FC: Federal judge holds Bill Purdy in contempt, gives one more chance

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Background on the Bill Purdy case:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=purdy

If I understand Bill's rambling missive below and the judge's order he 
posted, the judge yesterday formally found Bill in contempt of court and 
gave him until a Feb. 4 hearing to turn over the domains or face "severe 
sanctions upon continued non-compliance." See:
http://www.billpurdy.com/order2.htm

-Declan

---

From: "William S. Purdy" <wpurdy () attbi com>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
Subject: The Washington Post HARDASS - the Purging Order has come out!
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:11:56 -0600

January 29, 2003

Dear Declan,

Ok, the Purdy PURGING Order has arrived.  You can view it in it's entirety 
at www.billpurdy.com/order2.htm.  Today I wrote a declaration to the Court 
and appealed on religious grounds that the Court NOT take away just ONE 
domain name on the Post's list, www.TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com.  The 
Court was unimpressed and promptly Ordered it transferred to The Washington 
Post.  I absolutely WILL NOT take ANY affirmative action to transfer that 
domain name to the Washington Post and so if they ask for my assistance and 
I don't give it which I won't, then I'll be going to Jail on February 4th 
when the Court finds out.  The Washington Post DID NOT ask to have 
www.TheWashingtonPostJesus.com transferred to the Post, and thus the Court 
DID NOT require the transfer of that domain name, and that is my one 
victory and the victory that is MOST important to me.

Now for the funny parts of the order.  The court is taking 
www.TheWashingtonPostHARDASS.com away from me, and I think this one 
deserves to be fought for too.  The Post said it was "confusingly similar" 
to their trademark The Washington Post, and the Court agreed!  Don't you 
think that's a riot?  The Post said that it wasn't critical or protest, and 
the Court agreed.  Can you believe it?  It's so stupid it's funny.  I 
wonder if anybody else on the whole earth besides the Post and the Court 
thinks that it isn't "negative" enough???? - or is confusingly 
similar????  I wonder if I registered 
"TheWashingtonPostISaBIGandFatandUglyHARDASS.com" if they would think that 
is confusingly similar too, or critical enough?  Could someone explain to 
me why my domain name www.TheWashingtonPostSUCKS.com is not confusingly 
similar but www.TheWashingtonPostHARDASS.com is confusingly 
similar????  Could someone explain to me why my domain name 
www.TheWashingtonPostSUCKS.com is critical enough but 
www.TheWashingtonPostHARDASS.com is not critical enough????  If the Eighth 
Circuit doesn't overturn this absolute craziness, this absolute nonsense, 
then we as American Internet users are in BIG, BIG TROUBLE.   (I wonder if 
this particular Court hates me so much that it doesn't care if it's 
overturned or not.  Do you think?)

Here's something interesting.  Yesterday I registered, but did not attach 
to any website www.iLoveTheWashingtonPost.com and 
www.iHateTheWashingtonPost.com and I promptly notified the Court and asked 
the Court for a ruling.  Well, the Court ruled today in the order and the 
court is letting me keep www.iHATEtheWashingtonPost.com but I is taking 
away from me www.iLOVEtheWashingtonPost.com.   Attorney Paul Levy talked 
about "content".  Well, nobody can dispute that both of these domain names 
have "content statements" by me.  Yes, one is positive and one is negative, 
but they are BOTH content statements just the same.  The Supreme Court has 
ruled that the state cannot regulate content statements.  And it makes 
sense because who is this Court, or any court, to tell me that I can't say 
"I Love the Washington Post", even if I am saying it in a satirical 
manner?  Hey, they let me keep the Jesus domain name, and if they had also 
let me keep the Christian domain name, I could honestly say that "I love 
the Washington Post" - at least for on that count.  But even if I was lying 
in saying "I love the Washington Post", who is this court to tell me that I 
can't lie or I can't say that?  Because I am misleading poor unwary 
internet users you say?  NOPE, I didn't use or point either domain name, I 
simply registered them.  Again I say, if the Eighth Circuit doesn't 
overturn this craziness, this nonsense, then all of we American Internet 
users, the pro-lifers, the pro-choicers, the anti-war crowd, the 
tree-huggers, everybody - we're in BIG, BIG, BIG trouble!

