threaten with that. Both sides have thei

  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:43PM (#15980360)
    ...because on there I've mentioned about him having a long golden mane of hair, being a lover of fine antique chairs and being a wonderfully agile dancer, equal in agility to Nureyev.

    Better take it down quick before Microsoft come after me!

    Do you think they'll let me keep up the bit about him saying "Linux is like a cute little Golden Retriever puppy that everyone wants to cuddle forever"?

  • This is good news, but it's a shame that the EFF couldn't have stepped in years ago when the producers of the Teletubbies shut down all of those parody sites. The difference may have been to do with variations in national laws (no explicit free speech rights in the UK, AFAIR) - I hope it's not just time.
  • True Story (Score:5, Funny)

    by StressGuy (472374) on Friday August 25, 2006 @02:51PM (#15980429)
    Years ago, I worked as a civilian contractor at an Army Guard base. One of the secretaries there was a bit heavyset and a bit "top-heavy" as well. One day, she comes in wearing a purple sweater and somebody makes an obligitory Barney reference, at which point, she flips him off

    Would that be considered fair use?

    • Fair use? Of course not. Professional wrestling organizations trademarked "flipping the bird" (t) back in the late 90s. Unless you meant the sweater -- I think wearing a purple sweater is a service mark of the Purple Man Group (r).
  • If you're the EFF, and you're looking to pick a fight, why would you pick THIS fight over THIS character?

    The EFF is fighting for mindshare and clout among American households. So...they...choose...to...sue...to...uphold...some one's...right...to...mock...and...deride...a...bel oved...children's...character?!?!?!?! Why would you risk alienating families? There has got to be more than this than "We can be more ACLU than YOU"
    • by FooAtWFU (699187)
      It's a pity, but sometimes I guess that the only people who will stand up and fight for this sort of thing are the kind that (I personally) would be least interested in protecting. The people who make nice fluffy happy friendly good stuff don't seem to (as a gross generalization) possess the same sort of element that will make them either a) create things like that or b) fight so hard to keep what they have created.

      I remember reading some Libertarian magazine (Reason) about Disney's war against the counter [reason.com]

    • by Grech (106925)

      Barney, the beloved purple dinosaur, is a myth, or at least only true for a certain value of beloved.

      Said saurian is essentially an oversized stuffed animal who delivers age-appropriate pablum to small children without any of the redeeming wit of a Sesame Street [youtube.com], which at least recognizes that parents often wind up parked in front of this stuff too, or at least exposed to it indirectly.

      In short, beloved perhaps by children, but not so much by their elders.


    • So...they...choose...to...sue...to...uphold...some one's...right...to...mock...and...deride...a...bel oved...children's...character?

      Funny, when Barney first came out I remember a lot of people making fun of him. I've only seen clips of him, but he's pretty annoying to anyone over the age of 8 or 9. Why do you think there's so many parody sights?
  • The US Court System has previously ruled (need a reference here) that parody is protected under the First Amendment. That's how people like Weird Al get away with what they do. I doubt that the website seriously considers Barney to be either Satan or the Antichrist, so it's a parody, it's protect, no lawsuit.

    I'm sure all the lawyers know this and were just trying to bully the website into closing, knowing they couldn't win a trial.
    • "The US Court System has previously ruled (need a reference here) that parody is protected under the First Amendment. That's how people like Weird Al get away with what they do."

      Weird Al is not the best one to mention. He always tries to get permission from the original songwriters. In instances where he did not get permission ("Amish Paradise"), there was a communication mix-up and Weird Al was under the false impression he had gotten permission.
      • by R2.0 (532027)
        Weird Al does this because he is a decent guy and smart enough to know that he is part of an industry that relies on personal relationships, and he wants to keep good relations.

        In the instance you pointed out ("Amish Paradise", I believe), lawsuits were never even mentioned. Just a pissed off rapper mouthing off. Is that redundant?
      • by Wordplay (54438)
        Moreover, while Weird Al (and his fans) always calls his stuff parody, it's arguably satire, and not protected.

        http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol9/issue1/collado. html [ufl.edu]

        The difference is that parody has to specifically make fun of the original, whereas satire uses portions of the original to make fun of something else. "Smells Like Nirvana" is plainly parody. Most of the rest of his stuff's borderline. I'd argue that "Jurassic Park" primarily makes fun of the titular movie, rather than "Macarthur Park."

