« Traverse Internet Law: FTC Regs Apply to LeadGen Industry | Main | Traverse Internet Law at Upcoming Conferences »

January 03, 2010


You are correct about the Shakespeare quote -- and you seem to be one of the only people who actually understands the context of that quote.

Of course, the rest of your post makes about as much sense as taking a crap in your own hands and then wiping it into your own eyes... but I do have to give you the Shakespeare point.

Well, disagreement is what makes the world go around. Open dialogue of parties far apart on issues is essential to a robust exchange of ideas. Debating the merits of arguments and issues, even using excrement as a comparative basis, is far better than attacking the messenger and avoiding debate. Dr. Ficsor's perspective and concern remains. And that, at least in the context of the ACTA debate, is a shame.

I must plead ignorance on ACTA, it just isn't my axe to grind. However, I think that your perspective -- that it is somehow suppressing your free speech rights to slam your views -- is absurd. I've seen your views attacked in many places, and I've (as I'm sure you know) been one of your sharper critics.

But, I've never seen you attacked personally. I've never seen anyone say anything about you that wasn't an assault on your views.

However, in this post (and others) you trot out this silly theory that it is some "left wing conspiracy" against you, and resort to foolish name-calling and downright bizarre accusations. I don't mind, as it makes for lulz (and more lulz is good), but if you don;'t like the fact that you are a target for mockery and ridicule, you might want to consider spewing a little less crazy talk.

My post is about the reticence of a leading ACTA copyright expert to participate in the dialogue for his reasons stated. It is not about my complaining that people attack me personally for my views or the positions taken by our law firm.

But as far as that goes, your claim that you have never seen attacks against me personally just means that you perhaps cannot appreciate the underlying premise of my commentary.

Read the Google Bomb book and you'll learn all about the personal attacks aimed at Judges and lawyers and others from your constituency. And the death threats and harassing phone calls and hacking incidents and other tools of the trade regularly used to intimidate the pro-IP and anti-free speech expansionists.

Running with blinders on gives one a very myopic focus and narrow view of the landscape.

On the one hand, you deny knowing anything about personal attacks and then go on to label myself and my views as "foolish", "bizarre", "silly", and "crazy".

I think my point is adequately made.

The comments to this entry are closed.