Declan, it appears that the Court took your advice and ordered the 
registrars to transfer the domain names themselves.  It appears that I am 
left powerless to stop them from taking the 
www.TheWashingtonPostChristian.com, but I absolutely will take NO 
AFFIRMATIVE action myself to transfer that domain name, that I vow as I 
live and breath.  The Court will find out too because I have to file a 
report to the court in five days telling the court how I have complied with 
the Order.  I will be reporting that I took NO AFFIRMATIVE action to have 
www.TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com to the Post.  And then away I will go to 
Jail.  And I will sue The Washington Post for the BIGGEST lawsuit they ever 
saw for Deprivation of my civil rights and deprivation of my LIBERTY in 
violation of (42 USC 1983 - Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law) 
.  I don't want to sue the Washington Post or anybody, I just want to say 
what I want to say about the Washington Post and their relationship to 
abortion.  And I WON'T shut up, I won't, I won't, I won't - not about The 
Washington Post or about any other company or entity that contributes to 
the Killing of Unborn Children.  Once upon a time John Brown was considered 
a NUT because he came to the defense of the African-American slave, and 
dared to openly and publicly REFUTE the common notion that the 
African-American were not really persons, not really humans.  John Brown 
believed he was called defended the slave, and secure his freedom with a 
rifle and through violence.  I believe I am called to defend the unborn 
humans non-violently with words, and to hopefully secure their lives by 
displaying pictures of their dead and dismembered bodies on the 
Internet.   I have copied below the portion from my declaration that I 
filed with the Court today appealing to the Court NOT TO TAKE AWAY 
www.TheWashingtonPostChristian.com on religious grounds.  Below that is my 
appeal attorney's memo on the Supreme Court rulings regarding the 
regulation of "content" speech.

Thanks Declan, and a GREAT BIG thanks to all the Declan readers who have 
offered their advice and support to me - especially those Declan readers 
who totally DISAGREE with what I am saying, those that find the pictures of 
aborted fetuses disgusting, and those who not only don't approve of my 
speech, but hate it -  and yet still DEFEND my right to say it.  You are 
all real INTELLECTUAL HEROES to me, and I am so grateful, and so very PROUD 
have had the opportunity to have received your advice, counsel, and 
support.  Thank you.

Yours, Bill Purdy
-----------------------------------------------------

8.        That one particular domain name however that is listed in 
Plaintiff’s Revised Proposed Contempt Order, 
TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com, is an obvious and deliberate expression of 
my personal religious beliefs within the domain name.  That I have the 
TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com attaching to or pointing to the my own 
website http://www.billpurdy.com/washingtonpostsatan.htm and that the title 
at the top of that webpage is, “The Washington Post JESUS - Witnessing For 
Christ Against The Washington Post's Editorial and Financial Support for 
ABORTION -
by William S. Purdy”.   That it was and is my intention in registering and 
using the domain name TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com  to express my 
religious beliefs, and to express my religious beliefs and Christian 
witness about the writings and the actions that The Washington Post is 
taking regarding the killing of unborn children.  That I am a Christian, 
and as such I believe that any secular authority that is in accordance with 
God’s will must be obeyed, and conversely, any authority that is not in 
accordance with God’s will must NOT be obeyed.  As St. Peter directs, we 
must obey God over man when man’s authority is NOT in accord with God’s 
will, regardless of the penalty to self.  I believe that it is God’s will 
that I continue to witness Christ’s teachings about the Washington Post’s 
contributions to the killing of unborn children, and I believe that 
registering and using TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com best facilitates the 
following of His will.  I further believe that by acquiescing to the 
Washington Post’s request for me to stop using 
TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com it would be a personal DENIAL of Christ, and 
a personal denial of my Christian faith. That even as a young child Sister 
Jude inspired me through the example of what I should do and say even if a 
Communist put a gun to my head and said, “Deny Jesus.”  That I therefore 
ask the Court not to direct me to personally take any action that will not 
be in accordance with His will, and that will direct me to personally deny 
Jesus.

                 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 
United States that the



  foregoing statements are true and correct.





     Executed on this  ______ of _______________, 2003





                                                                                                
_____________________________________

                                                                                                            William 
S. Purdy, Sr.

---------------------------------------------------------------



First Amendment Claim of William Purdy based on

West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette
bt Thomas W. Straham, Attorney for William S. Purdy in The Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals




“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that 
no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in 
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force 
citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any 
circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us… the 
action (compulsory flag salute and recitation of pledge) … invades the 
sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First 
Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” West 
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(holding 
compulsory flag salute and pledge as unconstitutional as applied against 
Jehovah Witnesses)



Background: It is a fundamental principle of First Amendment law that 
public officials while they can regulate time, place and manner in the 
exercise of First Amendment free speech rights, the regulation must be 
content neutral. This prevents public officials, including Federal District 
Court judges, from imposing their own orthodox views, or what they might 
deem to be “politically correct” or “politically incorrect” views on citizens.



William Purdy sought to convince his intended audience that unborn children 
should not be destroyed and sought to do so by purchasing Internet domain 
names which would direct his target audience to pictures of aborted and 
dismembered unborn children in order to disclose the nature and effects of 
abortion.  Mr. Purdy sought to inform his target audience that The 
Washington Post, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and McDonalds were supporting abortion 
through their large financial contributions to the largest abortion 
provider, Planned Parenthood.  Mr. Purdy, by displaying graphic pictures of 
aborted fetuses, sought to inform his intended audience of the horror of 
abortion, a horror to which The Washington Post, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and 
McDonalds were largely contributing.