        It's
        • by Phroggy (441) *
          "Achey Breaky Song" and "Six Words Long" come to mind as being strictly parodies, and I would suggest that his polka medleys are parodies as well (changing the music to make fun of how dumb the lyrics really are). But often, it's a very gray area. Take "A Complicated Song" from the Poodle Hat album, based on Avril Lavigne's "Complicated". If this satire, what is it satire of? I'd call it parody, even though the lyrics aren't about the original song at all... and by that logic, songs like "Fat", "Lasagn
    • by ePhil_One (634771)
      That's how people like Weird Al get away with what they do

      You mean people should call and ask permission like Weird Al does?

      The concert only stuff is called "concert only" for a reason. Either Al had a brief idea and the joke wouldn't survive a full length song, or permission was denied or never attempted.
      • by Vellmont (569020)

        You mean people should call and ask permission like Weird Al does?

        Weird Al asks permission because he doesn't want to make any enemies, especially among the gangsta rappers. I don't know much about the music industry, but I'm guessing it's relatively small. If you start pissing off powerful people in it, you might not have a career for very long.
  • Why cant they settle it by a game of Rock Paper and Scissors?

    Hope the judge follows the precedence set by another federal judge, as he ordered here. [cnn.com]

  • by T_ConX (783573) on Friday August 25, 2006 @03:05PM (#15980562)
    I found this on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]...

    1. Barney is well-described with the following phrase:
    CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR
    2. The old Latin alphabet used the letter 'V' in place of 'U', therefore the above phrase is modified to:
    CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR
    3. Letters that do not represent Roman numerals are removed:
    CV-- -V--L- DI----V-
    4. Add up the Roman numerals of the remaining letters:
    C + V + V + L + D + I + V
    100 + 5 + 5 + 50 + 500 + 1 + 5 = 666, which is the Number of the Beast.
    5. Therefore, Barney is considered Satan.


    HA! Because Numerology is TOTALY admisable in court!
  • Barney's alive?? Didn't I kill that bastard in a Doom wad in 1995 that nobody prosecuted?
  • You mean he isn't ?
    You've never had 4 toddlers on a saturday morning ....AAAARG!
  • The site in question (Score:3, Informative)

    by SirClicksalot (962033) on Friday August 25, 2006 @03:18PM (#15980676)
    Couldn't find it in the linked article, found it on EFF page [eff.org]:
    original site [dustyfeet.com]
    site after complaint [dustyfeet.com]
  • by dubdays (410710) on Friday August 25, 2006 @03:18PM (#15980682)

    ...claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist.

    Well, I guess the truth hurts.

  • Hey, if you don't like it, go to Russia.
  • Perhaps the producers of Barney want the images removed because it's giving Satan a bad name? Hell, if I were Satan, I'd be suing Mr. Frankel for defamation of character.. Everyone know Barney is MUCH worse than Satan...
  • BarneySplat! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yonder Way (603108) on Friday August 25, 2006 @06:29PM (#15982310)
    I remember hanging out at ASCII Express's place during the BBS days. I ran a local BBS and so did he. AE had a special place in his heart for Barney and came up with a great door game that can be run as a standalone game in DOS as well. Anyone remember playing BarneySplat! [mobygames.com]?

    Someone should put that in a VMware image so everyone today can enjoy it.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Friday August 25, 2006 @08:52PM (#15983058)
    Barney may be the Antichrist (and I'm not saying he isn't) but there are an awful lot of lawyers that definitely qualify as minions.
  • The computerworld article contains a rather insipid description of the site from which my over-active imagination must imagine what the contents of the site must be like. It contains no link to any off-site source of information.
    This reeks of the pre-google days of the wwweb when traditional media monopolies were desperately trying to hang on to their feebe prescriptive worldview.
    Why is Slashdot linking to this site and not to a genuine uncensored source?

  • Don't forget http://www.jihad.net/ [jihad.net]

    And the story of a little boy destined to be the purple pedosaus greatest friend.
    Brian Bull's Day of Barney
    http://www.jihad.net/stories/nonjihad/dayofthebarn ey1.txt [jihad.net]

    I think these sue happy troglodytes need a dose of despongification.

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson

Working...