A suit was brought in the U.S. District Court, Minnesota by The Coca-Cola 
Company, McDonald’s Corporation, Pepsico, Inc., The Washington Post Company 
and Washington Post .Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC against  William 
Purdy ( Civil No. 02-1782). A temporary restraining order was sought by the 
plaintiffs and granted by the court.  As part of the restraining order, 
William Purdy was prohibited from purchasing or using any domain name that 
is not protest or critical in nature and also alerts the unwary Internet 
user to the protest or political commentary nature of the attached website 
within the language of the domain name itself.  Subsequently, the 
restriction was expanded to include a similar restriction on domain names 
which contained religious language.  Thus, according to the court, 
TheWashingtonPostSUCKS.com or TheWashingtonPostSATAN.com is acceptable 
because, in the court’s mind, the names are enough of a protest or critical 
enough in themselves, to alert the unwary user.  However, if Mr. Purdy used 
TheWashingtonPostCHRISTIAN.com or TheWashingtonPostJESUS.com, the court 
deemed these to be unacceptable because the words Christian or Jesus are 
not enough of a protest or critical enough to be permitted.



Legal Analysis:



By restricting the category of permissible domain names to what the court 
believes contain sufficiently  critical, negative or derogatory  words, the 
court is engaging in content-based discrimination which is a violation of 
the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.



 If William Purdy is to communicate his message, he must utilize this 
restriction whether he believes it or not. If he attempts to utilize 
neutral or positive words in his domain name, he risks going to jail. 
(Indeed, the court has already found Mr. Purdy in contempt of court and is 
threatening to send him to jail if he does not purge himself of speaking 
the restricted words.)  The restriction thus is very coercive in its 
application.



 The restriction is also very broad.  It goes well beyond determining what 
domain names might be deceptively similar or confusing.  Further, the scope 
of the restriction is very broad, covering the subject of both politics and 
also religion.



This aspect of the restraining order thus is an attempt by a public 
official to determine what is orthodox or unorthodox in matters of politics 
and religion, characterizes communications of images of aborted babies as 
inherently not politically or religiously correct, and invades the spirit 
and intellect of William Purdy in violation of the First Amendment.



Thomas W. Straham ­ 1/26/2003

Attorney for William S. Purdy in his Appeal to The Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals

---

From: "William S. Purdy" <wpurdy () attbi com>
To: <declan () well com>
References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030129091407.01a2a6d8 () mail well com>
Subject: reply to Jamie on TheWasingtonPostSHAREHOLDER.com
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:12:03 -0600

Dear Jamie,

Thank you for you message.  I own ONE share of common stock of The
Washington Post Company.  The Washington Post Company is a publicly traded
corporation on the NY Stock Exchange.  I am an owner of the corporation.  I
AM a Washington Post shareholder.  I am also running for the Board of
Directors of The Washington Post Company, and if the corporation acts on the
order and takes TheWashingtonPostSHAREHOLDER away from me, and deprives me
of the ability to campaign and communicate with fellow shareholders, I will
blame them if I am not elected, and as such, I will now be filing a
Shareholder's Derivative Suit against the corporation for interference in
the election, and for deprivation of my civil rights.

I hope this explains why I have www.TheWashingtonPostSHAREHOLDER.com

Thank you,
Bill Purdy

---

From: "G.Waleed Kavalec" <Greg () kavalec com>
To: "Declan () Well Com \(E-mail\)" <declan () well com>
Cc: "'Nick Bretagna'" <onemug () bellsouth net>
Subject: RE: Bill Purdy owns one in three of ALL washingtonpost domain names
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:44:28 -0600

Declan

The list Jamie Rishaw sent does shed some light, doesn't it?

But lets take a small excerpt:

27-jan-2003 IHATETHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM
27-jan-2003 ILOVETHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM
27-jan-2003 JESUSLOVESTHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM
27-jan-2003 SATANLOVESTHEWASHINGTONPOST.COM


Two of these would have been recognized by most courts as protected under
the same guidelines that shield parodies.

Two of these SOUND like sites the Washington Post would approve of.  And
there's the problem.  We have truth-in-advertising laws, but nobody has
extended that idea to domain names.

I am not saying that nobody but you has a right to ILOVEPOLITECHBOT.COM, for
example, what I am saying is that if someone else's *USE* of
ILOVEPOLITECHBOT.COM has a clear negative impact/reflection on you, you have
a right to go to court and cry FOUL!

The Washington Post did.  And won.  As they should have.

 Peace
   G. Waleed Kavalec

 -------------------------------
 Nietzsche is dead.
   -- God.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?qÞclan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------